>>/151877/
 >>/151878/
 >>/151879/
 >>/151879/
 >>/151881/
 >>/151882/
 >>/151883/
 >>/151884/
 >>/151885/
 >>/151886/
 >>/151887/
Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie - In this episode of in-the-weeds, I’ll talk about how the Rules Committee, a.k.a. the Speaker’s committee, can circumvent House rules and even federal laws that govern House rules.
There are House rules and federal laws that allow rank and file members in specific circumstances to bring legislation to the floor without the Speaker’s approval. But the Speaker can use the rules committee to “turn off” these special procedures, if he can get a majority of members of the whole House to vote for the Rules Committee Resolution to disable these special procedures.
Let’s look at three methods for expediting legislation, that the Speaker can thwart if he can pass a tailored resolution on the floor from the Rules Committee.
1. Discharge Petition
If a member can get 218 colleagues to sign a discharge petition, legislation can be brought to the floor against the Speaker’s wishes. I’ve only seen this done a couple of times in the twelve years I’ve served in Congress. It’s rare because it’s considered an act of rebellion by majority members against the Speaker. It was once used to pass a bill reauthorizing the Import/Export Bank ostensibly without the approval of Speaker Boehner, but Boehner had announced his resignation and was a weak at the time.
This week, Rep Luna, in an act of defiance against Speaker Johnson, employed a discharge petition to expedite consideration of Democrat legislation to allow new mothers in Congress to vote remotely. She acquired the requisite 218 votes by enlisting all democrats and a few Republican colleagues.
The Rules Committee offered a resolution to “turn off” the House rule that enabled her discharge petition. The resolution also contained procedures for bringing popular Republican bills to the floor that dealt with election integrity and rogue judges. The Speaker gambled that Republicans wouldn’t vote against a resolution that enabled these popular bills. I voted FOR the Soeaker’s resolution to disable the discharge petition because I agree with the Speaker’s attempt to prevent what I consider to be unconstitutional legislation from coming to the floor, and (b) the resolution modified house rules, instead of thwarting the intent of standing federal law.
The Resolution from the Rules committee failed because nine republicans joined Rep Luna and all democrats in voting against the Rules Committee Resolution that would have disabled Luna’s discharge petition. They set up a game of chicken, and the cars crashed into each other.
Unless the Speaker has more tricks up his sleeve, next week we vote on the Democrat legislation to give a sort of maternity leave to members of Congress.
2. War Powers Act
The War Powers Act sets forth an expedited procedure for Congress to countermand the Executive branch when the Executive conducts acts of war without congressional authorization. According to FEDERAL LAW, any member can bring this resolution to the floor quickly. In the past, Speakers have successfully used a Rules Committee resolution (passed by the whole House) to stop a vote on the issue of war from coming to the House floor. How can federal law be thwarted by a House Resolution? The Rules Committee merely has to say in its resolution that the war powers resolution brought forth by the member doesn’t qualify as a war powers resolution (even if it clearly does!). When I served on the Rules Committee last Congress, I made it clear that I would not engage in this nonsense, and I did not.
3. National Emergencies Act
Members can force votes to countermand Executive declarations of National emergencies, such as the one underpinning Trump’s tariffs. This was tried a couple of weeks ago, but the Speaker thwarted federal law with a Rules Committee Resolution. I was the only Republican to vote against the Speaker’s resolution, so his measure carried and we had no vote on the national emergency that underpins Trump’s new tariffs.
*written on an iphone*
 12