Chris Shays goes half-ways.

Sure, Bob "Freedom Fries" Ney Day may be the order of the day in corners of the blogosphere both large and small, but there's also news on temporary hero Chris Shays.

The Hill reports today that the effort to bring law back to the Congressional "ethics-free zone" may get hung up on procedure, rather than substance. Surprise, surprise.

H. Res. 131, introduced by ranking ethics committee Democrat Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), seeks to end the current rules deadlock, essentially by turning back the clock and adopting the rules in effect during the last (Republican-controlled) Congress.

Yesterday, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelsoi brought a "question of the privileges of the House" to the floor which would have forced a mechanism for resolving the issue, and while the Speaker was forced by precedent to rule the question in order, the measure was immediately tabled on a strict party line vote.

Strict, but for one, that is. Democrats were joined by the man Tom DeLay kicked out of the chairmanship of the ethics committee: Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO).

Meanwhile, Mollohan's bill has two Republican cosponsors: Hefley, and GOP wild man Christopher Shays (R-CT). And while that brings the total number of Members sponsoring the bill to 203 (not counting Delegates, from whom the "freedom-marching" GOP revoked floor voting privileges), even if a majority of the House were to sign on, the bill may never see the light of day.

Because the power to schedule bills for floor action, unfortunately, resides with the Majority Leader... Tom DeLay.

Only one method exists for forcing the bill to the floor: the discharge petition. Kept at the Clerk's desk, discharge petitions garnering the signatures of 218 Members (a majority of the House) force the bills they're attached to directly to the floor. Originally kept in secret, a Republican-forced (and now deliciously ironic) rules change opened the process to public scrutiny. Now, the names of Members who sign these petitions (and by extension, those who don't) are available for review by anyone interested in keeping track, say, of Representatives who publicly declare their support for a piece of legislation that's opposed by the Congressional leadership, but who, when push comes to shove, refuse to do anything in particular about it.

Today comes news that Chris Shays, cosponsor of H. Res. 131, refuses to discharge it:

Explaining his support for Mollohan’s bill, Shays said that he doesn’t think “ethics rules should be changed without consulting the ethics committee.” At the beginning of the year, GOP leaders pushed changes in ethics rules through the House despite Hefley’s opposition. GOP leaders later denied Hefley the opportunity to serve another term as chairman.

Given the GOP leadership’s opposition to Mollohan’s bill, it is likely that he will eventually file a discharge petition to force it to the floor. Hefley said it was too early to say whether he would sign such a petition. Shays dismissed any chance of his support of a discharge petition, calling it a “nuclear” tactic.

How interesting, in light of what's happening in the Senate, that Shays should use such terminology. The discharge petition, unlike the Senate's so-called "nuclear option," is not a rules change. How it's even remotely comparable to asking the Vice President to make rulings on constitutional law from the President's chair in the Senate is beyond me. Unless, of course, he's referring to the response from DeLay that taking a logically consistent position on ethics would engender. And I think that's what he means.

Essentially, Shays is saying that while he was quite vocal and quite public in opposing the so-called "DeLay Rule", and was more than willing to accept accolades for his steadfast stand for right as leader of the "Shays Handful," and is a public cosponsor of H. Res. 131, he will not actually oppose the leadership to the extent that he'd give himself an opportunity to back his courageous stand with a vote.

Shocker.

With Hefley now facing the same decision (and having been the recipient of the his share of editorial plaudits for his bravery), where will he come down?

And what will become of the other dozen plus Republicans who've also already enjoyed warrior-hero status with the hometown crowd for taking a stand?

Comments

[Mike S]

I think you miss the point of the label Shays is using. It's not that it's a nucular option for procedure but a nucular bomb against his own political future. The minute he signs on he will have primary challengers coming out of his butt and Delay and his cronies will be funding them.

[DemFromCt]

However, as another astute poster noted, given Johnny Rowland's ethical issues, it becomes a hometown issue for Shays if he is perceived as supporting the DeLay sleaze.

[Kagro X]

That may be true. But it's certainly a confusion I'm willing to continue laboring under, until he says otherwise about it.

Besides, as Republican Senators and their apologists attempt to sneak by with weasel words about a "constitutional option," the more GOPers who make mention of nuclear options, the better.