Last week, the House Rules Committee re-visited what I refer to as the “stealth procedure.” I came up with this term because it’s been used several times this year, much like during the Democratic control of the House.
The phrase blends the idea of being “stealth,” or secretive, with “procedural” and “ju-choice.” It’s a bit unconventional.
The immediate concern for Republican leaders revolves around how to ensure full disclosure of the Jeffrey Epstein Files while alleviating pressure from discharge petitions awaiting action in the Senate and awaiting the President’s signature—or veto. A straightforward House resolution merely expresses a “congressional sense,” which doesn’t carry legal weight, whereas a motion to discharge can push a bill into the spotlight, even if members oppose the President.
This stealth procedure is essentially a condition that allows the House Rules Committee to prioritize certain items of business without full visibility, enabling automatic acceptance by the House in voting on those rules.
I’ve previously called these last-minute additions “jagged gems,” though looking back, maybe they’re more akin to dull trinkets meant to appease specific factions or members of the majority party for cooperation. Such tactics can lead to somewhat alarming legislative communications—though everything remains technically legal within Congressional frameworks. It seems politics often still comes down to mutual favors.
A case in point happened just before the August break, when the Rules Committee, at the speaker’s behest, reported a resolution calling for full disclosure of the Epstein Files. This was intended to satisfy Republicans interested in filing a discharge petition for a bill aimed at full transparency from the Department of Justice. Interestingly, this resolution canceled other legislative agendas for the final week, allowing members to leave early for the August recess.
Last Monday, the Rules Committee moved to give special consideration to three disapproval resolutions related to Land Management Bureau regulations. After that, I focused on three special rules and additional home resolutions, with two of them concerning the Epstein Files. Initially, one echoed earlier calls for disclosure while the other celebrated efforts by the House Oversight Committee investigating Epstein, thanks to a bipartisan subpoena vote in the committee’s subcommittee.
The third resolution proposed forming a subcommittee within the Judiciary Committee to review the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Rep. Barry Rudermilk (R-Ga.), who has been involved in this since the last assembly, introduced it.
The speaker had announced the formation of a new Judiciary Committee on January 22 of last year regarding January 6th, but due to a jurisdictional dispute within the committee, he has been working toward formalizing it for the past seven months.
The special rules from the Rules Committee led to the automatic adoption of all three resolutions. It was no shock when the House approved it with a vote of 212-208, although ten members didn’t cast their votes, and one Republican, Rep. Kevin Killy from California, participated.
So, what’s driving this secretive maneuver? The President has indicated to GOP leaders that he wants to curb the disclosure of the Epstein Files to prevent petitions from gaining traction. He has dismissed Epstein as a “Democrat hoax.”
A discharge motion was lodged on September 2 by Rep. Thomas Massey (R-Ky.). By the week’s end, 216 of the required 218 signatures had already been collected. The more distracting issues presented to members—especially those appealing to their bases—the more likely it is that current Republican signatories will be swayed from the petition. This stealth approach is a quick and somewhat messy tactic to accomplish that. However, it may already be too late, especially as two House Democrat vacancies will soon be filled following this month’s special election.
Don Wolfensberger has spent 28 years in Congressional service, having served as Chief of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He has authored works such as *Congress and the People: Deliberation Democracy on the Trials* (2000) and *Changing the Culture of Congress: From Fair Play to Power Play* (2018).
