Eileen Filler-Corn has begun to flex her muscles as Speaker. 
This flexing was evident during a tussle on the House floor yesterday. The subject at hand was HB 980, introduced by Del. Charniele Herring of Alexandria. This is the Democrats’ bill to undo many of the abortion restrictions and procedures enacted by Republicans in past years.
Before getting into the activity on the floor, it might be helpful to explain some procedures and rules (always important). First, the General Assembly has a rule requiring that any amendment to a bill be germane to the bill. This rule stems from the Virginia Constitutional requirement that any bill have a single object. The objective is to avoid having riders placed on bills that have no relationship to the topic or purpose of the original bill.
The title of HB 980 indicated that the bill dealt with “provision of abortion.” Del. Todd Gilbert of Shenandoah County and the minority leader sought to offer two amendments to the bill. One amendment would have added several Code sections dealing with what should happen if an abortion procedure results in a live birth. The second amendment would have prohibited the sale of fetal tissue resulting from an abortion. In response to a challenge from Democrats, the Speaker ruled the amendments to be “nongermane”. The effect of such a ruling meant they could not be considered by the House.
As I remember it, when William Howell, Republican Speaker for many years, was confronted with a germaneness challenge, he would pause the proceedings and summon the affected delegates to the rostrum for a discussion. (They couldn’t do this publicly because the challenge is a “point of order” which is not debatable.) The result was often a gaggle of delegates huddled around the Speaker’s desk. Eventually, the Speaker would shoo all the members back to their desks and announce his decision. He usually gave a rationale for the decision. Often the rationale was sort of lame. But, lame or not, at least he made an attempt to explain the reason for decision.
Speaker Filler-Corn did none of this. There was no conference in which the two sides could present their arguments. Nor did she give any rationale for her decision. When Gilbert asked about her rationale or even some general guidance on her thinking on germaneness, she responded only, “I have made my ruling, Delegate Gilbert.” A ruling of the Speaker can be appealed to the House as a whole, but Gilbert knew that was a non-starter.
The second tussle came during the debate on the bill. For debate, the General Assembly has a very formal procedure. If a delegate wishes to ask the patron of a bill a question, he must address the Speaker and use this procedure:
Delegate: Will the delegate [patron of bill] yield for a question?
Speaker: Will the delegate [patron] yield for a question?
Patron: I yield (Or “I refuse to yield”, at which point the process ends).
Speaker: The delegate [patron] yields.
At which point the delegate can ask her question. For a second or subsequent question, the procedure is repeated each time.
Gilbert posed a series of questions to Herring, who seemed to avoid some of them. When that happened, Gilbert would ask the question again, in perhaps a somewhat different form. The Speaker became visibly impatient with Gilbert and, at least twice, in response to his request to ask Herring a question, said that she doubted the delegate would yield. To her credit, Herring refused to take the hint and continued to field the questions. At some point in this sequence, the Speaker abruptly called on another delegate who moved that the debate end. Gilbert protested repeatedly that he had had the floor and had not yielded it. The Speaker reluctantly retreated.
In prior years, when the Republicans were in the majority, Gilbert, in his remarks and debate on the floor, was often very caustic and downright nasty in his comments directed at Democrats. So, some of what is going on now probably involves some personal payback. Nevertheless, the Speaker’s actions were not those of a gracious winner and are not going to win her friends on the Republican side, which she may need some day.
The Speaker then indicated that she did not relish opposition in her own party. As soon as Del. Vivian Watts was through explaining her bill to change the tax laws related to the gig economy (HB 730), the Speaker called for a vote on the bill. Immediately, there was a loud call of “Madame Speaker !”. The Speaker then recognized the Democrat from Prince William, Lee Carter.
This is significant because each delegate has on his desk a button that, when pushed, activates a light next to his name on a panel in front of the Speaker, indicating his desire to be recognized to speak. Using that system avoids having people all over the chamber shouting for recognition. It also allows the Speaker easily to pick and choose who speaks. Undoubtedly, the Speaker saw Carter’s name lit up on her panel and was also aware of Carter’s opposition to the bill (as reported by our very own Steve Haner) and had probably hoped to avoid public opposition in the ranks. Carter indicated that he knew very well what was going on when he responded, “Madame Speaker, I apologize, but I did push my button.”
Unfortunately, as I watching all this from home on the House telecast, the video feed inexplicably went out then and never came back. Later, I wondered: Did the Speaker order that to happen?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.