Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling's Financial CHOICE Act turned out to be pretty anti-climactic.

First, it went to the House floor on the same day that Former FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee – a development that consumed a huge amount of attention.

Then, during a committee hearing, Senate Banking Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Id.) listed the steps policymakers were taking toward a Dodd-Frank overhaul.

And he didn't mention Hensarling's bill, although after the House passed it, he called it a “significant and thoughtful effort to improve our financial regulatory system.”

Then there was the debate on the House floor. It was a fixed fight.

Sure, it featured the usual partisan bickering. To House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the bill “makes both Washington and Wall Street accountable.” To Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), the bill was a “real stinker.”

But debate on the floor did not feature fights over Democratic amendments that would have altered the massive legislation.

At one point, Hensarling asked Democrats where their amendments or bills were.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) replied, “Where's our bill? That would be Dodd-Frank.”

But that exchange masked a more serious issue for the minority party.

Chances are that Democrats would have been precluded from offering many – if any – amendments on the floor.

Rules for floor debate in the House are set by the Rules Committee, which, like all other committees is controlled by the majority party, in this case, the Republicans.

For the most contentious legislation, the committee sets the rules for debate. Generally, there are three types of rules. An open rule allows all members to offer germane amendments. A closed rule prohibits all amendments. And a structured rule allows the Rules Committee to establish which amendments may be offered.

The latter two pretty much fix any floor fight over legislation. And most fights are fixed.

On June 2, the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank that is, well, bipartisan, reported that so far, no legislation this year has gone to the floor with open rules. Closed rules accounted for 62.5% of all rules.

The rest of the rules, the remaining 37.5%, went to the floor as structured rules.

The Financial CHOICE Act went to the floor with a structured rule, meaning the Rules Committee designated which amendments could be offered.

And so, the referee for legislative fights fixed this fight.

Democrats initially asked the Rules Committee to offer several amendments that would have changed several sections of the legislation, but later withdrew them.

Rules Committee member Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said on the floor that if the rule was defeated on a procedural vote, she would offer an amendment to the bill that would require presidents and major party presidential candidates to release their income tax returns.

Of course, that went nowhere.

Now, open and structured rules have their supporters and detractors. Supporters say they make the trains run on time – the House can consider legislation on a timely basis.

Of course, it also allows the majority party to avoid voting on contentious issues – such as whether a president should be required to release their income tax returns.

Detractors argue that closed or structured rules are bad for democracy. And of course, they keep the minority party from offering mischievous amendments like ones requiring a president to release his or her income tax returns.

And lo and behold, support or opposition to those rules depend on who's controlling the majority.

Republicans like closed or structured rules when they're in the majority but hate them when they're not. Democrats hate closed rules when they're in the minority.

And so, as with all things in Washington, where you stand depends on where you sit.

A Worthwhile Read

When you think of summer/beach reading, political books usually don't top the list.

But Sen. Al Franken's new book, “Al Franken, Giant of the Senate” should be the exception. It's a laugh-filled chronicle of Franken's journey from “Saturday Night Live” to the Senate.

And Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, tackles a topic that has been painfully obvious to many Capitol Hill journalists. To many of us, Franken has been a dour, smile-less senator who refuses to talk with any of us.

As it turns out, that was a difficult, concerted decision on Franken's part in his battle to be considered a serious legislator. In the book, he discusses his battle to stay serious and dour, while everyone expected him to be a clown.

Not all entertainer-legislators have taken that route.

Remember Fred Grandy? He's best known as Gopher on “The Love Boat.”

A Republican, Grandy also represented an Iowa district in the House in the late 80s to early 90s. While some of Franken's humor on “Saturday Night Live” and in his previous books could be considered cerebral, Grandy was a lightweight on “The Love Boat.”

When he got to the House, rather than taking the dour route, Grandy was cheerful and accessible.

In one urban legend, an intern found Grandy on an elevator and said, “Lido deck, please.”

Supposedly Grandy got the intern fired.

I asked Grandy about the story. It never happened, he said, adding that such a request would have made him laugh.

David Baumann is a Correspondent-at-Large for CU Times. He can be reached at [email protected].