FL-13: What's on tap for Jan. 4th.

Word is that House Democrats will, on January 4th, permit Republican Vern Buchanan (FL-13) to be seated and sworn in, despite the ongoing dispute over his election.

Although the House could, by majority vote, opt to seat Jennings instead, the decision appears to be that they'll let the judicial appeals run their course, and refer Jennings' formal complaint to the House Administration committee for review.

In the meantime, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) has announced his intention to put the House on record as reserving the right to unseat Buchanan at some point in the future, should it decide to dispute his credentials and his right to the seat. How will he do it? Well, Holt plans to pose a parliamentary inquiry before Members are sworn in on Thursday.

That gives us an opportunity to do two things here: 1) explain how Holt's move will work, and; 2) explain what Holt's move actually is.

We'll take them in reverse order.

What's a parliamentary inquiry?

Here's the simplest definition, from C-SPAN's Congressional Glossary, a resource we'll be going to a lot this year, as we learn parliamentary procedure alongside our new Democratic majority:

A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY is posed by a member on the floor to the chair asking for procedural clarification.

OK, not all that helpful by itself. Let's try the Senate glossary:

parliamentary inquiry - A question from the floor to the Presiding Officer by a Senator requesting a clarification of the procedural situation on the floor. Responses to parliamentary inquiries are not rulings of the Presiding Officer, but may lead the Senator posing the inquiry or another to raise a point of order.

Better. More context. And since the term is in use in both the House and the Senate, the definition applies.

Now, question one, from above: Why will Holt be doing? Essentially, he'll be asking the chair something like, "Is my understanding correct that the House's decision to administer the oath of office to the gentleman from Florida [Buchanan] will not be taken to prejudice either the judicial proceedings now underway in that state's courts, or the challenge pending before the House Administration committee, filed by the gentleman's general election opponent [Jennings]?"

To which the chair, presumably Nancy Pelosi herself, will answer -- essentially -- "Yep."

Problem solved.

Now, why a parliamentary inquiry as opposed to some other method of reserving the House's right to unseat Buchanan later, should circumstances warrant?

Well, the chief alternative available to the House would be a resolution saying exactly that -- that the House agrees to seat and swear in Buchanan without prejudice to the pending cases or investigations. That's what the House did in the case of Democrat (actually, "Independent Democrat" -- take note, Lieberman fans!) Dale Alford in the 86th Congress, on Jan. 7, 1959.

Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and directed to administer the oath of office to the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Dale Alford.

Resolved, That the question of the final right of Dale Alford to a seat in the 86th Congress be referred to the Committee on House Administration, when elected, and said committee shall have the power to send for persons and papers and examine witnesses on oath in relation to the subject matter of this resolution.

But a resolution, though much clearer, would be subject to a vote. And a vote like that -- which would undoubtedly break down along partisan lines and be seen as a raw exercise in power -- is something to be avoided, or at least minimized to the extent possible, on the first day of the session. Make no mistake, the first votes of the new Congress are always partisan votes aimed at the raw exercise of power. But they're routine ones. Electing the Speaker, adopting the new Rules, etc. Adding one as unusual, unexpected, and sharply divisive as this one would be merely brings additional rancor to an already tense situation. No need to fan the flames.

So Holt will opt for going on record with a parliamentary inquiry, instead. Why? Because Pelosi's answer is not subject to appeal. In previous discussions on this subject, I had mistakenly thought that the chair's response might be subject to appeal, but that like any appeal from a proper ruling of the chair, the appeal would be subject to a "motion to table."

A MOTION TO TABLE, if adopted, permanently kills the pending matter. It also ends any further debate.

So, that was wrong. There are no appeals from answers to parliamentary inquiries, which is exactly why Holt will go that route. Other rulings of the chair (such as those on points of order, as mentioned in the Senate glossary definition) are, however, subject to the motion to table, so my mistake offers us a chance to throw in another useful definition of an important parliamentary term: the motion to table. That's another one to look for in the future, as Republicans seek to throw wrenches in the works of the 110th Congress.

So that's it. Lesson one in parliamentary procedure. Something we'll be looking to continue (hopefully with help from our friends on the Hill) as the session progresses.

A toast, then, to the New Year, and the new Congress. If you've sat through this story on New Year's Eve, you deserve a drink.