HB 27-06: Congressional Reform Resolution (Passed)

[Joseph Cao]

So first of all, hasn't OBD agreed to sponsor this?

Secondly, it is important that everyone notes that we are only allowed to amend and vote on the House portion of this resolution. These are legally two separate resolutions even if they are packaged in the same joint resolution, and in fact the Senate's portion is technically already operative since it was passed. If any amendments are made to our side, it's likely that changes will also be required to the Senate version to keep the two in sync, which will be a matter for the Senate to consider.

Thirdly, if I understand the original idea correctly, there would be a single thread for votes on whether to proceed to further debate on a specific bill, and a separate thread for the same further debate. If my reading of that is correct, and feel free to correct me if it isn't, wouldn't there be at most a single holdover vote per chamber per bill? Does this screwiness, as you put it, originate from the boardwide clutter that would result from the extra threads for procedural votes?

[Joseph Cao]

Thirdly, if I understand the original idea correctly, there would be a single thread for votes on whether to proceed to further debate on a specific bill, and a separate thread for the same further debate. If my reading of that is correct, and feel free to correct me if it isn't, wouldn't there be at most a single holdover vote per chamber per bill? Does this screwiness, as you put it, originate from the boardwide clutter that would result from the extra threads for procedural votes?

That was not the original intent of the resolution. The idea was one thread in which all the pass-or-debate votes, on all the bills, in both chambers, took place. My concern is that it may be difficult to search for recorded votes on bills in this single thread, and it may be hard for individual Congressmembers to keep tabs on what's going on. I don't think there's any real benefit to doing it this way as opposed to opening a new thread for the bill like we currently do, holding the pass-or-debate vote, and then proceeding accordingly in that thread.

I suppose the fact that the wording is sufficiently ambiguous to be interpreted that way (which I agree is a reasonable interpretation) is another reason this needs a little tweaking.

Right, yes, that makes more sense from a logistical point of view. In that case the resolution effectively becomes what we have now with "hold vote on whether to proceed with debate on bill that just passed other chamber" added on as an extra step, then?

[Joseph Cao]

Without objections, Sev's sponsorship is recognized.

[Joseph Cao]

The Senate has not decided how "Congress" will function, that would be unconstitutional. There is a reason our vote is only applied to a single section, ours.

It has not legally decided but it did not involve the other chamber or the game in general since they are elected to serve people. I try to imagine how the proposal would work and I don't see just advantages.

That's true for the period where the Senate was hashing things out on its side of the bill, yeah.

As far as I am concerned, Ted's vision for the bill is kind of what we already adopt for things like continuing resolutions, but extended to more ordinary pieces of legislation. I personally am not sure how much we stand to gain or lose from switching to such an arrangement – one drawback that comes to mind is a party controlling both chambers, getting a controversial bill through one chamber on party lines, and voting along party lines to waive debate in the other chamber. Continuing resolutions work under this arrangement mostly because we all recognize the need to pass them, but that breaks down for bills that don't enjoy a similar level of support. Noncontroversial bills like the Silver Alert Act generally sail through both chambers just fine without greasing the skids like this anyway.

[Joseph Cao]

Not the sponsor, but "in that house" strikes me as a useful clarification that should be retained to avoid confusion.

[Joseph Cao]

Since there has been an objection, a vote is open on Poirot’s amendment. 72 hours to vote; please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

And please post your reasoning, if you can. This is a very important bill that will determine the future working of the legislative branch and the people deserve to hear why we vote the way we do.

[Joseph Cao]

I think the presence of representatives who will object for the sake of objection is pretty nearly a given in the average Congress, and so while I agree with Poirot that it's dangerous for a small majority to override motions to debate (and have said so during debate previously), I'm not sure if requiring unanimous consent to stop debate is the right thing to do here. Therefore, I abstain on the amendment vote.

As I recall, motions to table legislation require two-thirds of sitting representatives, which strikes me as a nice balance between these two extremes – functional enough to not gum up the works while also giving enough of a voice to the minority to prevent bills from being rammed through on partisan lines. Obviously partisan supermajorities have happened and will happen again, but in the long term I think this two-thirds threshold should hold up better than the simple majority requirement currently in the bill.

[Joseph Cao]

Closing the vote. By a vote of 2-5-1-1, the amendment fails.

[Joseph Cao]

Aye. Personally, I think Poirot has made himself clear and it would be highly unwise to assume either house would always be in a position to debate properly. And that's still better than a scenario where all it would take for a bad bill to become law would be one house's failure to debate properly!

[Joseph Cao]

It seems I am three minutes late. Anyway, even if my vote no longer counts, I wanted to make my thoughts clear on this.

Where we've ended up is, on the face of it, fairly similar to the cloture and debate-waiving rules currently on the books. However, the resolution gives a partisan majority in either chamber the power to ram a bill through by sacrificing healthy debate – debate that would make a bill better for the people it serves – without adding much in the way of "more efficient legislation"; nothing not already covered by our existing rules, at any rate. This is a long-term sacrifice of legislative ability that lacks substantial return and I don't think I could have voted in good conscience for the final version of this bill.

Nay.