This week, the House Committee on Rules received almost 350 amendments drafted by lawmakers regarding specific issues in the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2016.

The Rules Committee is not a body well known outside Washington and is sometimes referred to as the “traffic cop” in the House. Most legislation must go through the Rules Committee where a “rule” is crafted detailing how it will be debated on the House floor. There is no similar mechanism in the Senate. Members who wish to offer amendments must file them with the Rules Committee. The committee then decides the fate of each potential amendment based, at least in part, on whether the amendment is “germane” to the underlying piece of legislation.

Here is what the Committee website says about germaneness, “The basic element of the germaneness rule is the requirement that an amendment address the same subject as the underlying bill. The text of the rule has remained the same since it was last amended in 1822. The purpose of the rule is to provide for the orderly consideration of amendments to bills and resolutions by requiring a relationship between the amendment and the matter being amended.” (Emphasis in the original.)

But then there is this, also from the Committee’s official website, “The Committee is commonly known as ‘The Speaker’s Committee’ because it is the mechanism that the Speaker uses to maintain control of the House Floor, and was chaired by the Speaker until 1910. Because of the vast power wielded by the Rules Committee, its ratio has traditionally been weighted in favor of the majority party…” Yup, seven Republicans to four Democrats, a nearly two to one ratio. No other committee comes close to that majority weight.

And finally, “The Committee has the authority to do virtually anything during the course of consideration of a measure, including deeming it passed. The Committee can also include a self-executed amendment which could rewrite just parts of a bill, or the entire measure. In essence, so long as a majority of the House is willing to vote for a special rule, there is little that the Rules Committee cannot do.”

So, now, back to H.R. 1735, the Pentagon policy bill for Fiscal Year 2016. From that original pool of ideas, the committee selected 135 of them for discussion, and potential votes, on the House floor.

One of the amendments, offered by Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the ranking minority member on the committee that originated the legislation, would have authorized a round of base closure in 2017, as requested by the Pentagon in its budget submission. However, even though closing bases is clearly germane to the underlying bill, Mr. Smith’s amendment was not ruled in order. Hard to say exactly why, but sometimes amendments are not allowed because the vote would be uncomfortable.

On the other hand, an amendment to “add an additional exception from [the] requirement to buy certain articles from American sources for use in the production of fire hoses” was allowed.

Another amendment that supposedly passed the germaneness test was one for a technical correction “regarding refinancing of Pacific Coast ground fishing capacity reduction loan.” Maybe the argument here is that this changed a provision regarding ground fishing capacity loans that was in last year’s defense authorization – of course it wasn’t germane then either.

No matter what your views are on fire hoses and fishing capacity reduction loans, this appears to be more about the Speaker, “maintain(ing) control of the House Floor” than it is about issues actually being germane to the Pentagon. Because there is almost nothing more germane to the Pentagon than military bases.

To be fair, abuses of the rules process happens every Congress, no matter which party is control. But that doesn’t make it right.

That said, perhaps the most unintentionally ironic amendment that did not make it into the rule? An amendment submitted by Representative Mark Walker (R-NC) stating, “It is the sense of Congress that this Act should not include any provisions that are not related to defense.” Too late on that one.