Merged Slaughter the House Bill / Pass without voting

[Unabogie]

So, the deem and pass didn't happen. That takes care of that question. Now, as I understand it, the House has passed the exact same bill that the Senate has already passed. The President can now sign it.

Of course, no one really wants this bill. They want the bill that was represented by the reconciliation bill. Some of the "yes" votes tonight are counting on the Senators and the President to keep their word to use the reconciliation bill to "fix" what they perceive as problems. However, this is an act of faith, right. The President could just sign it. The Senators could refuse to vote for the reconciliation bill. Right now, the bill, as passed by the Senate and the House, is on its way to the President's desk for signature...and any intended amendments are deals that were worked out, but theres nothing that actually requires anyone to hold to those deals, right?

Nothing except self interest. Not passing the repeal of the "Cornhusker Kickback" would be extremely dumb.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, the deem and pass didn't happen. That takes care of that question. Now, as I understand it, the House has passed the exact same bill that the Senate has already passed. The President can now sign it.

Of course, no one really wants this bill. They want the bill that was represented by the reconciliation bill. Some of the "yes" votes tonight are counting on the Senators and the President to keep their word to use the reconciliation bill to "fix" what they perceive as problems. However, this is an act of faith, right. The President could just sign it. The Senators could refuse to vote for the reconciliation bill. Right now, the bill, as passed by the Senate and the House, is on its way to the President's desk for signature...and any intended amendments are deals that were worked out, but theres nothing that actually requires anyone to hold to those deals, right?

The House also voted to pass the "reconciliation" amendments this evening. Yes, from what I learned from Freddy, the bill passed (the "Senate bill" sans amendments) will need to be signed into law before Senate Democrats even try to start the process of passing them via reconciliation, and they are not obliged to do so.

But remember, there are liberal Democrats in the Senate who weren't very happy with the bill they passed. I don't think it's *just* a matter of Senate Democrats keeping their word wrt to some deal they made with some House Democrats. Instead, it's a question of numbers. They only need 51 votes to pass a reconciliation bill. I think it will happen.

I also hope there will be a bi-partisan measure in both houses to repeal McCarron-Ferguson (something I don't think is in either the "Senate bill" or the "reconciliation package"). IIRC, there was a Republican-sponsored bill in the House recently that would do that. If it wasn't tied up with something more controversial, I would hope the Senate passes it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Nothing except self interest. Not passing the repeal of the "Cornhusker Kickback" would be extremely dumb.

While I would expect the Democrats in the Senate to go along with the amendments in the reconciliation package, there are always Republicans to consider, even if there aren't all the many of them. I've read that their tactic will be to try and force some sort of change to the reconciliation bill in the Senate, which would then mean it would have to go back to the House, and then the reconciliation package might never get passed at all.

However, even if that happens, the President can sign the bill that was passed last night, right? In other words, although the deals in the reconciliation bill were necessary to get 216 House votes, there is at least an academic possibility that they will never become law, but the original Senate bill will become law. There's no way at this point that a House member who voted for the bill can take back his vote because the deal on which it was based fell through. That's correct, isn't it?

 

[willhaven]

However, even if that happens, the President can sign the bill that was passed last night, right? In other words, although the deals in the reconciliation bill were necessary to get 216 House votes, there is at least an academic possibility that they will never become law, but the original Senate bill will become law. There's no way at this point that a House member who voted for the bill can take back his vote because the deal on which it was based fell through. That's correct, isn't it?

From what I know, yes. But 51 senators have already said they'd pass the reconciliation package.

The 41 can filibuster, but it will look shrill and desperate at this point so I can't imagine they'd actually go through with it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

While I would expect the Democrats in the Senate to go along with the amendments in the reconciliation package, there are always Republicans to consider, even if there aren't all the many of them. I've read that their tactic will be to try and force some sort of change to the reconciliation bill in the Senate, which would then mean it would have to go back to the House, and then the reconciliation package might never get passed at all.

However, even if that happens, the President can sign the bill that was passed last night, right? In other words, although the deals in the reconciliation bill were necessary to get 216 House votes, there is at least an academic possibility that they will never become law, but the original Senate bill will become law. There's no way at this point that a House member who voted for the bill can take back his vote because the deal on which it was based fell through. That's correct, isn't it?

Yes. Obama is supposed to sign the bill into law on Tuesday. After that, the Senate will take up the reconciliation package.

I don't think the Republicans can block much if any of it. They don't have the votes. They can (and will) invoke the Byrd rule to challenge whether each item is a budget item, but I doubt they'll be able to block anything unless it really is not an item that affects the budget. Again, they don't have the votes.

Even though the Democrats lost the 60 vote supermajority, they still enjoy a big majority.

I expect that what gets passed will largely depend on what Senate Democrats think. And 51 votes is much easier to get than 60 was (even when they had Kennedy).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The 41 can filibuster, but it will look shrill and desperate at this point so I can't imagine they'd actually go through with it.

No. They can't filibuster. That's exactly the point of doing this via reconciliation.

ETA: They can and will try other things. As MM said, Senate Republicans can and will try to enter a bajillion amendments each of which will have to be rejected for the reconciliation package to pass as is. This article hints that there might be other techniques available ("tricks up their sleeve" is the phrase a Wash. U. Law Prof used).

I predict it will be passed in a little over a week. (They're required to have 20 hours of debate from the time it's introduced.)

 

[willhaven]

No. They can't filibuster. That's exactly the point of doing this via reconciliation.

Ah, you're right! Derp!