Earlier this evening the House Rules Committee reported
favorably H Res 243 establishing the rule for the consideration of HR 2217, the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2014 (and HR 2216, Military
Construction). As I predicted earlier the bill is an open rule providing for
wide ranging floor amendments on the bill.
Floor Amendments
The way this occurs is that the Clerk of the House will
start to read the bill. As the reading gets to a portion of the bill which a
member wants to change, the member will ask to be recognized to offer an
amendment. The amendment will be read and the member will be allowed up to five
minutes to explain and justify the amendment. Once the amendment is voted up or
down the Clerk will resume reading the bill.
If two or more members rise to offer amendments to the same
portion of the bill, the Rule allow the Chair of the Committee of the Whole
House to give priority to any member that had had the proposed amendment
published in the Congressional Record. We may see those amendments starting in
the issue of the CR published this morning for yesterday’s session. I will, of
course, report on amendments of interest here.
Parliamentary Shortcut
Attempted
Rep. Van Hollen (D,MD) offered an amendment to H Res 243
that would have provided an interesting short cut to the legislative process
for the consideration of HR 2217. The House Rules Committee site summarizes the
amendment this way:
“Calls on the Speaker to follow
regular House procedure and immediately request a conference and appoint
conferees to negotiate a fiscal year 2014 budget resolution conference
agreement with the Senate.”
This amendment reflects the reality that whatever version of
HR 2217 that is passed by the House, it is unlikely that the Senate will even debate
that version. The Senate Appropriations Committee will write their own DHS
appropriations bill and then amend and vote on that bill. The adopted language
will then be substituted for the House language in HR 2217. A conference
committee would then be appointed to work out the differences in the House and
Senate versions of the bill. That re-amended bill would then be voted upon in
each house with limited debate and no amendments. This would have virtually
eliminate the unnecessary floor amendment process. The amendment was defeated
on a party-line vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment