Perfect example of why the vote on motions to recommit really ought almost always to just be "no."

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA-06) is moving to recommit H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act, (with instructions to report back "forthwith," of course) and add an amendment that caps plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The cap, of course, is sold as being "reasonable." And on its face, with no serious debate or investigation, it certainly would appear that the cap -- $2,000/hr. -- is "reasonable."

But that's just it. We don't know whether this will mean that the $2,000/hr. cap applies no matter how many attorneys or firms are engaged on the case. We don't know anything about whether or not the cap really is reasonable given the size some of these cases can grow to, and the number of defendants and plaintiffs who can be involved.

The point of keeping people disciplined on motions to recommit is that you can't determine this sort of thing thoroughly -- at least not very often -- with just 10 minutes of debate, which is the time limitation on such motions.

And as Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ-01) observed, if there was a bill on the floor that would cap the amount Wall Street firms could use to defend themselves from SEC lawsuits to $2,000 per hour, the Republicans would be howling over the unfairness of it.

I don't think anyone's likely to be fooled by this in the House. But most Republican motions to recommit are designed to play to the people watching at home or reading their campaign literature. This will be framed not as the majority wisely declining to amend a bill on short notice in a way that nobody has thoroughly vetted, but as a "giveaway to trial lawyers."

Stupid, and a nuisance. But that's the reality of babysitting these jerks.

UPDATE: I should also add that this MTR was probably never in any serious danger of passing, and the ones that generally did end up passing in the 110th Congress were those which made changes to the bill that didn't really substantially effect the meat of the underlying bill. But I still maintain that consistent caucus discipline on motions to recommit tends to depress the minority's appetite for offering them in the first place. That may be less true now, in the age when these motions have become more about pulling political stunts than making substantive changes to legislation, but voting no on these motions is nonetheless a good habit to instill in members of the majority. That's because despite the fact that very few substantive changes to legislation were allowed to be made by such motions in the 110th Congress, that doesn't take into account the strong Democratic bills that never even got to the floor for fear that a Republican motion to recommit would split Democrats and end up gutting or substantially altering the bill, as was the case, for instance with the August 2007 FISA fight.