Potential DHS shutdown sheds light on the need for a Senate germaneness rule

Photo courtesy of worldpropertyjournal.com

Yesterday, The New York Times reported that Speaker of the House John Boehner is prepared to let the Department of Homeland Security shut down. This is a shocking proclamation, especially since the GOP has consistently criticized Obama for his lack of initiative in protecting the country from terrorism, and one of their biggest mantras is that the country needs to secure borders more effectively.

Additionally, this statement directly contradicts numerous GOP election platforms promising that there would be no more shutdowns this year, in contrast to in 2013 when a Republican quibble over funding Obamacare resulted in a government shutdown and trashed the party’s public image. Boehner announcing his intentions to allow the DHS to close down at the end of the month seems nothing short of radical.

But often when a policy decision in Congress is utterly baffling, the explanation is purely political. This case is no exception. In its futile attempts to counter President Obama’s executive order on immigration, House Republicans have passed a bill that both funds DHS and guts the President’s executive order. So what does this tell us? Boehner is bluffing. This bill, which has no chances of becoming law since neither the Senate nor the President is willing to pass such immigration measures, is dead on the table unless Boehner tries to do something to put pressure on the other branches. This pressure comes in the form of Boehner is trying to hold funding hostage in order to pass immigration policy, a political mishmash that leaves the DHS in limbo.

Besides indicating that the House is veering ever more dramatically to the right and that Boehner is too blind to see his own political blunders — did he not learn from the government shutdown of 2013 that shutdowns make his party look bad? — this funding bill also sheds light on the necessity to have a germaneness rule in the Senate.

Germaneness is a stipulation that all amendments made to a bill must relate to the subject of the bill. For instance, a bill about the curriculum in public schools cannot contain an amendment about raising the gas tax under a germaneness rule. Segregating legislation into separate laws based on subject matter seems like common sense, but it Washington, the idea is nearly ludicrous. This method of adding irrelevant amendments is constantly used by both parties to sneak controversial policy into a bill guaranteed to pass due to its necessity. Unfortunately, Boehner’s immigration shenanigans would have been allowed even under this rule — the DHS does control immigration enforcement, and therefore having a bill that slashes immigration funding is germane to general DHS funding.

A germaneness rule, however, would set a precedent that these political games are ineffective means of legislating and will not be tolerated in our houses of government. If the Republicans want to pass immigration measures, pass immigration measures. But don’t dangle our nation’s security in front of us as collateral if an agreement can’t be reached.

Sarah Green is a sophomore majoring in economics. Her column, “Power Politics,” runs Mondays.