Congress went out for their traditional August recess this week after hashing out a compromise bill to fund our federal government past the end of the fiscal year, which concludes on Sept. 30, 2012. The Leaders of both chambers indicated they will have their respective bodies pass the six-month extension when Congress reconvenes in September. What also happened in Congress before the recess began was a parliamentary maneuver by the Senate democrats to protect their presumed minority status beginning in 2013.

The parliamentary inquiry that highlighted the democrats fear that they will be placed in a minority status in 2013 was stated on the Senate floor, in the light of day, for all to hear. However, this pronouncement fell mostly on deaf ears. What happened was this.

Senator Conrad (R-ND) took to the Senate floor and propounded a parliamentary inquiry of the chair. These inquiries basically are the asking of a question of the parliamentarian through the Senator who is presiding over the Senate. The question was whether or not the Budget Control Act, which passed in August of 2011, created a new expedited process by which “a new Republican Congress could de-fund ObamaCare immediately” with a simple majority vote? The Chair’s response was to agree with Senator Conrad that the Budget Control Act does not create this new procedure. However, the real question is why was this question even asked in the first place.

The reason Senator Conrad gave for asking the question was stated in his parliamentary inquiry. The Senator believed that this fact might be true because the Budget Control act of 2011 referenced a piece of legislation from back in 1985 called the Deficit Control Act. The 1985 Deficit Control Act, among other things created an across-the-board sequester. However, more importantly, that same piece of legislation referenced in the Budget Control act of 2011 also created a procedure by which the Majority Leader or either House of Congress could introduce a joint resolution to modify or alter the sequestration order and this piece of legislation could not be filibustered, would be limited to 10 hours of debate and would pass with a simple majority vote.

The author of the 1985 legislation that was used to model the Budget Control Act last summer was former Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX). Senator Gramm just happened to write an OP-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal last Nov. 18, 2011 outlining this little known provision. The Senator’s opinion piece goes into detail about the provision in the 1985 bill and he concludes that because the Deficit Control Act of last summer used his bill to create the sequester process. then the other provisions of the 1985 act, including the fast track procedure to alter the sequester, must also be included in the Deficit Control Act of 2011.

If this opinion piece was written over 8 months ago, why the parliamentary inquiry on the Senate floor on Aug. 2, 2012? It is this writer’s opinion that the Senate democrats are fearing a similar “shellacking” to the one that occurred in November of 2010. This was the election cycle in which President Obama so aptly dubbed it a “shellacking” when he characterized the election results as it pertained to Congressional Democrats. If the Senate Democrats are in the minority in 2013, then they obviously would want to use all of the tools available to the minority party to block or filibuster legislation, thereby requiring 60 affirmative votes in the Senate to overcome any filibuster. If the provision outlined in the Gramm OP-ED piece were correct, then the Senate Democrats, if in the minority in 2013, would lose their ability to stop any repeal of ObamaCare.

The untimely parliamentary inquiry by the Chairman of the Budget committee while quiet in nature, spoke volumes to this former officer of the United States Senate. I think it is also safe to say that others found the question being asked a real head scratcher and at the very least, a curious one, especially as to the timing.