Bumped, as the preliminary skirmishing on the contempt vote is now actually underway -- Kagro X
Yesterday House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers introduced two resolutions, now numbered H. Res 979 and H. Res. 980, which would authorize the Speaker to refer contempt of Congress charges to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution, and should that referral be rejected, authorize the filing of a civil suit on behalf of the House of Representatives seeking a court order enforcing that referral.
Word from the House Rules Committee is that they've considered the two resolutions, and reported out a rule for their passage, possibly as soon as today. (For a discussion of just what is meant by "a rule for their passage," see this January 2007 story on the use of special rules in House floor procedure.)
You may notice that I didn't say they've reported out a rule for their consideration. (OK, you didn't notice that, really.) That's because they're using a relatively rare process akin to what are called "self-executing" rules. A self-executing rule, in the classic sense, is one which by its terms deems some other substantive matter adopted, so that the adoption of the rule itself also disposes of this other matter. For example, such a rule could deem a particular amendment as passed, so that with the adoption of the rule, the House would not have to vote separately on whether or not to also adopt the amendment in question. The adoption of the rule would have automatically deemed that amendment added to the underlying bill.
What's happening with these contempt resolutions is that a single rule will, by its adoption, deem both H. Res. 979 and H. Res. 980 to have been adopted. So it's not necessarily the classic example of a self-executing rule in that it doesn't amend an underlying bill, but it's very closely related in that it has the effect of disposing of substantive matters without having a separate vote on them.
Why do something like this? In all likelihood, they've opted to go this way to minimize opportunities for Republican mischief making. Voting to hold the White House Chief of Staff and the former White House Counsel in contempt of Congress isn't going to be a popular vote with the Republicans, and they'll want to do everything they can to spike it, even though the resolutions pose extremely important questions about the constitutional powers and prerogatives of the very body to which they've been elected. But as we know, Republicans tend not to give a crap about things like that.
So you can expect them to try to gum up the works with motions to adjourn, insistence on roll call votes at every available opportunity, and generally to provoke fights over every procedural twist and turn possible. Use of this rule minimizes their opportunity to do that, though you can still expect them to waste an enormous amount of time on things that would make normal people's heads explode, like demanding roll call votes on whether or not the House should proceed to a roll call vote on whether or not to adopt the rule (which will show up on your C-SPAN screen as a vote on "Ordering the Previous Question").
And here's something to keep in mind if you watch the Republicans tear their hair out about how horrible and unfair all of this is, and how Democrats are traitors for asking the courts to decide whether or not the President and the U.S. Attorney should have to obey the law. From Chairman Conyers' statement to the Rules Committee:
[T]he privileged resolution [H. Res. 980] introduced today follows the suggestion first made by former Judiciary Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner last year and authorizes the House general counsel to file a civil suit to enforce the subpoenas. That way, if the Administration refuses to enforce the contempt finding, we can take action in the courts to vindicate Congress’ authority. [Emphasis added.]
Yep. When the Republicans start crying about this tomorrow, you can keep in mind that it was former Republican Judiciary Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner who suggested filing suit to enforce these subpoenas.
If House Republicans responded to logic (or irony), we might actually have something.
Anyway, now you've got the program. Enjoy the game!
UPDATE: Expect deliberation on the rule to begin at approximately 11 am, with votes to follow about 1 pm.
UPDATE 2: The House is in, and the mischief begins, with a motion to adjourn. (And how much of a farce is this motion? Nobody's voting for it. Nobody. A motion that takes up valuable floor time that nobody votes for. What an honest and forthright use of the House's time. Oh, and right in the middle of the Tom Lantos memorial service, too. Nice.)
UPDATE 3: Republicans are claiming this adjournment vote is actually in protest of what they say is Speaker Pelosi's decision to let the August FISA revisions, known as the Protect America Act, expire rather than be renewed while the House and Senate settle differences in their new FISA bills. Interesting!