Merged Slaughter the House Bill / Pass without voting

[JoeTheJuggler]

They don't know it will be changed. The Senate bill will already be law. That's the bill that 60 senators liked well enough to vote for. They are under no obligation even to consider the House's fixes. Their bill would already be law.

I'd be willing to bet money that the bill won't be signed into law until the "fixes" have passed.

Again, it's an ugly business, but I suspect there is an agreement among Obama, House and Senate Democrats on this. You're right, the Senate could ignore this agreement, but then next time such an agreement is needed, no one will trust them. Senators know this, and aren't likely to stiff their co-partisans in the House.

 

[Just thinking]

They don't know it will be changed. The Senate bill will already be law. That's the bill that 60 senators liked well enough to vote for. They are under no obligation even to consider the House's fixes. Their bill would already be law.

Exactly. Why in Heaven's name would any Senator that voted for a bill they liked (which is now law) want to now vote for amendments that basically change it in ways they may not agree with?

 

[Thunder]

They don't know it will be changed.

if the Senate went and chose to actually NOT change the bill, after all of this, the Democratic party would face a mutiny. I would support the House Democrats shutting down all Congressional functions until the Senate approves the agreed upon changes...if Reid decided to be a dick at the last second.

but this would not happen. The Democratic leadership, the members of Congress, the President, would not allow this to happen. It would be literal suicide for the Democratic party.

 

[Freddy]

if the Senate went and chose to actually NOT change the bill, after all of this, the Democratic party would face a mutiny. I would support the House Democrats shutting down all Congressional functions until the Senate approves the agreed upon changes...if Reid decided to be a dick at the last second.

but this would not happen. The Democratic leadership, the members of Congress, the President, would not allow this to happen. It would be literal suicide for the Democratic party.

Senate Republicans can run out the clock on the Reconciliation bill by proposing endless amendments. There is no procedural tool for cutting off new amendments, as long as they are pertinent to the content of the bill. If it would cause a mutiny in the Democratic Party, then you can bet they'll do exactly that. It wouldn't be the same as a filibuster, because the Senate bill would already be law. They don't need any number of votes to do it. One Senator could do it. I bet it'll be Bunning. He's a lame duck anyway, and he's shown a willingness to do stuff like that.

 

[Just thinking]

I'd be willing to bet money that the bill won't be signed into law until the "fixes" have passed.

Cute ... fixes for what? Something that yet doesn't exist? --- but at best is only expected to exist at no given time in the future?

 

[Freddy]

I'd be willing to bet money that the bill won't be signed into law until the "fixes" have passed.

Again, it's an ugly business, but I suspect there is an agreement among Obama, House and Senate Democrats on this. You're right, the Senate could ignore this agreement, but then next time such an agreement is needed, no one will trust them. Senators know this, and aren't likely to stiff their co-partisans in the House.

Reconciliation cannot proceed until the bill to be fixed is law. The Senate Parliamentarian has indicated that Obama must sign the bill before reconciliation can proceed, and although he hasn't put that in writing yet, I don't see how it can be avoided. A bill is not law until the President has signed it.

 

[Freddy]

Actually, they will deem the bill WITH the amendment to pass. not just the amendment. Afterall, that would be extremely logically stupid. I'm not saying congressmen aren't known to do inherently stupid things, but this one doesn't seem to be one of them.

Not quite. They will pass the fixes, and deem the underlying bill to have passed by implication. But, and it's a big but, the amendment to the Senate bill passes the House only. The Senate Bill will have passed both Houses in the same exact form, and the President can then sign the bill. If the Senate is going to use reconciliation, then Obama must sign the bill before the Senate can even consider the House's "fixes" to the bill. They have to use reconciliation because they can't break a filibuster.

So the bill has to be signed before the Senate considers the fixes. The only thing guaranteed to become law is the underlying bill. The Senate will be under no obligation to pass the fixes. Thus the only difference between the Slaughter solution, and passing the Senate bill outright followed by a separate fixing bill, is that House members can say that they only voted that the Senate bill pass by implication, rather than voting for the bill. Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me, and they'll take a beating for the shady appearance of the move. Sounds like abject stupidity to try such a thing, if you ask me. The upside is that you get to look like a coward and a weasel in addition to possibly getting a bill you hate, instead of just possibly getting a bill you hate.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So the bill has to be signed before the Senate considers the fixes. The only thing guaranteed to become law is the underlying bill. The Senate will be under no obligation to pass the fixes. Thus the only difference between the Slaughter solution, and passing the Senate bill outright followed by a separate fixing bill, is that House members can say that they only voted that the Senate bill pass by implication, rather than voting for the bill. Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me, and they'll take a beating for the shady appearance of the move. Sounds like abject stupidity to try such a thing, if you ask me. The upside is that you get to look like a coward and a weasel in addition to possibly getting a bill you hate, instead of just possibly getting a bill you hate.

So you don't think there's an agreement in place among Senate and House Dems?

Again, I agree the Senate doesn't have to consider the House's amendments, but I think they will. I think they agreed to do so in order to get the votes in the House to pass the Senate bill.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Cute ... fixes for what? Something that yet doesn't exist? --- but at best is only expected to exist at no given time in the future?

"Fixes" is the term Freddy has been using to refer to the amendments House Democrats want to make to the Senate bill to make it acceptable. That is, they want to "fix" what they consider to be the worst flaws in the House bill.

Here is what the "fixed" bill would look like:

http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF

I'm not sure specifically what the amendments are. I haven't read through this yet. I'll probably read a summary or just wait and see.

 

[Freddy]

"Fixes" is the term Freddy has been using to refer to the amendments House Democrats want to make to the Senate bill to make it acceptable. That is, they want to "fix" what they consider to be the worst flaws in the House bill.

Here is what the "fixed" bill would look like:

http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF

I'm not sure specifically what the amendments are. I haven't read through this yet. I'll probably read a summary or just wait and see.

Right, and I did not intend that as a pejorative.

I expect that they do have an agreement. I also suspect that if House Dems trusted that agreement, we would have a signed bill right now. If they don't trust it now, what changes in the next week? Also, Senate Republicans can ruin it even if the Senate Democrats do intend to abide by their agreement with the House Democrats.

 

[joobz]

Not quite. They will pass the fixes, and deem the underlying bill to have passed by implication. But, and it's a big but, the amendment to the Senate bill passes the House only. The Senate Bill will have passed both Houses in the same exact form, and the President can then sign the bill. If the Senate is going to use reconciliation, then Obama must sign the bill before the Senate can even consider the House's "fixes" to the bill. They have to use reconciliation because they can't break a filibuster.

So the bill has to be signed before the Senate considers the fixes. The only thing guaranteed to become law is the underlying bill. The Senate will be under no obligation to pass the fixes. Thus the only difference between the Slaughter solution, and passing the Senate bill outright followed by a separate fixing bill, is that House members can say that they only voted that the Senate bill pass by implication, rather than voting for the bill. Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me, and they'll take a beating for the shady appearance of the move. Sounds like abject stupidity to try such a thing, if you ask me. The upside is that you get to look like a coward and a weasel in addition to possibly getting a bill you hate, instead of just possibly getting a bill you hate.

Well, then that's a big bowl of stupid.

Can I ask why then they are so afraid of a fillabuster? What's the big problem with letting a guy pass out on from exhaustion?

 

[hgc]

Just be honest and admit that you think Health Care Reform is so necessary that any means are justified to get it passed.

I'll be the judge of whether I'm being honest, thank you very much.

These are not extraordinary means. This is completely within the House rules, and were used by Republican-controlled Congresses of late many, many times. I don't think you heard me complain then (about the use of this device -- of course I complained about what they were passing).

Health Care Reform is very important. Worth using every legal and honest means to pass.

 

[Thunder]

if the "vote without voting" is the ONLY way this can happen, then I would have to get all the details of the final plan before I would support such a tactic.

but, if i do like the plan, and this is the only way to pass it, than sure...do what you need to do. its not me running for office in November.

 

[Freddy]

Well, then that's a big bowl of stupid.

Can I ask why then they are so afraid of a fillabuster? What's the big problem with letting a guy pass out on from exhaustion?

I don't understand why they don't make them actually filibuster. The Republicans threaten to filibuster, and the Dems just say, "well, I guess we better just give up. We don't have the votes for cloture."

Sure, in theory a filibuster can last forever. But at least make them do it for a week and prove they're really serious. I felt the same way with the Dems threatening to filibuster judicial nominees when they were the minority.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't understand why they don't make them actually filibuster. The Republicans threaten to filibuster, and the Dems just say, "well, I guess we better just give up. We don't have the votes for cloture."

Sure, in theory a filibuster can last forever. But at least make them do it for a week and prove they're really serious. I felt the same way with the Dems threatening to filibuster judicial nominees when they were the minority.

Because it only takes one Senator to invoke cloture, and therefore, the filibuster rule can be used to delay a bill indefinitely. If you force actual filibusters, no other work would get done. The rule could be used to grind the Senate to a halt (and in fact we're seeing record cloture votes on just about everything from the GOP). That's why you haven't seen one in so long.

On the substance of the tactic, does the fact that both parties have used it countless times in recent history on big bills not mean anything?

Just because we never heard about it before doesn't mean it's unusual. It's just more GOP stalling, lying, and scaremongering. This is no more rare than reconciliation, and the GOP demagogued that too.

It's all they have.

ETA: A discussion from last year on the rules:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Right, and I did not intend that as a pejorative.

As I thought. I'm not sure what Just thinking was just thinking. . . .

I expect that they do have an agreement. I also suspect that if House Dems trusted that agreement, we would have a signed bill right now. If they don't trust it now, what changes in the next week?

I don't think that's what's holding things up at the moment. I think the issue is that House Dems on the fence about this aren't a monolithic group. You've got Blue Dogs on one side, and you've got liberals on the other. I suspect, sadly, that one of the biggest hanging points right now is the abortion language--which ought not be in there at all.

Also, Senate Republicans can ruin it even if the Senate Democrats do intend to abide by their agreement with the House Democrats.

I don't think they can stop it--though I agree they'll try with whatever means they have. As I said above, they can try passing a rule that the bill must be read out loud before a vote, or that it must be published on-line for some number of days before a vote. (I doubt they'll succeed since the Democrats still enjoy a huge majority.)

They may even try to cause public outcry and spread misinformation that this rule involves passing a bill without a vote, or is somehow unconstitutional or unprecedented or otherwise devious or shady. They might try to claim the bill will result in 1/3 fewer MDs or forced euthanization of grandma. (I can only hope no members of the Senate are saying these things!)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

On the substance of the tactic, does the fact that both parties have used it countless times in recent history on big bills not mean anything?

Well let's not exaggerate! It's only been used a countable number of times. (See post number 45 of this thread.)

Just because we never heard about it before doesn't mean it's unusual. It's just more GOP stalling, lying, and scaremongering. This is no more rare than reconciliation, and the GOP demagogued that too.

Amen.

I think it's also an effect of this being the most scrutiny the legislative process has received in the news media in a long time. I'll say it again, these Tea Baggers claiming this rule is unconstitutional--where were they when it was used 30-some times during the most recent Rebublican-controlled Congress?

 

[Unabogie]

Well let's not exaggerate! It's only been used a countable number of times. (See post number 45 of this thread.)






Amen.

I think it's also an effect of this being the most scrutiny the legislative process has received in the news media in a long time. I'll say it again, these Tea Baggers claiming this rule is unconstitutional--where were they when it was used 30-some times during the most recent Rebublican-controlled Congress?

Here's my take on it. When I first heard about this, I also thought it sounded unusual. If it turned out that it really was a rare or unprecedented tactic, then Pelosi was running a huge risk and would rightly be considered to be cheating in some sense.

Then, we all learned more. It turns out that both parties have used this rule, and they both did so recently. Therefore, this is simply a scaremongering tactic, and a group of self-proclaimed "skeptics" should have understood as much. Anyone who at this point won't concede that this is faux-rage designed to win a PR battle is being disingenuous or, worse, gullible.

 

[Unabogie]

http://blog.american.com/?p=11467

Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can’t recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

In the last Congress that Republicans controlled, from 2005 to 2006, Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier used the self-executing rule more than 35 times, and was no stranger to the concept of “deem and pass.” That strategy, then decried by the House Democrats who are now using it, and now being called unconstitutional by WSJ editorialists, was defended by House Republicans in court (and upheld).

Dreier used it for a $40 billion deficit reduction package so that his fellow GOPers could avoid an embarrassing vote on immigration. I don’t like self-executing rules by either party—I prefer the “regular order”—so I am not going to say this is a great idea by the Democrats. But even so—is there no shame anymore?

 

[Freddy]

Because it only takes one Senator to invoke cloture, and therefore, the filibuster rule can be used to delay a bill indefinitely. If you force actual filibusters, no other work would get done. The rule could be used to grind the Senate to a halt (and in fact we're seeing record cloture votes on just about everything from the GOP). That's why you haven't seen one in so long.

On the substance of the tactic, does the fact that both parties have used it countless times in recent history on big bills not mean anything?

Just because we never heard about it before doesn't mean it's unusual. It's just more GOP stalling, lying, and scaremongering. This is no more rare than reconciliation, and the GOP demagogued that too.

It's all they have.

ETA: A discussion from last year on the rules:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

There is a practical difference, though, between doing something when no one is paying attention and doing it when everyone is watching. Not an ethical difference, but still it is much stupider to do something that looks shady when everyone is watching than it is to do the same shady thing when no one is paying attention.

And that's assuming that there's no substantive difference between using deeming to pass an amendment raising the debt ceiling and using it to pass a trillion dollar entitlement program without a single vote from the other party. Just because the process is the same in both cases does not make it equally appropriate for either purpose.

Responding that your critics are hypocrites, while always true in politics, will not be of much help. It just makes it look like you're deflecting attention from the stunt everyone just saw you pull.