Merged Slaughter the House Bill / Pass without voting

[joobz]

That's just it, they won't be voting for it. It will simply be "deemed" to have passed. It will become law without ever having been voted on by the House of Representatives.

For anything to become law, it must be passed by both houses of Congress with identical text and signed by the President (or pass with 2/3 majorities in both houses). They don't have the votes to do that.

What they will be voting on is an amendment to a law, a law that was never passed. After that amendment passes, they will "deem" the law to have passed without ever voting on it.

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.

 

[Meadmaker]

That's just it, they won't be voting for it. It will simply be "deemed" to have passed. It will become law without ever having been voted on by the House of Representatives.

For anything to become law, it must be passed by both houses of Congress with identical text and signed by the President (or pass with 2/3 majorities in both houses). They don't have the votes to do that.

What they will be voting on is an amendment to a law, a law that was never passed. After that amendment passes, they will "deem" the law to have passed without ever voting on it.

I haven't followed the minutae of exactly how this is going to be voted on, but I'm extraordinarily confident that those nine people in black robes down the block won't let such a thing get by. I'm confident that if the Congress declares that it's passed without actually voting to pass it, the Supremes will be just as good as the legal eagles on this forum in noting the omission, and demanding that Congress play by the book.

 

[Freddy]

Be honest about this... Pelosi is not the one trying to avoid accountability. She's trying to enable her centrist and Blue Dog colleagues to avoid accountability.

Oh, I agree with that. That is what I meant, and I never meant to suggest otherwise. But she explicitly said that she likes this because it allows House Democrats to avoid taking a recorded vote on the Senate bill. Obviously, that only benefits members who represent districts in which the bill is very unpopular. Of course, liberals don't like the Senate bill either.

 

[Freddy]

See Joobz' fine explication of this point on the other thread on this topic (which I suspect will be merged shortly):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5724668#post5724668

There's nothing wrong with it. It does protect members of the House from attack ads claiming they voted for something when they voted for something knowing it would be changed to what they actually intended to support. Basically, it combines the vote for the changes, and the vote on the existing bill.

It's no more "devious" than the application of other existing rules (such at the Senate filibuster).

Except they don't know it will be changed. The Bill will be signed into law before the Senate takes up any of the House's fixes. And they don't have to take up the fixes at all. House Democrats have absolutely no guarantee that any of their fixes will be incorporated. In fact, if they want to Senate Republicans can kill the fix, even in reconciliation. The Republicans can propose an unlimited number of amendments, as long as they are pertinent. They could run out the clock on the fixes, and the Senate bill, as is, would be law.

Also, the Senate bill got 60 votes in the Senate, and the Senate didn't like the House's ideas any more than the House liked the Senate's ideas. Senate Democrats might not be too keen on the House's fixes.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, there will be a vote. Saying a bill will pass the House without a vote is absurd.

And again, this is not a new rule or even one that's particularly rarely invoked or one that's never been invoked for large or important bills. NPR quotes a guy from the Brookings Institution on this point:

But despite Republican claims that such parliamentary gymnastics as reconciliation and self-executing rules are somehow in violation of House rules or rare, neither is the case, says Congressional scholar Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution.

"On the self-executing rule, Republicans in their last Congress that they controlled, the 109th, used it 36 times; the Democrats, in the next congress they controlled, used it 49 times," Mann said.

And in many cases, Mann says, they were on some pretty major bills. "The reauthorization of the Patriot Act, the Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the Deficit Control Conference Report; all kinds of major measures have been approved through self-executing rules, which means the House votes indirectly rather than separately on these measures."

 

[Just thinking]

Let me please put all this into a very clear manner ...

THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES!

 

[Freddy]

Not really. It means the procedural vote would deem the bill to have been passed. There will be a vote.

FWIW, I just heard the figures for how often this procedure has been used. I can't quote you the exact figures, but it was 30-something times in the most recent Republican-controlled Congress and 40-something times in the previous Democrat-controlled Congress. And it has been used for large, substantive legislation in the past. It's not a new rule.

I find it absurd that the Tea Party people who are claiming this is a violation of the Constitution (it's not) have no problem with the filibuster which is the reason this process has been so difficult. I remember during the most recent Republican-controlled Congress, I used to hear them frequently wishing their bills could be granted a simple up or down vote. Remember, if the health care bill only got that, it would have already been passed.

It is used all the time to put amendments in bills without voting on them. They usually have bipartisan support, but no one wants to go on record raising the debt ceiling. I don't know of a single time it has been used to pass a final bill, much less a party-line trillion dollar one.

And the fact that it is done often says nothing of whether it is constitutional. The Courts will only consider whether to consider the Constitutionality of something like this if it is challenged by someone with standing. Even if they agreed to consider whether to consider it, they might decide not to consider it because of separation of powers.

 

[Freddy]

Actually, thinking about it, I can see the logic.
(Please someone correct me if I am wrong).

Let's say the senate Bill #Joobz-7 is a bill to establish Joobz Day, but contains a rider that says all men must get punched in the sack on that day.

The house would first need to vote on that bill in order to attach any changes. let's say they like the idea of Joobz day, but oppose the rider. So they make a vote and either reject the bill or accept the bill. after that they make a motion to remove the sack punch rider and then vote to pass the revised bill.

Now, on the record each person has voted on the interim bill that contained the sack punch. Which means later attack ads can say:
Congressman X voted to punch you in the crotch!
or
Congressman Y hates Joobz so much that they voted against Joobz day.

Instead, they simply have a record of the actual vote that they actually wanted to make and not some procedural intermediate that contains elements that creates negative campaign fodder.

Actually, the way that would normally be done is in conference committee.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Except they don't know it will be changed. The Bill will be signed into law before the Senate takes up any of the House's fixes. And they don't have to take up the fixes at all. House Democrats have absolutely no guarantee that any of their fixes will be incorporated. In fact, if they want to Senate Republicans can kill the fix, even in reconciliation. The Republicans can propose an unlimited number of amendments, as long as they are pertinent. They could run out the clock on the fixes, and the Senate bill, as is, would be law.

Also, the Senate bill got 60 votes in the Senate, and the Senate didn't like the House's ideas any more than the House liked the Senate's ideas. Senate Democrats might not be too keen on the House's fixes.

In other words, what you're saying is the "deeming" rule (or the "self executing rule") is indistinguishable from the House voting to pass the Senate bill and then passing a series of amendments to the bill in a separate vote? (That is, the Senate bill would pass into law as is, and then the Senate would consider what to do--if anything--about the House amendments.)

Aside from the point Joobz made--that individual House members could say they didn't really vote for the Senate bill to pass as is.

At any rate, the point you're addressing is more about trust between the House and the Congress on the reconciliation issue. I think there is an agreement or understanding in place for Senate Dems to pass the "fixes" (by reconciliation) in exchange for the House's passing the bill.

 

[Freddy]

See Joobz' fine explication of this point on the other thread on this topic (which I suspect will be merged shortly):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5724668#post5724668

There's nothing wrong with it. It does protect members of the House from attack ads claiming they voted for something when they voted for something knowing it would be changed to what they actually intended to support. Basically, it combines the vote for the changes, and the vote on the existing bill.

It's no more "devious" than the application of other existing rules (such at the Senate filibuster).

It won't protect them. "I voted for the fixes, not the bill" isn't going to fly when the only thing that is sure to become law is the bill you didn't want to vote for. The Senate is under no obligation to even consider the fixes, and all the House members know that.

 

[Just thinking]

It won't protect them. "I voted for the fixes, not the bill" isn't going to fly when the only thing that is sure to become law is the bill you didn't want to vote for. The Senate is under no obligation to even consider the fixes, and all the House members know that.

Which is why no one with two working brain cells is going to believe any congressman when they claim "I voted for the bill before I voted against it." It didn't work well with Kerry then, it will work even less now.

 

[Freddy]

In other words, what you're saying is the "deeming" rule (or the "self executing rule") is indistinguishable from the House voting to pass the Senate bill and then passing a series of amendments to the bill in a separate vote? (That is, the Senate bill would pass into law as is, and then the Senate would consider what to do--if anything--about the House amendments.)

Aside from the point Joobz made--that individual House members could say they didn't really vote for the Senate bill to pass as is.

At any rate, the point you're addressing is more about trust between the House and the Congress on the reconciliation issue. I think there is an agreement or understanding in place for Senate Dems to pass the "fixes" (by reconciliation) in exchange for the House's passing the bill.

Indeed, it is indistinguishable except that they can say they didn't vote for the Senate bill. But it won't be difficult or even dishonest to argue that they are using weasel words and making a distinction without a difference. They are casting a vote that ensures the Senate bill becomes law, and then hoping that changes will be made to it. Well, you can hope in one hand and crap in the other, and see which one fills up first. The Senate does not have to change it, and the House has absolutely no recourse if they don't. What is the word of a bunch of politicians worth?

Remember also that Senate Republicans can prevent any of the fixes from getting in, even in reconciliation. That's if Senate Democrats even want to change the bill in the first place. The Senate bill got 60 votes in the Senate, and the Senate didn't like the House's ideas the first time around. The Republicans can simply propose amendment after amendment until the session is over, and the Senate bill, unchanged, will be the final law. The Republicans would only have to hold out until the electoral bloodbath that's coming this November. Every pertinent amendment that is proposed must be voted on, and there is no procedural tool for Reid to cut off new amendments.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Let me please put all this into a very clear manner ...

THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES!

Who doesn't have enough votes for what?

In case you missed it, both the House and the Senate have each passed their own versions of healthcare reform bills. The Senate overcame a filibuster to pass theirs. The two bills are something like 80% the same.

While the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate, they still enjoy a huge majority in both chambers. They certainly have the votes to pass a bill--the question is what exact procedure they use to do it. Remember, the filibuster is just a procedural rule, and a simple majority could do away with it (the so-called "nuclear option"). They can also pass the Senate version in the House and then use a reconciliation vote to approve bits of the House bill in the Senate (using a simple majority). Or they could use the self-executing rule in the House in combination with a reconciliation vote in the Senate.

So again, the Dems have enough votes to pass a bill--they have a huge majority in Congress. It's just a question of what procedure they will use.

So, whether you like it or not, a large health insurance reform bill is almost certain to pass into law in the next week or so.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They are casting a vote that ensures the Senate bill becomes law, and then hoping that changes will be made to it. The Senate does not have to change it, and the House has absolutely no recourse if they don't.

And again, that goes to the issue of trust between the House and the Senate. I'm pretty sure there is at least a "gentlemen's agreement" in place.

As I said on one of these two threads on this topic, politics is an ugly business. I think this is the most transparent the process has been in a long time (or ever) for a major bill.

But it's nothing new, or shady or devious or unconstitutional (as the Tea Baggers are screaming). Invoking this rule is no more shady or devious than invoking the filibuster.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Remember also that Senate Republicans can prevent any of the fixes from getting in, even in reconciliation. That's if Senate Democrats even want to change the bill in the first place. The Republicans can simply propose amendment after amendment until the session is over, and the Senate bill, unchanged, will be the final law. Every pertinent amendment that is proposed must be voted on, and there is no procedural tool for Reid to cut off new amendments.

They can also waste time with proposals that the bill be read out loud or that it must be published on the interwebs for some period of time before a vote takes place, etc. However, the Democrats still have a large majority in the Senate and control most of the procedures. Even aside from that, obstructionist tactics by the Republicans aren't without political cost to them. (Especially on some of these matters. I can't imagine them opposing the inclusion of the repeal of the McCarron Ferguson Act, for example.)

 

[Freddy]

They can also waste time with proposals that the bill be read out loud or that it must be published on the interwebs for some period of time before a vote takes place, etc. However, the Democrats still have a large majority in the Senate and control most of the procedures. Even aside from that, obstructionist tactics by the Republicans aren't without political cost to them. (Especially on some of these matters. I can't imagine them opposing the inclusion of the repeal of the McCarron Ferguson Act, for example.)

The Democrats have not been winning the PR battle on this issue so far, and I wouldn't bet on them starting now, especially in this climate. If the House Democrats use this process to pass a bill of this magnitude, they deserve to be stuck with the crappy bill they passed without voting for. The Republican response is simple: If you don't like it, you shouldn't have voted to pass it. Note that I said "voted to pass it" rather than "voted for it." That is the extent of the difference between an up/down vote and the Slaughter solution. The Republican line will be that they are trying their best to limit the damage by stopping the Dems from doing anything more.

 

[Just thinking]

Who doesn't have enough votes for what?

The bill that passed in the Senate will likely not pass (as written) in the House. Otherwise, why not just put it to a simple vote?

 

[Tricky]

Merged two very similar threads.

Posted By: Tricky

 

[Thunder]

Why vote on the bill and then the reconciliation

because this is how reconciliation traditionally works.

but now it appears, that Pelosi is providing a sneaky option, just because some Democrats simply don't want to go on record as having voted for the Senate bill...that they know will be changed.

if you KNOW it will be changed..than what it the friggin deal??

i sense a lack of willingness to be held accountable for one's actions. and i don't like it. let the GOP stoop to such lows.

now, will I care less when/if the CBO comes out with a report saying that the plan will be good for America? yes I will.

but i still will have the ugly taste of sneakiness in my mouth...and it will take a while to wash away.

 

[Freddy]

because this is how reconciliation traditionally works.

but now it appears, that Pelosi is providing a sneaky option, just because some Democrats simply don't want to go on record as having voted for the Senate bill...that they know will be changed.

if you KNOW it will be changed..than what it the friggin deal??

i sense a lack of willingness to be held accountable for one's actions. and i don't like it. let the GOP stoop to such lows.

now, will I care less when/if the CBO comes out with a report saying that the plan will be good for America? yes I will.

but i still will have the ugly taste of sneakiness in my mouth...and it will take a while to wash away.

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.