Hey, remember that parliamentary pain in the ass, the motion to recommit? And remember how Republicans have been using it to create political annoyances, and even succeeding in using them to make Democrats destroy their own legislation?
Well, someone's had quite enough of that:
May 6, 2008
Dear Democratic Colleague:
I appreciate your support for my legislation to cancel the debts of the world's poorest countries, H.R. 2634, the Jubilee Act. I am confident that the passage of this legislation will make a real difference in the lives of millions of impoverished people around the world. Nevertheless, I was puzzled by the large number of Democrats who voted for the Republican motion to recommit during consideration of this legislation.
I am especially distraught that individual Democrats who voted in favor of the Republican motion to recommit did not obtain clarification from Chairman Barney Frank or myself regarding our position on this motion. It is important that Members of the Democratic Caucus have a level of trust and respect for one another that would lead them to consult with the authors of legislation prior to voting for Republican amendments, especially motions to recommit.
Unlike other types of amendments, motions to recommit are offered without advance notice to the majority party; are not pre-printed in the Congressional Record; and are not subject to vetting by the authors of the legislation, the leaders of the committee of jurisdiction, or members of the Rules Committee. Consequently, it is not surprising that Members discovered after the passage of the Jubilee Act that the motion to recommit was drafted improperly and needed to be corrected by a unanimous consent request the week after the passage of the bill.
I am also concerned that the Chair of the Democratic Caucus was one of the Members of the Caucus who organized the "yea" votes, despite the fact that an aide to the Chair was quoted in The Hill as saying the Chair voted "yea" by mistake.
I realize that this was only the most recent of many instances in which Members of the Democratic Caucus have voted for Republican motions to recommit. However, as I watched Democratic leaders organize "yea" votes on this motion, I was convinced that Democrats are traveling down a path of complicity on motions to recommit the likes of which we have never seen before. I cannot help but wonder if our Caucus will be torn apart by frequent support for Republican motions to recommit. I find myself wondering, "Where will this end?"
I appreciate the attention of my Democratic colleagues to these concerns, and I look forward to our discussing a consistent, unified approach by our Caucus towards Republican motions to recommit. I believe this is a discussion the Democratic Caucus should have as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
/s Maxine Waters
Member of Congress
Did you catch that?
I am also concerned that the Chair of the Democratic Caucus was one of the Members of the Caucus who organized the "yea" votes, despite the fact that an aide to the Chair was quoted in The Hill as saying the Chair voted "yea" by mistake.
Yow! That's Rahm Emanuel she's talking about there, who's regarded as one of the architects of the Democrats' tactical use of the motion to recommit in the 109th Congress. The success Democrats had in forcing the Republicans to vote against those motions -- and then later running against those bad votes and taking control of the House inn 2006 -- has left Dems worried that the same tactic can be used against them in 2008. And it's true. Minus the fact that the Republican brand is in such tatters that it won't matter, of course.
So what, exactly, was the problem with the motion to recommit on the Jubilee Act that Rep. Waters identified? Well, in an attempt at setting up another "gotcha" moment, Republicans thought they'd force a vote on the restriction that no debt relief ought to go to any country that has business dealings with Iran.
Of course, that's exactly the deal Condoleezza Rice is trying to cut for Iraq, which has both enormous debt and significant business dealings with Iran. But never mind that. While it's true that Iraq's debt wasn't covered by this bill, Iraq's problem is just a matter logic and consistency, and the "administration" and its enablers don't care about that stuff.
But the fact is, the motion was so sloppily drafted and so poorly researched that it ended up killing major portions of the underlying bill, even though the majority of Republicans in the House agreed with its intent. It was so bad, in fact, that the House ended up having to go back a week later and remove the changes made by the motion by unanimous consent. Unanimous consent! Even the authors of the motion to recommit knew they'd screwed it up badly enough that it needed fixing.
Just watch Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) explaining the situation:
So as stupid as these motions are, the worry they create ends up driving Democrats to destroy the village in order to save it. They gut their own legislation, or end up agreeing to attach provisions odious enough to make the rest of us wish they'd just gut it, all in the hopes of avoiding "gotcha" campaign ads that are probably coming no matter what.
Meanwhile, what's happening out in the real world?
Republicans are losing critical special elections deep in their own territory, running campaigns trying to scare people with terrorism and/or immigration, accusing Dems of not "supporting the troops," and even tying them to the very frightening Barack Obama. And none of it is working with the electorate.
Democrats unafraid to run as Democrats are winning at the voting booths. The DCCC, which Rahm Emanuel no longer runs, is on a hot streak, winning three heavily Republican seats in special elections in the past two months. Meanwhile, the Democratic Caucus, which Rahm Emanuel does run, can't get out of its own way for fear of becoming vulnerable to Republican attack ads that haven't worked in any of those special elections.
Hmm.
Shh! Don't stop me, I think I'm learning something...