How the Ukraine aid debate could bring back a House infestation of boll weevils and gypsy moths

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

Having trouble? Click here.

It’s a little late in 2024 to compose an “in and out” list.

Baby reveals are apparently in. Swag is in. So are press-on nails.

The outs? Supposedly podcasts. (Really?) Mullets (I thought they already were). Vaping.
Congress is usually behind the times. So that’s why it took Capitol Hill until spring to craft an “in and out” list. It’s a pretty short list.

NATIONAL SECURITY HAWKS WARN CONGRESS THROWING PENTAGON ‘UNDER THE BUS’ WITH ‘INADEQUATE’ SPENDING BUMP

Let’s start with what’s out:

“Discharge petitions.”

And, if you’re cutting edge, what could soon be in?

“Defeating the previous question.”

(Alex Wroblewski/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

I know. This is going to require some explaining. Especially if you are not a creature of Capitol Hill.

And even if you are a creature of Capitol Hill. 

But why are we writing about a “discharge petition” and “defeating the previous question?”

These are obscure, but critical parliamentary tools in the House of Representatives which lawmakers might use to either fund the government or send money to Ukraine.

SENATE STRIKES DOWN BIDEN MOVE ALLOWING POTENTIALLY DISEASED BEEF INTO US

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has been dubious about sending aid to Ukraine – even after the Senate adopted a bill with 70 members voting yes in February.

Both a “discharge petition” and “defeating the previous question” are methods for a majority of House members to bypass the House Speaker and either put a bill on the floor against his or her wishes – or seize control of the floor. Both gambits are rarely successful. The House has only successfully gone over the head of the Speaker with a discharge petition twice in the past 23 years. For a defeat of “moving the previous question,” one must reel back to the 1980s.

We might usually dismiss such esoteric, enigmatic parliamentary ploys to go around the Speaker. But not in the present circumstances. The House Republican majority has dwindled to a svelte two seats. Johnson struggles to get GOP members to even put Republican-authored legislation on the floor. The only time anything of consequence gets done in the House during the 118th Congress is when a chunk of Democrats team up with a smaller cluster of Republicans. This oddball, Congressional clump has approved multiple bills to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling over the past several months. Democrats have carried most of the weight each time.

Norman, Johnson, Perry

House conservatives like Reps. Ralph Norman and Scott Perry are furious that House GOP leaders are poised to waive the 72-hour rule for bill votes (Getty Images)

Thus, we find ourselves in a unique position where things are ripe to possibly bypass the Speaker’s office.

You can discharge yourself of the notion that a discharge petition is the only route to go in order to pass a bill to assist Ukraine. A discharge petition requires a solid figure of 218 House members – regardless of the size of the House. If you get 218 co-signers, you can bring up a bill on the floor without the blessing of the leadership. There are two active discharge petitions in the House now. One is from Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee. Her plan would compel the House to act on the Senate’s foreign aid bill from February. The other discharge petition is from Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Penn. Fitzpatrick’s measure includes a more narrow spending package for Ukraine – but includes border security. 

Some Republican lawmakers are reluctant to consider either discharge petition. They believe it looks bad to undercut the GOP leadership.

But in late February, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., told CBS there was “a 40 to 45 percent shot” to go around the leadership another way. That’s the “defeating the previous question” gambit. 

WHY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DECIDE THEY ‘GOTTA GET OUT OF THIS PLACE’

“Defeating the previous question is something like a nuclear device,” said McHenry. “It is a vast act of war.”

So what is “defeating the previous question?”

The House must often takes an initial vote to compel a second vote on the issue at hand. Kind of voting to agree to take a vote. This often comes up when the House is considering a “rule” to manage floor debate. That primary vote is called “ordering the previous question,” or a “PQ” in Congressional shorthand. If the House adopts the PQ, it has “voted to have the next vote.” That almost always happens.

But things get a little weird if the House defeats the previous question.

Mike Johnson

Speaker Mike Johnson told Fox News Digital that he is intending to remain  in House GOP leadership in 2025.

The minority – or whoever is trying to defeat the PQ – then marshals control of the House floor for an hour. They can bring up anything they want. In this case – a “rule” to set the parameters of debate on a bill to aid Ukraine. 

In short, if the House approves the rule, then it’s on to debate on the Ukraine bill. And then a vote on the bill.

But “defeating the previous question” is rarely successful. The last successful defeat of a previous question came in 1988. Before that, 1981. But what happened in 1981 was of historic significance.

Democrats controlled the House back in the 1980s. However, there was a bloc of conservative Democrats who broke with late House Speaker Tip O’Neill, D-Mass., and voted with Republicans to get a massive tax cut plan by President Ronald Reagan onto the floor. How did they do it? The rump group of Democrats voted with late House Minority Leader Bob Michel, R-Ill., to “defeat the previous question.” The Republicans and conservative Democrats teamed up to bypass O’Neill and get a vote on “Reaganomics.” The tax cuts passed the House – all with the assistance of Democrats.

What did they call those Democrats? Boll Weevils.

A look at the political taxonomy:

The boll weevil is an invasive pest which infests cotton plants in the South. Conservative, southern Democrats were sometimes called Boll Weevils in the 1930s and 1940s. They backed much of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s economic agenda. But they opposed desegregation.

Late Rep. Charlie Stenholm, D-Tex., was one of those Boll Weevils in the 1980s. He embraced the moniker, suggesting that like the beetle, it was hard to eradicate southern, conservative Democrats from the party. Thus, they emerged as a key part of Reagan’s coalition in Congress.

But by the same token, there were Northeastern and Midwestern, moderate Republicans who opposed some of Reagan’s agenda. They deemed themselves the “Gypsy Moths.”

Like the boll weevil, the gypsy moth (recently renamed “sponge moth”) is also an invasive species. Those critters feast on trees.

The Congressional Gypsy Moths did not defect from Reagan on the tax cuts. But they tried to exercise independence from the White House heading into the 1982 midterm elections. About 30 Gypsy Moths voted against overriding the president’s veto of a spending package.

And for the record, a group of moths is technically referred to as an “eclipse” of moths.

Most of these Boll Weevils and Gypsy Moths eventually flitted back to their home parties later.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

However, there is a reason why we write about the Gypsy Moths and Boll Weevils when it comes to aiding Ukraine. It’s possible that lawmakers could turn to “defeating the previous question” as a mechanism to seize control of the floor and put a Ukraine aid package on the floor. But the chances of a defeated “PQ” as a viable parliamentary option for advocates of Ukraine to succeed are the highest they’ve been since the Reagan tax cut vote in 1981. In this case, most Democrats support the Ukraine aid bill – blended with an odd mixture of some Republicans. But unlike 1981, it’s not the Democrats who might betray leadership. This would be Republicans. And while it’s not the same coalition of Gypsy Moths who sometimes defected from the GOP brass in the 1980s, those Republicans who would help Ukraine are mostly from the north and Midwest.

How or if Ukraine ever gets aid is unclear. And one can debate if a “discharge petition” or a “defeating the previous question” is on the “in” or “out” list.

But the real question for lawmakers is whether aiding Ukraine is on the “in” or “out” list for Members of Congress.

SOURCE

Leave a Comment