“The week the House stood still” could be a sci-fi thriller. But it wasn’t fiction and certainly wasn’t scientific. It was a real-life drama that unfolded on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives the week of June 5.
The legislative business of the world’s greatest deliberative body came to a grinding halt June 6, when a small band of Freedom Caucus Republicans blindsided its own leadership by defeating an order of business resolution that provided for the consideration of four bills. Also known as a “rule” or “special rule,” the resolution specifies how much general debate time will be allotted to each bill and what amendments, if any, may be offered. The procedural hit job was allegedly pulled to punish House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) for having cut a deal with President Biden the preceding week to prevent a default on U.S. debt.
Adding insult to irony, the four bills the procedural ploy blocked all had the enthusiastic support of most Republicans. Two of the bills were aimed at protecting new gas stoves from being outlawed, another would rein in the regulatory powers of executive branch agencies, and the fourth purported to restore the separation of powers to Congress’s benefit.
During debate on the special rule there were no alarm bells that would have alerted the leadership to the impending sneak attack. Had there been such a warning, they likely would have pulled the rule. Instead, after the hour of debate on the rule the previous question (shall we bring this matter to a final vote?) was adopted on a straight party-line vote. But then the vote on adopting the special rule went the other way, 206 to 220, with 11 Republicans voting “nay.” That was changed to 12 GOP members when Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) changed his vote from “yea” to “nay” in order to preserve his right to demand a reconsideration of the vote, which he then did.
Before the actual vote on reconsideration began, however, the chair announced a recess. That turned into a series of House recesses over the next day and a half as the leadership huddled with the dissenters to discern what it was they wanted. It became clear the rump group had no clear endgame in mind. As McCarthy observed, there were too many different demands and no stated single goal that would appease the entire group. One of the defectors, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), when asked by The Hill (June 8) what he was looking for to break the impasse, replied, “I don’t know.”
Another rule opponent, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), in a Wednesday morning tweet, was more enthused about beating the leadership than on discussing what’s next: “House Leadership couldn’t hold the line … Now we hold the floor.” But holding the floor with no scheduled business, interrupted only by cascading recesses, was hardly a winning game plan. When no resolution of the standoff could be fashioned, the leadership pulled the plug on legislative business for the remainder of the week, sending members home Wednesday afternoon.
The only concrete proposal that emerged from the gang of 11 was a complaint by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) that the leadership was blocking House consideration of his joint resolution to disapprove a regulation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The regulation governs “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’” — pistol extensions with shoulder support giving them rifle-like capabilities. The measure was reported from the Judiciary Committee — May 17, 23-15, with 188 co-sponsors. Scalise explained he wasn’t going to schedule it for floor action until he was sure it had sufficient votes to pass.
Nevertheless, the Rules Committee went ahead Thursday afternoon and announced it would meet the following Monday (June 12) to report a new rule that included the firearms regulation disapproval resolution repackaged along with the four stalled bills. That special rule was cleared by the Rules Committee late Monday and considered on the floor the next day when it was adopted, 218 to 209. This time, the Freedom Caucus rebels fell in line after McCarthy struck a “power sharing” agreement with the group that promised greater prior consultation on major legislation, and much deeper spending cuts than the debt limit deal provided. (All five bills subsequently passed the House.)
One is only left to wonder how often this hostage-taking strategy will be used as precedent in the future by the Freedom Caucus, or other majority party splinter groups, to pile their pet rocks onto the House floor agenda.
Don Wolfensberger is a Congress Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, former staff director of the House Rules Committee and author of, “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays.” The views expressed are solely his own.