Parliamentarian Ruling Kills an Option for Moving Health Bill

[woolfe9999]

Some did convert, but many others like Jessie Helms and Robert KKK Byrd remained Democrats. Evidently as long as government discriminates against someone they're happy.

Jessie Helms became a republican in 1970. Oops.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

Jessie Helms became a republican in 1970. Oops.

- wolf

Oops indeed, my bad. I was thinking of Fritz Hollings, the Democrat who had the brass to criticize the Republican legislature for not removing the Confederate battle flag from above the South Carolina capital building - the Confederate battle flag that Hollings himself put up as governor. Old Jessie was Nawth Carolina.

How I can consistently confuse him with Helms, who is so far right he makes me look like Dennis Kucinich in drag, I can only attribute to a childhood brain injury or a persistent brain fart.

 

[Patranus]

LOL - Now word on the street is the Democrats are going to vote on a reconciliation package that includes language stating that the senate bill is passed and these provisions are amended.

Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Ryan: Dems Ramming "Shell" HC Bill Through Committee Monday

By Philip Klein on 3.11.10 @ 4:43PM

Rep. Paul Ryan says that Democrats are ready to ram a "shell" health care bill through the Budget Committee, on which he serves as ranking Republican member, to use as a vehicle to impose national health care.

In a phone interview with TAS Thursday afternoon, Ryan said that he expects Democrats to begin the complex process on Monday, under which they would have the Budget Committee approve a phantom bill by midnight, which they will then send over to the Rules Committee. At that point, the Rules Committee will strip out all of the language in the phantom bill, and insert the changes to the Senate bill that Democrats have negotiated.

"They don't have the votes right now, but they're creating the vehicle so that they can airdrop in whatever changes they want," Ryan said.

He said that Republicans are outnumbered 2-to-1 on his committee and don't have the votes to stop the bill there. Democrats will also be able to prevent Republicans from offering any amendments, but GOP members will be able to offer "motions to instruct" the Rules Committee, that Ryan said will be used highlight problems with the "unprecedented" step that Democrats are taking.

He said he expected Democrats to dust off last year's health care bills from the Education and Labor and Ways and Means Committees, to use as the vehicle for reconciliation changes.

Ryan said that the Senate parliamentarian's ruling that President Obama must sign a health care bill into law before the Senate can change it through reconciliation largely renders moot the attempt by Rep. Louise Slaughter to shield members from a direct vote on the Senate health care bill. He said the idea would also violate Obama's call for an up-or-down vote. "That's not an up-or-down vote, that's sweeping it under the rug and into law," Ryan said.

He also warned against focusing too much on the reconciliation process in the Senate. "Reconciliation is a distraction," he said. "Once the House passes the Senate bill we have the massive new entitlement."

Does anybody understand this "shell HC bill" ploy?

If so, please explain.

If this passes the House, wouldn't it also need to pass the Senate - as in would require 60 votes for cloture?

Or is this some ploy for the reconcilliation procedure, if so how?

What is Rep. Louise Slaughter plan, and how could it shield House members from a direct vote on the Senate version of HC reform?

TIA

Fern

 

[Patranus]

The House has to pass the Senate bill as-is and then it has to be signed by the president before the Democrats can consider reconciliation.

 

[werepossum]

Does anybody understand this "shell HC bill" ploy?

If so, please explain.

If this passes the House, wouldn't it also need to pass the Senate - as in would require 60 votes for cloture?

Or is this some ploy for the reconcilliation procedure, if so how?

What is Rep. Louise Slaughter plan, and how could it shield House members from a direct vote on the Senate version of HC reform?

TIA

Fern

I'm not sure I understand it, but I think Pelosi will vote on the Senate bill after making enough deals behind closed doors to get enough votes to pass it. She and Reid will then get together and implement all the changes required to actually get House approval. It may well include a public option. All these changes will be passed off as budget reconciliation, which will allow Reid to disallow the filibuster. The Senate Parliamentarian will formally object and be overruled by Biden. The House and Senate will then vote on the reconciled bill with a bare majority required. And then Obama will sign it into law.

Sometime after that we'll all get to see what is actually in the bill.

Forgot to add, the Slaughter ploy is that the House will not vote on the Senate bill, but rather will vote on a rule that says the Senate bill has passed the House. I have no idea how that is legal or ethical, or why voting on a rule to say it passed is somehow better politically than actually voting to pass the bill, but supposedly the Dems have enough votes to deem the bill as passed by not enough to actually pass it. But the idea is that, if the House can vote a rule to not allow the minority (or anyone but the Speaker) to offer amendments, it can also vote a rule to just deem the bill as passed, without a vote. In that case no conference or Senate revote would be required because the bills would be identical. The idea is that the House Dems will first author a second bill adding in all the goodies the Senate bill took out - public option, deleting taxes on union health care plans, hell, maybe National May Day - and the Senate Dems will promise to pass it.

 

[Fern]

LOL - Now word on the street is the Democrats are going to vote on a reconciliation package that includes language stating that the senate bill is passed and these provisions are amended.

-snip-

To what effect?

Is this the ploy/manuever mentioned above that would 'hide' the Dems vote?

Can they really pass one bill that says a different/previous bill passed and have that actualy work to pass that previous bill?

Didn't the Senate parlimentarian already rule against that? I.e., the senate can't vote on amendments to a bill unless delivered to and signed by the President. I.e., isn't the House required to submit the original senate bill to Obama, and he must sign it, before the Senate can take up this amending bill thingy?

If so, the net effect would appear to be that the House is approving the Senate bill (and Obama signing it into law) and then hoping the Senate will later pass (bugetary only) amendments under the reconcilliation process. I suppose the other effect is 'hiding' the House members vote in approving the Senate version. But if you are a House member voting for this amending bill thingy bill, isn't that a defacto for the Senate bill? if so, what's being hidden?

If the provisions mentioned as amending the Senate aren't just budget type provisions would the Senate parlimentarian rule that it doesn't qualify as a reconcilliation type bill and require their removal or require treating it as a regular bill thus requiring 60 votes?

This is getting pretty wierd.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
It may well include a public option. All these changes will be passed off as budget reconciliation, which will allow Reid to disallow the filibuster. The Senate Parliamentarian will formally object and be overruled by Biden. The House and Senate will then vote on the reconciled bill with a bare majority required. And then Obama will sign it into law.

Sometime after that we'll all get to see what is actually in the bill.

Haha. OK, they're going 'nuclear' and this fancy shenanigans isn't going to fool anybody. IMO the story will be summarized by saying Biden, and the Senate Dems, 'broke' their own rules.

I'd be surpised if Byrd doesn't speak out against this. And if this flies, well the Repubs can be expected use it when they get the majority. The cloture rule will be effectively dead.

Forgot to add, the Slaughter ploy is that the House will not vote on the Senate bill, but rather will vote on a rule that says the Senate bill has passed the House. I have no idea how that is legal or ethical, or why voting on a rule to say it passed is somehow better politically than actually voting to pass the bill, but supposedly the Dems have enough votes to deem the bill as passed by not enough to actually pass it. But the idea is that, if the House can vote a rule to not allow the minority (or anyone but the Speaker) to offer amendments, it can also vote a rule to just deem the bill as passed, without a vote. In that case no conference or Senate revote would be required because the bills would be identical. The idea is that the House Dems will first author a second bill adding in all the goodies the Senate bill took out - public option, deleting taxes on union health care plans, hell, maybe National May Day - and the Senate Dems will promise to pass it.

IMO (if I understand it) another transparent ploy. Your vote for this thing = vote for Senate bill. How they think they're hiding anything and getting away with it is stupid. Everyone can see right through this, including anybody campaigning against these clowns. Same for their voters at any Town hall meeting.

Strikes me self-delusional.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Haha. OK, they're going 'nuclear' and this fancy shenanigans isn't going to fool anybody. IMO the story will be summarized by saying Biden, and the Senate Dems, 'broke' their own rules.

I'd be surpised if Byrd doesn't speak out against this. And if this flies, well the Repubs can be expected use it when they get the majority. The cloture rule will be effectively dead.




IMO (if I understand it) another transparent ploy. Your vote for this thing = vote for Senate bill. How they think they're hiding anything and getting away with it is stupid. Everyone can see right through this, including anybody campaigning against these clowns. Same for their voters at any Town hall meeting.

Strikes me self-delusional.

Fern

For town hall meetings they'll just pack them with SEIU goons and show reporters what overwhelming support they have. I agree with you completely, but one possible advantage for all this is that they can kill the filibuster for Pubbies and then scream bloody murder when the Dems are again the minority and aren't allowed the filibuster. And that might well have some political value. I think the party line on the Slaughter ploy (if it comes to pass) will be that they couldn't vote FOR the Senate bill but had to somehow pass it so that they could get on with the business of "fixing health care". Won't work on the moderates but the far left will be happy as long as they can get their government teat in any bill. I just can't figure out how Reid can possibly pass the followup House bill "fixing" the Senate bill without totally abandoning any pretense of abiding by Senate rules. I'd say there's a good chance that the Democrat leadership plans to double cross the far left Representatives and just blame the Pubbies. He may also be betting that as the election grows near, some of his fellow Dems will realize they are not going to be re-elected and will support the far left fixes they would not support before, in hopes of future cabinet positions, ambassadorships, or other political or business largess.

 

[Patranus]

No no no, what they are going to do is vote on the "reconciliation" package with a statement that the house considers the health care bill passed even though it will have never voted on it and that the rules clearly state that no reconciliation vote can take place until the bill is actually law.


It is nothing more than an attempt to subvert the constitution.

 

[Fern]

No no no, what they are going to do is vote on the "reconciliation" package with a statement that the house considers the health care bill passed even though it will have never voted on it and that the rules clearly state that no reconciliation vote can take place until the bill is actually law.


It is nothing more than an attempt to subvert the constitution.

The Parlimentarian's ruling that "clearly state that no reconciliation vote can take place until the bill is actually law" is for the Senate. IDK if the house has something similar, to my knowlege the House rules haven't been under discusion.

Whatever the House wants to vote for in their 'premature' reconcillaition bill must still pass senate muster - both rules and votes unless Biden goes 'rogue' and over-rules the Senate Parlimentarian.

No matter, this is still rather stupid. The House vote for this is equivilent to voting for the Senate version, something those members tried to avoid doing. The ploy will not be successsful at hiding their votes IMO.

Secondly, the House is reluctant to pass the Senate version because they can't be sure the Senate will pass the amendments the House wants - the so-called 'Trust Issue'. This does nothing to get around that. After passing this the House still can't be sure of what the Senate will eventually pass. If the two can't agree on the reconcilliation part, we'll be stuck with the Senate version as law - something the House doesn't want and is afraid of.

If they'd put as much work and thought into the HC bill as this junk we might have had a decent HC reform bill. (Nah, not really)

Fern

 

[Patranus]

No matter, this is still rather stupid. The House vote for this is equivilent to voting for the Senate version, something those members tried to avoid doing. The ploy will not be successsful at hiding their votes IMO.

Incorrect. The current plan 'assumes' the House voted without actually voting on the legislation.

Like I said, totally unconstitutional.

 

[werepossum]

No no no, what they are going to do is vote on the "reconciliation" package with a statement that the house considers the health care bill passed even though it will have never voted on it and that the rules clearly state that no reconciliation vote can take place until the bill is actually law.


It is nothing more than an attempt to subvert the constitution.

Reconciliation is reconciling differences in conference between House and Senate bills. When the House and Senate pass similar but different bills, they go to a conference committee to be reconciled. There managers from the House and Senate (both parties, but disproportionally the controlling party) argue the relative merits of their own chamber's bills and horse trade until they can agree on one unified bill. This unified bill is then re-voted in both chambers, usually with reduced or even no debate since the essence has presumably already been debated.

After it is signed into law you cannot reconcile or amend it or change it in any way without passing another law. You may be thinking about the ruling that you cannot pass a bill amending another bill; each bill must stand on its own. You must instead wait until that bill is signed into law. That came about IIRC when the Dems wanted to pass a House bill amending the Senate bill and send both to the reconciliation conference, with one unified bill emerging.

 

[spidey07]

Incorrect. The current plan 'assumes' the House voted without actually voting on the legislation.

Like I said, totally unconstitutional.

Totally unconstitutional. Agreed. If they go this route it isn't actually law and we can all ignore it. I heard article 1, section 7 mentioned on why.

The house HAS to pass the bill with a vote. The reason they're trying to go this way is they don't have the votes.

 

[Fern]

Incorrect. The current plan 'assumes' the House voted without actually voting on the legislation.

Like I said, totally unconstitutional.

I don't understand what you're saying.

If the House votes on any reconcilliation measure, whether it's the bugetary reconcilliation process or the Joint Committe process, I don't see how they've accomplished anything other than a statement of their desired amendments to non-existing HC reform law.

Fern

 

[OrByte]

So the beginning of this thread...people thought the Bill was dead.

Now the Bill could pass...by burning the Constitution!

/popcorn

 

[werepossum]

I don't understand what you're saying.

If the House votes on any reconcilliation measure, whether it's the bugetary reconcilliation process or the Joint Committe process, I don't see how they've accomplished anything other than a statement of their desired amendments to non-existing HC reform law.

Fern

The Slaughter ploy would have the House Democrats voting for a rule that deems the bill as having passed the House; the bills being exactly the same, the Senate bill could then be sent to the President to be signed into law without any need for reconciliation. I have no idea if that is legal or not, but as bills sometimes pass without recorded votes (unanimous consent) then I suspect it might possibly be legal. Maybe Wolf would know. I just don't see why any Democrat who supposedly cannot vote for the Senate bill could vote for a rule stating that the bill has been passed. If I were a Democrat Representative (Heaven forbid!) and I wanted to make sure that abortions were not federally funded or that sex changes were federally funded, I'd want a promise to hold the Senate bill until the bill "fixing" it was also passed.

 

[Craig234]

LOL - Now word on the street is the Democrats are going to vote on a reconciliation package that includes language stating that the senate bill is passed and these provisions are amended.

Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!

The reason the Democrats are doing this is because if they pass the Senate bill, which has unpoplar provisions in they plan to remove, and then immediately pass the reconciliation bill that removes unpopular provisions, they know the Republicans will campaign against them with misleading ads that 'they voted in favor of those provisions!'

Even though the reall reason they have to in the first place is Republicans' fault, filibustering instead of just voting no, and the House never voted in favor of those provisions except for a quick procedural need where it was agreed they'd be removed. By making it one vote, they can blunt the misleading attack.

 

[werepossum]

The reason the Democrats are doing this is because if they pass the Senate bill, which has unpoplar provisions in they plan to remove, and then immediately pass the reconciliation bill that removes unpopular provisions, they know the Republicans will campaign against them with misleading ads that 'they voted in favor of those provisions!'

Even though the reall reason they have to in the first place is Republicans' fault, filibustering instead of just voting no, and the House never voted in favor of those provisions except for a quick procedural need where it was agreed they'd be removed. By making it one vote, they can blunt the misleading attack.

Thus is demonstrated those who are dishonest enough, or just plain stupid enough, to be taken in by the Slaughter ploy. "How dare those evil Republicans misleadingly suggest I voted for that bill? Why, I merely voted to note that it had passed!" And here I thought people were smarter than sheep! Silly me.

Frankly I don't see why the Democrats don't just declare that it has already passed, round up and intern all Republicans, and invade France. They would still enjoy the same amount of support.

 

[Danube]

With Virginia and other states pre-emptively passing laws exempting residents from health-care penalties, it's quite irrational to try to avoid a public vote on an unpopular bill by passing a sidecar of amendments that includes a rule holding that a bill unvoted on directly (as Constitution requires) shall be considered (poof) as passed. This is about the most retarded thing I have ever seen. The Crips and Bloods at least show colors openly and they seem more honest than the manics trying to establish one party rule (which is clearly what they think they can get with all this mafia arm twisting stuff).

 

[Patranus]

The reason the Democrats are doing this is because if they pass the Senate bill, which has unpoplar provisions in they plan to remove, and then immediately pass the reconciliation bill that removes unpopular provisions, they know the Republicans will campaign against them with misleading ads that 'they voted in favor of those provisions!'

Even though the reall reason they have to in the first place is Republicans' fault, filibustering instead of just voting no, and the House never voted in favor of those provisions except for a quick procedural need where it was agreed they'd be removed. By making it one vote, they can blunt the misleading attack.

Constitution?
We don't need no stinking Constitution!

Maybe next Obama can threaten to stack the courts unless the judicial branch mandates health care.

 

[Zebo]

If Pubs were smart they'd come out and say we're gonna point of order this POS to death giving house blue dogs a good excuse not to reconcile. W point of orders Senate cant change a damn thing thus house is let known nothing will be changed. This is the ole my wife/husband said I couldn't buy it excuse.

 

[Fern]

If Pubs were smart they'd come out and say we're gonna point of order this POS to death giving house blue dogs a good excuse not to reconcile. W point of orders Senate cant change a damn thing thus house is let known nothing will be changed. This is the ole my wife/husband said I couldn't buy it excuse.

I don't claim to know the House rules well etc.

But I have heard several times from different commentators/analyists on different cable news show that under the House rules, the minority (Repubs) can't do squat (to slow things up etc.).

It's all up to the Senate.

Fern