Farm Policy reports the likelihood the cuts to direct payments included in the House ag appropriations bill will likely be reversed, through maneuvering in the House Rules Committee. It's a blast from the past, for those of us who supported liberal legislation in the late 50's and early 60's. Why?
I'm glad you asked. The House with 435 members, plus a few talking but nonvoting members, is too big to operate without some sort of management. What happens is, once a bill is reported from a committee of the House, it goes to the Rules Committee to get a "rule". Without a rule, it requires a supermajority to get the bill to the floor. The rule sets the guidelines for the consideration of the bill on the House floor: how much debate, what amendments will be in order, what objections can be heard, etc. So it seems that Rep. Lucas, the head of House ag, has gotten the Rules committee to agree that a member can object to the cuts in direct payments, presumably on grounds the Appropriations committee overstepped its jurisdiction, and if such objection is heard, the cut is dropped.
That's probably oversimplified, but it's the way Howard Smith, of VA, used to operate in the late 50's--meant he could kill or water down any initiatives the liberals were trying to push. JFK, if I remember, succeeded in pushing the House to expand the membership of the Rules committee to add a couple more liberals and make it harder for Smith to wield his power. But that was only a halfway measure, meaning JFK didn't have a good legislative record when he was killed. Smith, as wikipedia reminds me, was responsible for including "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so some good came from the most unexpected place.
No comments:
Post a Comment