| Now, given that Holt stands no chance of passing, its importance would be symbolic and pretextual: most Dem reps would (I suspect) be less than delighted to be put on the spot by Holt, which is an excellent reason for Slaughter not to give it House room. (As it were.)
And, if she excludes it, that would be a pretext for the CPC to cut up rough.
The nuclear option would be to vote against the previous question on the rule - because that would turn the floor over to the GOP. Can't see that happening somehow!
A nonnuclear alternative would be for the Progs to vote against the rule itself. Assuming that the GOP do likewise, that would defeat the rule, but not turn the floor over to the GOP. (The leadership would just have to move onto something else.)
A conventional approach would be to vote against the passage of the bill. Again, if the GOP vote against too, that will defeat it.
The wild card will be the motion to recommit: Rules could, if it wanted to, allow no MTR at all; but, if it did allow a MTR, it would be moved by a GOP rep, rather than a dissident Dem rep. (More details in the Refer and Recommit chapter in House Practice.)
The obvious MTR to move would be the insertion of telco immunity, which would (I'm assuming, given that telco immunity is likely to pass the Senate, and there's no a priori reason to expect the chambers to differ on the point) stand a good chance of passing.
(That would be an excellent reason why the special rule would not allow one!)
If I were Nancy - and I was already committed to having floor action on a FISA bill right now, I'd want to pass a bill with a Dem majority - even though such a text, lacking a telco immunity provision, would stand little chance of passing the Senate.
The deal that's easiest to figure would be to give the Progs a vote on Holt in exchange for the Progs voting for the bill (presumably minus Holt) on passage.
But there'd be no point even considering such a plan (ie, to pass a FISA bill with Dem votes) unless the Dogs are prepared to come to the aid of the party, at least for this, symbolic, bill. Because it takes fewer than 20 Dogs voting with a solid GOP to kill the bill.
Is passing HR 3373 with Dem votes worth enough to the Dem leadership to bribe enough Dogs to vote for the bill?
Perhaps a more persuasive argument the leadership could use would be that if the Dogs voted for a nice clean bill without telco immunity, that would help get those bomb-throwers in the lefty sphere off their backs!
Of course, if the special rule for HR 3373 allows a MTR, and the one offered happened to be a telco immunity amendment, that might tempt some Dogs beyond endurance...
It would nice to infer from the fact that the bill is being brought forward with such fanfare (and months earlier than necessary) that Nancy has got a favorable hard count for a text excluding a telco immunity.
Anyhoo, not long to wait before the kabuki starts.
[The rule is in]
The rule (H Res 746) is now available on the Rules site.
It's a closed rule (no Holt Amendment, or any other), but with a motion to recommit. |
STATE BLOGS
