Behind Closed Doors, the Rules Game

On the third floor of the Capitol, off a hallway where herds of tourists line up each day to observe the process of lawmaking, a tiny chamber houses one of the most influential--and least understood--committees in Congress.

The public is not welcome here. When the committee is in session, a staffer stands inside a lone doorway shooing away the curious. Only a handful of seats are available to the media. On the rare occasions when C-SPAN is permitted to televise proceedings, a camera operator is stuck in a cramped supply closet with the paper clips, No. 2 pencils and Elmer’s glue.

The restricted access to the House Committee on Rules is no accident. Democratic leaders prefer to shed as little light as possible on the way the committee manipulates legislation before it is sent to the floor for a vote. The 13-member panel is stacked with nine Democrats who are chosen by the Speaker of the House to carry out his wishes.

Two Californians serve on the committee. One, Republican David Dreier of San Dimas, has launched a crusade of sorts to make the rules process more democratic. The other, Democrat Anthony C. Beilenson of Woodland Hills, agrees with many of Dreier’s ideas, but generally toes his party’s line when it counts.

*

The Speaker’s Committee, as it is known, serves as the House traffic cop by setting the rules for debate before each bill goes to the floor. The Rules panel determines such critical issues as how many hours will be set aside for debate and how many amendments, if any, will be considered.

Each piece of legislation is assigned one of three rules--an open rule, which means members are permitted to offer relevant amendments; a restrictive rule, which limits the number of amendments, or a closed rule, which prohibits any amendments.

The proportion of bills dispatched to the House floor under open rules has declined steeply, from 85% in 1977-78 to 23% last year. This trend, Republicans say, reflects a blatant abuse of power by the Democratic majority to stifle debate and avoid taking a stand on politically sensitive issues.

Last year, the Rules Committee stymied an attempt by Republicans to offer an amendment deleting a controversial energy tax from President Clinton’s budget resolution. Similarly, an amendment proposed by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) to deny federal arts funding to programs that benefit illegal immigrants was squelched before it could be debated on the House floor. Pesky amendments offered by individual Democrats also get scotched.

*

The inability of House members to amend legislation is one of the reasons Rep. Michael Huffington (R-Santa Barbara) decided to run for the Senate after only eight months into his first term.

“I think many of us who have never been involved with legislative politics were shocked by the fact that there is something called closed rules,” says Huffington, a multimillionaire businessman who had never run for elected office before winning a House seat in 1992. “They don’t have that problem over in the Senate.”

Even worse, Dreier says, the Rules Committee often waives standing regulations to ram through legislation. He said the committee regularly revokes a rule that allows legislators three days to review a bill before it can be considered on the floor.

Dreier and his fellow Republicans have a legitimate beef, says Norman J. Ornstein, an authority on Congress and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “There is a genuine frustration that you are an equal as a member of Congress (and) you ought to have the right to have your alternatives debated and voted on the floor,” he says.

*

At least one Democrat on the Rules Committee sympathizes with these Republican concerns. Beilenson, who will soon be next in line to become the panel’s chairman, says that he often argues “for as open a process as possible” and sometimes sides with his Republican counterparts in committee.

But voting records suggest that Republicans can count on Beilenson’s support only when the vote is meaningless.

Beilenson joined all four Republicans on the Rules Committee in October to vote 5 to 4 in favor of an open rule for legislation to extend unemployment benefits. Four Democrats missed the vote.

Afterward, Democratic leaders met behind closed doors. Beilenson emerged to switch his vote and the open rule was defeated.

“I am very much a team player when it is necessary to be,” Beilenson says. “My ultimate allegiance on something of that sort certainly is to the Speaker.”