Connect with us

Congress

House GOP rule proposals spotlight battle between conservatives and leadership allies

Published

on

House Republicans are primed for a nasty fight over their internal rules this week.

A review of the 20 amendments submitted to the current rules, first reported by Blue Light News, indicate an ongoing clash between conservatives, who are looking to strip more power from leadership, and other members who want to see disruptive GOP lawmakers punished.

The amendments do not include proposed changes to the rules governing how to oust a speaker, known as a motion to vacate, though that doesn’t mean that fight is over. Currently, one member can trigger a vote to boot a speaker, and leadership and many House Republicans want to raise that threshold. Debate over that rule will likely reignite before the full House speakership vote on Jan. 3, when the party is slated to deliberate broader House rules after selecting a speaker.

And though the motion to vacate rules aren’t up for a vote just yet, several proposed amendments are directly related to it. Reps. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) and Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) sought to prevent another speaker ouster and subsequent gavel fight showdown with their amendments.

Huizenga proposed kicking members off committees for at least 90 days if they oppose a speaker on the House floor who received a two-thirds majority nomination vote from the conference. And Van Orden similarly pushed for members to lose their committee assignments if a group of members move to vacate the speaker against the wishes of the majority of their party — as was the case for former Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s ouster.

Additionally, Huizenga and Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) submitted amendments that would punish lawmakers who block GOP-backed legislation from a floor passage vote, known as voting against the rule. Huizenga’s amendment floated an unspecified “penalty,” while LaLota’s would kick members who opposed rule votes off their committees.

From the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus side, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) sought to clarify the authority of a Speaker Pro Tempore, the person who leads the House temporarily in the event of another speaker vacancy. His amendment, which says the position can only aid in the election of a new speaker, aims to settle discussions over what powers Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) had when he filled the role following the termination of McCarthy’s speakership.

Others like Reps. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Andy Harris (R-Md.), the current chair of the House Freedom Caucus, aimed to curb the power of the GOP steering committee, a leadership-aligned panel that largely decides who will serve as panel chairs and membership.

Harris proposed other amendments aimed at limiting how long Republicans could serve in certain leadership positions. One says a member who is a committee head of one panel cannot immediately become chair or ranking member of another committee if they’ve already hit the term limit of three consecutive terms. Another seeks to limit any members from serving on the Steering Committee for more than three consecutive terms. A third would block members from serving on both a committee and on the Steering panel at the same time, which several have in the past.

Other notable amendment proposals:

  • Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) is proposing a rule that would create a new GOP leadership position known as the chair of the debt commission.
  • Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) wants to block Republicans from voting on their GOP leadership lineup before setting their internal rules. (In other words, allowing lawmakers to decide whether they like the rules package before they give their blessing to a speaker nominee.)
  • Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) is trying to create more time for members to speak at the microphones during private GOP conference meetings, putting forward an amendment that would curb how much time GOP leadership spends updating its members. Roy also floated a new rule that would allow members to call for votes in a conference meeting to determine if a bill had the support of the majority of Republicans.
  • Reps. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) and Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) put forward a proposal that would limit the price tag of a bill that can pass under suspension — a procedural tool GOP leadership had used to bypass hardliners when they opposed spending bills — at $100 million. For Palmer, the exception was if the bill included offsets. 

House Republicans will meet Thursday morning for a forum to discuss rule amendments, and will convene again that afternoon to vote on their conference rules.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Congress

Congress moves to scrutinize AI use in federal court

Published

on

A group of lawmakers are set to introduce legislation Thursday to examine the use of artificial intelligence in federal courts, according to bill text obtained by Blue Light News.

Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), along with Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.), are preparing to unveil the bipartisan, bicameral Research and Oversight of Artificial Intelligence in Courts Act of 2026. The bill would establish a 15-member task force to study the use of AI-powered speech-to-text and speech recognition tools, with a focus on privacy, civil liberties and accuracy.

The panel would include federal judges, prosecutors, court clerks and other judicial experts and would be required to report its findings to Congress and the attorney general within 18 months.

Clear federal guidelines for AI use in U.S. courts have yet to be established, as broader concerns about the technology grow on Capitol Hill. Last year, Reuters reported that two federal judges withdrew rulings in separate cases after lawyers flagged factual inaccuracies and other serious errors. In one New Jersey case, a draft decision that included AI-generated research was mistakenly posted to the public docket before undergoing review, according to the report. In response to questions from Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the judges attributed the snafus to court staffers using generative AI tools for drafting and research.

“As the Senate’s only former public defender, I know it firsthand: Court reporters and captioners are irreplaceable,” Welch said in a statement. “When it comes to the use of AI in the courtroom, there are still substantial privacy and civil liberty concerns that need to be addressed.” Wicker said, “Ensuring accuracy is critical to fair justice.”

Technology-related privacy and civil rights concerns are currently top of mind for lawmakers in Congress, as Speaker Mike Johnson seeks to put an 18-month extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on the House floor next week.

Continue Reading

Congress

Senate recess at risk if DHS shutdown continues, Thune says

Published

on

Senate Majority Leader John Thune suggested Thursday the Senate will not go on recess as planned at the end of next week if the Department of Homeland Security isn’t funded by then.

“We need to get this resolved and it needs to get resolved, you know, by the end of next week,” Thune said. “I can’t see us taking a break if the [department’s] still shut down.”

Thune’s comments to reporters come as a bipartisan group of senators, including members of the Appropriations Committee and a clutch of Democrats that helped negotiate the end to the last shutdown, meet privately in the Capitol with Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar.

The meeting — coming as TSA staffing issues create long lines at some airports — is the first sign in weeks of potential momentum in the DHS funding.

Continue Reading

Congress

Epstein’s lawyer tells House Oversight investigators he had ‘no knowledge’ of Epstein’s crimes

Published

on

Darren Indyke, Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyer and a co-executor of his estate, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that he had no knowledge of the convicted sex offender’s crimes and rejected aspersions that he knowingly facilitated Epstein’s trafficking, according to a copy of prepared remarks obtained by Blue Light News.

The attorney’s defensive posture in the closed-door deposition on Thursday comes amid mounting pressure on the Justice Department and lawmakers to pursue criminal accountability for others who could have played a role in Epstein’s scheme. In his prepared opening statement, Indyke noted that he was appointed a co-executor of Epstein’s estate in 2019 by the U.S. Virgin Islands probate court, has cooperated with the Justice Department, and helped found the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program.

“Let me be clear: I had no knowledge whatsoever of Jeffrey Epstein’s wrongdoings,” Indyke told congressional investigators, according to the prepared remarks. “My complete lack of involvement in that misconduct is a matter of record: not a single woman has ever accused me of committing sexual abuse or witnessing sexual abuse, nor claimed at any time that she or anyone else reported to me any allegation of Mr. Epstein’s abuse.”

He maintained that his relationship with Epstein was not social in nature and that he was only one of the lawyers with whom Epstein consulted — a list that included Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated the fallout of Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky.

“My primary role was to provide corporate, transactional and general legal services to Mr. Epstein and his companies, and I did so,” Indyke planned to say.

Only one person has been convicted as part of Epstein’s sex trafficking scheme: Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime associate now serving 20 years in prison for her role in the crimes. She is seeking a pardon from President Donald Trump.

Indyke is the latest in the Oversight committee’s string of closed-door depositions with people in Epstein’s orbit. Epstein’s onetime client and former Victoria’s Secret CEO Les Wexner and another co-executor of Epstein’s estate Richard Kahn also testified. House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) has also subpoenaed Attorney General Pam Bondi to testify before lawmakers over her handling of the Epstein files.

Unlike Wexner and Kahn, Maxwell invoked her Fifth Amendment right when she was questioned by the Oversight committee in a virtual deposition as part of its investigation into Epstein.

According to his prepared remarks, Indyke also denied any involvement in the facilitation of so-called “sham marriages” for women around Epstein, an allegation that appeared in a complaint filed in court by the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands. He described his onetime client as being “extremely contrite” after his 2008 sex crime conviction and added that he believed Epstein when he said did not know the woman was a minor.

“That I did not know what my client did in his private life may be difficult for some to believe, but it is true,” Indyke said.

Continue Reading

Trending