Fourth Grade Social Studies paints a beautiful picture of legislative process. It teaches us that the federal government is a simple, law making machine.  Is it safe to assume that everyone remembers the cartoon video about how a bill becomes a law, you know, from the same people who brought you “Three, The Magic Number?” You remember that?  The bill is born, vote in the House, vote in the Senate, President signs it, and BAM, law!  Forget it.

It probably took less than an hour after waking up this morning to find out that “The Auto Bailout Bill” failed in the Senate, but actually it was never even officially discussed on the floor. Instead, a vote to limit the amount of time for debate, to no more than 30 hours, on “HR7005 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide alternative minimum tax relief for individuals for 2008″ failed, 52-35, to achieve the necessary 60 votes. That was the end of the “Auto Bailout Bill.”

Confused yet? The actual “Auto Bailout Bill”, created by Barney Frank in the House of Representatives, is HR7321. It was passed in the House and received in the Senate on December 11, 2008. Senate rules require that in order for a Bill to be brought onto the floor for consideration it must be read aloud on two separate occasions. This bill was never even read once. Instead, through a complex labyrinth of procedure, the Senators were able to tank it without ever considering it.

Here’s how it went down:

HR7005 has absolutely nothing to do with cars. It was designed to provide relief from the alternative minimum tax and subsequently passed in the House and received in the Senate during September 2008. It just so happens, however, that having already been read twice, this bill was the next eligible bill on the Senate calender to be considered on the floor. On the morning of December 10th, Senator Reid motioned that HR7005 be brought for consideration. Under the standing rules of the Senate, non-relative amendments are not allowed to be made during consideration of a measure. Simply put, if we’re talking about the alternative minimum tax we can’t amend that bill with something about cars. Most of the Senate rules, which differ vastly from those of the House, are pretty straight forward and provide for a very bipartisan environment where everyone’s voice is heard equally no matter what political party he or she is affiliated with, be it the majority or minority. Sounds like it makes sense and if your federal government isn’t passing laws like they’re going out of style, there’s no reason to think it should be any other way. To make a long story short, the rules make for a very deliberate, thought intensive process that takes a god awful long amount of time. Since our Congressmen think that just like air and water, we need a constant supply of new laws to sustain life, something had to be done to fix the inefficiency of individual opinion, create partisanship, and pass laws like rabbits. Can anyone guess what the natural inclination is of a politician bogged down by rules and boundaries that hamper his or her ability to accomplishing what he or she wishes? Suspend the rules! And if there was ever an argument for the existence of bipartisanship in the US Senate, the fact that the motion to suspend the rules is passed 99% of the time by unanimous consent would have to be it. After all, rules are for normal people.

So…Logic says, if you have a bill that’s up for debate and you have a ton of other bills all piled up behind it, why not mash them all into one bill, avoid committee review, and pass it. In order to accomplish this, they need to make non-relevant amendments, that is, make bills about taxes also about cars. (Hint: read earmarks) And so, on December 11, 2008, various amendments were read that added stipulations to HR7005, including wording to provide automakers with a big ole loan. Sounds ok so far, but there’s still a hang up. Although bills and amendments only need a majority vote to be passed, and with a democratic majority in the senate one might think there wouldn’t be a problem, one of the key differences that makes the House and Senate so different is that no time limit exists on the length that any one Senator can speak during the debate portion before a vote ever happens. For instance, if a Senator really desired to, if he really felt strongly about something, he could speak forever and ever in opposition to a measure thus delaying ANY vote. (read: Filibuster). In order to circumvent this, measures are introduced with a motion for “Cloture”. Cloture means that there will be a 30 hour time limit on debate and afterward a vote will be taken on whatever is being debated. Cloture is the psychological assurance that something will get voted on, and generally, if something actually comes up for a vote, it rarely fails to pass a simple majority vote.

So when you hear, “Cloture vote to proceed on HR7005 failed 52-35″, what the vote means to say is, “There’s way to much oppositional partisanship underlying this issue, 30 hours of debate is not enough, and most likely the opposition is going to filibuster during the debate portion of this amendment, even though they realize that the majority support the measure, which will prohibit anyone from doing anything, so if you want to proceed with this motion, beware.”

And that, sir, is how the auto bailout bill died, at the hands of Republicans, without ever even being discussed.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! Make sure to follow on Twitter! Comments/love can be sent here. Thanks for reading!