In governing body meetings we usually start to get the eyes glazing over when a substitute motion is introduced and sometimes moving the previous question gets a bit frustrating when debate is closed, or not closed, and those on the losing side of the vote would rather have it their way.  But in general parliamentary procedure is a set of parameters for the decent and orderly functioning of a deliberative body that we live with so the minority gets their opinion heard and so that we are clear what the body has done when it has done something.

For those with a knowledge of Robert’s Rules who are following the current Congressional maneuvering on the health care bill we sometimes have trouble completely understanding what the Congress is up to with talk of a “self-executing rule” in the House and a “budget reconciliation bill” in the Senate.

As I was looking at this in a little more detail I was struck by the introduction to the first edition (1876) of Robert’s Rules of Order where the good Brig. Gen. Henry M. Robert says:

Parliamentary Law refers originally to the customs and rules of conducting business in the English Parliament; and thence to the customs and rules of our own legislative assemblies. In England these customs and usages of Parliament form a part of the unwritten law of the land, and in our own legislative bodies they are of authority in all cases where they do not conflict with existing rules or precedents. But as a people we have not the respect which the English have for customs and precedents, and are always ready for innovations which we think are improvements, and hence changes have been and are being constantly made in the written rules which our legislative bodies have found best to adopt. As each house adopts its own rules, it results that the two houses of the same legislature do not always agree in their practice; even in Congress the order of precedence of motions is not the same in both houses, and the Previous Question is admitted in the House of Representatives, but not in the Senate. As a consequence of this, the exact method of conducting business in any particular legislative body is to be obtained only from the Legislative Manual of that body.

Brig. Gen. Henry Martyn Robert

Mr. Robert goes on to talk about how he based his rules for deliberative assemblies on the U.S. House of Representatives at that time.  A shock to me.  To look at the way that Congress works today I have some trouble matching it up with Robert’s Rules.  Maybe the difference between then and now are the “innovations which we think are improvements.”   (I have seen in person a Senate session with three senators in the chamber — the President Pro Tem, and the representatives of the majority and the minority — discussing the consent agenda and agreeing to the docket and rules of debate for a major bill the next day.  And from the C-Span camera you would never know the rest of the seats were empty. But I digress…)

So in case you are inclined to check out the Legislative Manuals for the House and the Senate, the Library of Congress has made it easy for you with the House and Senate resources at the top of their Government Resources page.  Drilling down a little bit you get the more detailed list of resources from the House Committee on Rules and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.  (And I can’t help but notice how the House web page has only the Committee Chair pictured while the Senate has equal sized pictures of both the Chair and the Ranking Member.  But I digress…)

In the current debate one parliamentary, or procedural, option being talked about is the “self-executing rule.” It turns out that the self-executing rule is a 20th century innovation and the Wilson Center has a good background piece on this innovation which was introduced in 1933 (that’s from another good article from the Washington Post).  For those of us familiar with Robert’s it is a bit like a “non-consent consent agenda,” I would say.  To put it a better way, it is a second motion which is not debatable but gets approved with the approval of the first debatable motion.  While technically separable, if you have the majority control you can keep it from being brought to the floor by itself.  And the Wilson piece is clear, and probably to no one’s surprise, while the use of this rule has become more common, throughout the last few decades the party in the minority is usually “shocked” to think that the majority would resort to such tactics.   (Reminds me of Captain Renault in Casablanca who says “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” as pretense and in mock indignation as he is handed his roulette winnings.  But I digress…)

I am sure that most of my American readers have heard more about the “budget reconciliation process” to be used in the Senate since that has been in the headlines for almost two months now.  For almost everything you wanted to know about Budget Reconciliation the Congressional Research Service has a handy publication.  It is what Robert would consider an “innovation” coming from the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 which provides a process which is governed by “special procedures.” “These procedures serve to limit what may be included in reconciliation legislation, to prohibit certain amendments, and to encourage its completion in a timely fashion.”  The floor procedure to provide for timely consideration is described thus:

During floor action on reconciliation legislation, the Senate and House follow different procedures and practices. In the Senate, debate on a budget reconciliation bill, and on all amendments, debatable motions, and appeals, is limited to not more than 20 hours. After the 20 hours of debate has been reached, consideration of amendments, motions, and appeals may continue, but without debate. The Senate often will consider a substantial number of amendments in this situation. The Budget Act does not provide any debate limitations on a reconciliation bill in the House. The House, however, regularly adopts a special rule establishing the time allotted for debate and what amendments will be in order. The House special rule typically has allowed for consideration of only a few major amendments.

First, remember the Robert quote above about each chamber having their own rules.  And second, by specifying the 20 hours of debate the debate in the Senate is automatically cut off meaning that there is no need for the closure vote that has the infamous 60 vote super-majority provision.

And finally, if you think you have never really heard of the reconciliation process before consider the acronym C.O.B.R.A.  While most people think of the extension of medical benefits the acronym comes from the name of the larger bill itself, with the wonderfully oxymornic title of “The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.”  But you probably knew that al
ready.

Well, I have no intention of digging back in the Library of Congress to see how House and Senate rules have evolved over time, but I find Robert’s words about “innovations which we think are improvements” to be a bit prophetic.  I wonder if he would base his rules on those deliberative bodies today?

In general Presbyterian procedures seem less complicated, but we generally can not claim that they are purely Robert’s rules.  Every one has special procedures for changing doctrinal standards that involves voting by the presbyteries, some requiring majority and some super majority.  Many have their governing bodies hear and decide judicial cases so there are special standing rules for that.  And there is always the PC(USA) which has Advisory Delegates with voice and vote in committee but voice only in plenary.  Yes, we even have our own Legislative Manual beyond the basics of parliamentary procedure.