House may pass Senate healthcare bill without a direct vote! Obama signs it! It's now the law!

[Better Believe It]

The House may not vote on the Senate health insurance bill and the Senate won't vote on the House reconciliation bill. Obama signs it into law!

And how do they do that? Here's how:

------------------------------------



March 16, 2010

Dem Leadership in Final Push on Healthcare Reform, House Considers Passing Bill Without Direct Vote

The Democrat-led push for healthcare reform is in its final stages as lawmakers prepare for a congressional vote as early as this weekend. On Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she is considering using a tactic that would avoid a direct House vote on the less popular Senate version of the healthcare bill. We speak with Ryan Grim, senior congressional correspondent for the Huffington Post.


SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: The Democrat-led push for healthcare reform is in its final stages as lawmakers prepare for a congressional vote as early as the weekend. On Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she’s considering using a tactic that would avoid a direct House vote on the less popular Senate version of the healthcare bill. The tactic, known as “a self-executing rule,” would have Congress members vote on a package of changes to the Senate version. Approving those changes would in turn be deemed an endorsement of the initial Senate measure they’d be modifying.

RYAN GRIM:

The way it works is that, Thursday, the Rules Committee will send a package to the House floor. And Sharif described it correctly. There will be this—probably be this deeming mechanism. Pelosi said yesterday that’s the way she prefers to do it. And so, the House would not have to vote on the actual Senate bill, but they would vote on the reconciliation package. And the rule would say that that vote deems the Senate bill to have been passed. The Senate bill then goes to the White House. He signs it, and it becomes law. Then the reconciliation package goes from the House over to the Senate, at which point the Senate could either take it or leave it. Whether or not they pass it, the Senate bill has still become law.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/16/dem_leadership_in_final_push_on

[onenote]

1. I see that the wayback machine has arrived from yesterday

[timeforpeace]

2. The Founding fathers won't be spinning in their graves, they'll crawl out and storm the place.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

11. Because they'll be outraged that a woman is Sec. of State and our Pres. is black?

Because as this process has been used many times before, it can't be that.

[Better Believe It]

13. So was it only bad when Republicans did this to subvert the Constitution?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

14. Republicans and Democrats have done this over 100 times already.

It is not subverting the constitution, they are merely taking the vote on the Senate bill and the on the changes at the same time. If you vote yes, you are voting for both.

[Better Believe It]

33. And what if you want to vote against the Senate bill and for the reconciliation bill?

Your kind of stuck. Under the procedure you defend the Senate can tell the House "fuck you" when they fail to pass the House reconciliation bill. There is absolutely no pressure on the Senate to pass the House reconciliation bill once the House passes the Senate bill without a seperate roll call vote.

Do you now understand this and why Pelosi may not permit a seperate House vote on the Senate bill?

It should be obvious what she is trying to do. Pelosi doesn't trust the Senate and therefore wants to ram the Senate bill past the House without a House vote on the Senate bill.

Is this really so hard and complicated to understand?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

39. If you don't want to vote for the Senate bill, you vote NO.

[Better Believe It]

44. You can't vote no on the Senate bill.

You can only vote no on the House reconciliation bill to stop a Senate bill.

So you're saying that a member of the House who supports a House reconciliation bill would have to vote against it! Or if they vote for the reconciliation bill would have to trust the Senate to pass the reconciliation bill and if they failed to they would just be s.o.l.!

Well, isn't that a mighty fine and democratic procedure!

Bull shit!

What ever happened to all the talk about having up and down votes on Congressional legislation? I guess that principal doesn't apply to the House!

[Xenotime]

51. Rethugs do it for war and death. We do it for life and all mankind

Big difference.

[Better Believe It]

52. You're saying that subverting the Constitution by any Democratic politician is acceptable ....

when it is done "for life and all of mankind"?

Give me some specific examples.

[midnight]

46. Can you help me understand when this process was used, and why it is

necessary?

[Better Believe It]

47. It's only "necessary" in the House if one doesn't have the votes to pass a Senate bill in the House

It's as simple as that.

[ShortnFiery]

3. And the democratic party loses Congress for another 8-12 years. eom

[NJmaverick]

9. is that your wish?

[derby378]

4. Someone mentioned on COUNTDOWN last night...

...that part of the impetus behind supporting the self-executing rule is because a lot of House Democrats don't want to be on the record as having voted for the Senate bill. It sounded like the old "hold your nose and pass it anyway" deal to one of the commentators.

[timeforpeace]

18. Part of the impetus?LOL! It's ALL of the impetus. They know it's political suicide.

[tallahasseedem]

5. At this point...

I don't care what it takes. I'm proud of the Dems for taking advantage of what they can do to pass this. The 'pubs would and have resorted to extraordinary things...it's time we stick it to them.

[ShortnFiery]

6. The exact same sentiments were conveyed by the Bush Administration re: Iraq Invasion.

:nuke:

[no limit]

8. And yet they are doing this for a watered down bill. Why?

Why not do it for something like the public option? We both know the answer to that, and that answer sucks.

[Better Believe It]

10. Right. Screw the Constitution and making Congress vote on legislation. Just declare it has passed

I'm sure the Republicans will demonstrate just as much skill in bypassing and undermining the Constitution.

[onenote]

16. the legislation isn't going to pass by magic. it will take a majority vote

If a majority of the House doesn't want to "deem" the Senate version of the bill to have been passed upon the enactment of the reconciliation changes, there is nothing stopping a majority from voting down the rule and preventing that from happening.

[Better Believe It]

22. The purpose of this undemocratic procedure is to prevent a vote on the Senate bill.

And that procedure will be part of the House reconciliation bill.

[onenote]

25. its a procedural ploy that may or may not provide cover -but will still require a vote

the repubs have already made clear that any Democrat that votes for the rule will be open to criticism for having voted for health care legislation. No big surprise there. In fact, they're right. Anyone voting for the rule will be voting for health care reform. But if for whatever reason some members are more comfortable voting in a way where the underlying bill and the reconciliation changes are tied together, then why not? Its actually a more accurate representation of what is being voted on than having separate votes on the underlying bill and a reconciliation package.

I'm curious why its "undemocratic" if it still requires a vote and that vote still is for or against the underlying bill being enacted?

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. What Constitution? That was shredded by Bush, Cheney

and all their cronies YEARS AGO. Remember..."It's just a G-d damned piece of paper." G. W. Bush.

[FiveGoodMen]

28. Passing this bill is NOT sticking it to THEM.

It's sticking it to America.

The pukes got everything they wanted.

Now they'll get to blame the Dems for all the fallout.

That's not a win. It's not even in the ballpark. It's not even the same sport.

[951-Riverside]

7. and you're happy about this?

:wtf:

[OregonBlue]

12. Good. Just go for it. Get it done and move on.

[subterranean]

15. "Whether or not they pass it, the Senate bill has still become law."

That's different from what I was thinking. My assumption was that if the Senate failed to pass the reconciliation bill, the flawed Senate bill would not become law. That wouldn't be so bad, but apparently that's not the case. The "deem and pass" maneuver is apparently only to let a few cowardly Dems cover their asses by voting to pass the Senate bill while still being able to say they didn't vote for it.

I can see how that might not play well in Peoria.

[onenote]

19. last I heard the precise wording of the rule was up in the air

One version would have the rule define the legislation as incorporating the Senate bill by reference and adding the House changes, with all or nothing becoming law. The other approach would have the rule itself provide for the enactment (by reference) of the Senate language, with the separate vote only being on the changes.

[Tennessee Gal]

20. Let's Be Clear

Let's Be Clear

Before the bamboozlement gets too far, let's be clear about what the House is considering doing. There are two bills. The senate's original bill and the changes to that bill the House has now negotiated with the Senate. Normally, this is all hashed out in a conference committee. And it's all voted on in a single vote. In this case, that's not possible because of the continuing Republican filibuster in the Senate. So the House is considering taking both bills, consolidating them into a single vote, up or down. The old fashioned way. This isn't 'not having a vote'. And this has been done repeatedly before. Anybody who thinks these two bills shouldn't be passed simultaneously or thinks one or the other shouldn't pass has a simple solution. Vote no. Simple.

This isn't complicated. It's consolidating two votes into one.

--Josh Marshall

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[Spazito]

21. Excellent post!

:thumbsup:

[Better Believe It]

27. It's a not very clever method to avoid having a vote on the Senate health insurance bill.

So what do you think the purpose of this not so "slick" maneuver is?

It's rather blatant and obvious to anyone who isn't a political novice.

The Senate won't pass a meaningful House reconciliation bill and that is why Pelosi doesn't want a House vote on the Senate health insurance bill or make House passage of it contingent on approval of the reconciliation bill in the Senate!

Now is that really so hard to figure out?

[Enrique]

23. I know! Rush told me all about how bad it is!

:eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Right wing horseshit

The reconciliation bill has a clause in it that says the Senate bill is passing as well. By voting for the reconciliation bill they are voting for the Senate bill. If they don't want to vote for the Senate bill, they can vote against the reconciliation bill.

This "no vote" spin is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

[onenote]

26. +1000

[Better Believe It]

30. Still can't figure it out? Read post #27.

"If they don't want to vote for the Senate bill, they can vote against the reconciliation bill."

And what if you like the reconciliation bill but don't want to pass the Senate health insurance industry bill?

The "two for one" proposal simply gives the Senate the opportunity to screw the House and kill any reconciliation bill!

The House passes the Senate bill without voting on it and the Senate gets to tell the House "fuck you"!

Do you really trust the Senate that much?

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Congress attaches bills together all of the time

If you are a member of congress pretty much every piece of legislation will have things that you do and don't like in it. Unfortunately you don't get to just vote for what you like, you have to say yes or no to the entire thing by voting yes or no. That's why this notion of "no vote" is nonsense.

[Better Believe It]

35. Why do you think Pelosi doesn't want the House to vote on the Senate bill?

It may bet that the only way they can get the Senate's health insurance industry bill passed in the House is by not permitting House members to have an up and down roll call vote!

It's now pretty obvious that the Senate won't pass a meaningful House reconciliation bill and that is why Pelosi doesn't want a House vote on the Senate health insurance bill or make House passage of it contingent on approval of the reconciliation bill in the Senate!

Now is that really so hard to figure out?

[Hippo_Tron]

38. What made you think there would be "meaningful" reconciliation

The only thing they are really going to do in reconciliation is get rid of the cornhusker kickback. They've been saying that for weeks now.

[Better Believe It]

41. So you don't think the Senate would even pass "meaningless" reconciliation

You have a point.

So let's just have the House vote up and down on the Senate bill and end this dribble about a House reconciliation bill that we haven't seen and probably won't amount to much and will never pass the Senate.

What do you think?

[Hippo_Tron]

42. The Senate will pass a reconciliation bill

It will get rid of the cornhusker kickback. It will not include a public option. It may include some other stuff in between there.

[Better Believe It]

43. Why doesn't the House make passage of the Senate bill contingent on Senate reconciliation passage?

The only logical political explanation is that Pelosi and the White House are not so sure that the Senate will pass a House reconciliation bill, even a really weak one.

[Hippo_Tron]

49. Actually, I concede that you have a legitimate point on that one

Given that you can't guarantee that the Senate will take a shit without 60 yea votes, they can't guarantee that reconciliation will pass. The only thing that I can say in response is that the cornhusker kickback and other minor flaws aren't going to make me stop supporting the bill. Likewise, fixing these minor flaws isn't going to get you to support the bill.

[timeforpeace]

29. Bottom line, they don't have the balls to do this. It's all noise and no substance.

[Political Heretic]

31. IF they do this, AND the fix package is moderately good, I'd CHANGE to SUPPORTING HCR

[Better Believe It]

34. The Senate can vote down the House "fix package" and the Senate bill still becomes law.

Or the Senate may not even vote on a House reconciliation package under that procedure. They are under no obligation or constitutional requirement to vote on it.

Is that clear or would you like me to explain it in further detail?

[Political Heretic]

45. Not clear at all - yet.... ?

That was not my understanding from the AP article I read yesterday...

But I'm inclined to believe you, but can you give me something that breaks this process down more fully?

[Better Believe It]

53. The following article should be helpful.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35911121/ns/politics-health_care_reform

[Better Believe It]

54. Nancy Pelosi: "I like it because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill"

That doesn't mean every Democrat is on board. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA)--a crucial swing vote on health care reform, told me and a handful of other reporters this afternoon that he disapproves of the "Byzantine" maneuver.

"I think there should be an up or down vote on that bill," Altmire said. "If you want to pass health care reform you can't do it with an end run, without people going on record. It's too big." (Altmire also said he opposes putting student loan reform in the reconciliation bill.)

Still, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the move is her preferred method, and the preferred method of her members. "embers are more comfortable with a ," Pelosi told a handful of health care reporters and bloggers yesterday morning. "It's more insider and process oriented than most people want to know, but I like it because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

So instead of holding a direct vote on the Senate bill, Democrats may adopt a rule that allows them to vote on the reconciliation fix on its own. But the rule will stipulate that if the House passes the fix, it is, in effect, also passing the Senate health care bill. It makes the latter contingent on the former.

Now, whether this will actually insulate Democrats on the campaign trail is an open question. The hope is that they'll be able to respond to charges that they voted for the Nebraska deal by saying "if it wasn't for me, the Nebraska deal would've been sustained," or "I voted to improve the Senate bill."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/slaughter-house-rules-the-truth-about-democrats-plan-to-pass-health-care.php

[Renew Deal]

37. lol

:rofl:

[Renew Deal]

36. Why is this being unrecced?

It's the most concise information about this process I have seen on DU. And it's not even a controversial source.

[JVS]

40. I suspect this could cause a 2010 congressional bloodbath

[midnight]

48. K&R to get more info. about the content of the bill. Last I read, the public option in the

bill was a shell, that was going to be gutted and filled in at reconciliation....

Information Republicans say they have received from the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office eliminates that option. House Democratic leaders last week began looking at crafting a legislative rule that would allow the House to approve the Senate health care bill, but not forward it to Obama for his signature until the Senate clears the reconciliation package.http://www.rollcall.com/news/44110-1.html


I'm sorry to say, without knowing what the public option has in it, and if there is actually a public option, it is hard to know what to think.

[Better Believe It]

50. Pelosi's House "deeming" procedure is a lot like the tactic used by illegal ticket scalpers

NBC's Pete Williams and Luke Russert report that the legislative process the Democrats intend to use to pass the healthcare bill, called "Deem and Pass," may be unconstitutional.
by Carrie Dann, Ken Strickland, and Tom Curry
NBC News and msnbc.com
March 17, 2010

Because House Democrats aren’t really keen on directly voting for the Senate-passed legislation, which includes the much-criticized “Cornhusker kickback” and other unpopular measures, they are likely to vote instead on a “rule” outlining how the House is going to handle the reconciliation process. That rule will include language that says the House “deems” the Senate bill passed.

Timeout for an analogy: This “deeming” process, also known as the “self-executing rule” or the “Slaughter rule” — named after the chair of the committee writing it — is a little bit like a tactic sometimes used by ticket scalpers in states that have rigid anti-scalping laws.

Instead of selling the tickets by themselves, these guys tuck the scalped goods into baseball hats and sell them as a package. Ostensibly, if the cops come around, they’re selling hats, even if the price tag is hundreds of dollars.

In the case of the U.S. House, Democrats are voting for the “hat” (the rule) that also happens to have the “tickets” (health care reform) under the brim. The whole process has many critics crying foul, and some even say that it would not withstand a constitutional challenge.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35911121/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

[backscatter712]

55. Deem and Pass is how Pelosi's stopping the Senate from pulling a Lucy and yanking the football away.

DO NOT BELIEVE THE RIGHT-WING BULLSHIT ON DEEM AND PASS!

It's perfectly kosher within the House rules, the GOP's done it dozens of times, why shouldn't we do it?

And don't tell me that it means the Senate bill's passing without a vote - that's bullshit. It's getting voted on.

It's just that the Senate bill and the reconciliation bill are being voted on together, and the self-executing language is set up so that the Senate bill only passes the House when the Senate passes the reconciliation bill.

In other words, for those of us who were worried about the House being tricked into passing the Senate bill, then watching the Senate drop the ball on the reconciliation fixes - this directly addresses that concern.

Deem and Pass is a very good thing. Lucy ain't yanking the football away on this issue.

[Better Believe It]

56. "why shouldn't we do it?" Because not permitting the House to vote on the bill is undemocratic?