#First_Name#,

We have all been watching the heroic efforts of a couple of dozen Republicans in the U.S. House as they take on the top-down power structure that has plagued that body for as long as anyone can remember. The Founders never intended so much power to be vested in the Speaker of the House in what is supposed to be the people’s chamber.

When just a few people control so much, not only are our representatives harmed, but WE are.

Finally, a few men and women are jealously guarding their constituents’ power – the power that those constituents loaned to their elected representatives.

Elected officials are supposed to be stewards of the power the people loaned them and have no right to cede that power to anyone else, but that’s what happens every two years when senators and representatives at both the state and federal level vote on a new set of rules for their respective chambers.

They willingly make themselves – and their constituents -- vassals of the people in leadership positions.

RIGHT HERE IN MISSOURI

Ironically, the very same week twenty or so heroes in D.C. forced concessions out of the man preordained to be Speaker of the U.S. House, the Missouri State House in Jefferson City is considering a change to rules that gives their Speaker even more power than he has now.

House Resolution 11 (HR 11) would give unprecedented power to just one man or woman out of the 163 person body. To an even greater extent than he has now, that one man or woman would be able to dictate the entire agenda.

ACTION ITEM:

Please read the Executive Summary (below) of the proposed rules changes and follow this link to leave testimony against HR 11 on the official House website before the hearing at 1:00 pm, Monday, January : https://house.mo.gov/WitnessForm/Default.aspx?noticeid=7151

Be sure to check the box next to “HR 11 - Patterson - HOUSE RULES” to reveal a box where you can leave a comment.

In liberty,

- Ron

---

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HR 11 – Proposed changes to House Rules

<Click here for full text of HR11>

In General

HR 11 includes some good rules changes and some indifferent changes, but it clearly also includes changes that work against the single most important American principle where government power is concerned, that is, the need to diffuse power – keep it from being concentrated in too few hands.

The most disconcerting changes are those that seem to concentrate more power in the hands of the Speaker at the expense of the other members, and more importantly, the other members' constituents, whose representation will be diminished.

Subcommittees

Rule 24(1)(c)f. -- Page 17, line 429-430 – Removes the ability of a committee chair to establish a subcommittee and places that power solely in the hands of the Speaker.

While this might seem like a small change, since the Speaker previously could “veto” the creation of a subcommittee through the “advice and consent” requirement, this change gives the Speaker unilateral power to set up a subcommittee even over the objection of the chair of the standing committee.

Additionally, the new rules allow the Speaker to assign bills directly to subcommittees. This is a substantial power shift to the Speaker, since he or she would have even less dependence on committee chairmen. See page 31, lines 808-809.

Rules Committees

The addition of a third Rules Committee, in itself, may be no worse than the existence of rules committees, in general. Whether there are two or three may have little consequence, other than the fact that one more member (the chair) will be particularly beholden to the Speaker.

The more problematic changes relate to the fact that, with the new rules, there is not automatic referral to a particular rules committee based on the originating committee. Previously, everyone knew which rules committee the bills from any given committee would go to, but under the proposed rules the Speaker can assign bills to any of the three rules committees at his own whim. People working on a bill have a moving target.

This is a significant power shift to the Speaker, one that particularly expands his or her power in the later days of the session when Senate bills are moving to the House.

See pages 26, line 680; page 37, line 984; page 61, line 1610; line 62, line 1627;

Changes to the rules committees also shift power from the rank and file members to the rules committee members and chair on page 38, line 993-995. There, the power of five members to demand that a rules committee conduct a hearing on any bill in the committee’s possession is removed. This change would be a HUGE ceding of power by members to the rules committees and the Speaker who controls them.

Legislation Flow

The proposed rules shift even more power from committee chairs to the Speaker on page 33, lines 856-857. Currently, a committee can vote “do pass” on a bill and the chair “shall make reports… and submit the same to the House without delay.” Although that doesn’t always happen, it should. The new rules provide for the reports to be presented to the House only upon the Speaker’s request. This is yet another power shift from committees and committee chairmen to the Speaker.

Public Participation at Hearings

Currently, a committee chair can provide for remote testimony of witnesses at the bill hearings he has a duty to conduct. The new rules only allow for such in the event of an emergency or “if special accommodations are necessary.” What’s more, the Speaker has to approve. This move shifts even more power from committees to the Speaker and prejudices the public, potentially resulting in withholding important information from the committee. See page 34, lines 887-892.

Limits on Numbers of Bills Members Can File

A new filing limit of twenty bills per member without permission of the Speaker is an insult to not only the members, but the member’s constituents, who may lose an opportunity to have his or her issue addressed legislatively. See page 43, line 1128-1131.

Confusing Language Relating to Constitutional Limits on the Power of the General Assembly

Changes to Rule 72 (page 63, lines 1658-1660) seem to be a laudable effort to limit bill actions to the bill’s subject, but the language may be subject to unfortunate interpretation.

The amendment language reads, “All motions pertaining to a bill, including amendments, substitute amendments, and amendments to the amendment, shall be germane to the subject of the bill.”

A strict interpretation might conclude that any and all amendments “shall be” considered germane, which is clearly not the intent of this amendment.

It might be more clear to say, “To be in order, any motion pertaining to a bill, including amendments, substitute amendments, and amendments to the amendment, must be germane to the subject of the bill.”

Forcing Unfortunate Votes on Senate Bills

The “division of the question” is a parliamentary move to relieve a member from the burden of casting a vote for some element of a bill that he or she finds offensive without going on record against the rest of the bill, which may be immensely popular. It helps to prevent “gotcha” votes.

It also works against amendments or portions of bills that would not muster enough support on their own to become law.

The changes to Rule 78 (page 65, lines 1715-1717) take away this important tool from consideration on Senate bills.

Limiting Debate per Member to 10 Minutes (from the current 15 minutes)

The change could either have the effect of more participation by a greater number of members, or it could diminish the body’s access to information from one member who is particularly knowledgeable about a given subject. See Rule 87 (page 68, line 1790)

A good compromise might be allowing any member recognized for floor debate to yield his time to any member of his or her choosing.

###

Resources

The Principles