House Dems: We’ll Pass Senate Obamacare Bill By Voting On Something Else (Updated)
It seems there is no bottom to the depths the House Democrat Leadership will plumb in search of a way to defeat American popular opinion and pass Obamacare.
The new low involves bypassing an actual House vote on the Senate Obamacare bill. It appears the Democrats simply don’t have the votes to pass the bill on an up-or-down basis, and the problem is getting worse as time goes forward.
There are far too many House Democrats who simply can’t stomach the Senate bill. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has to get to 216 “yes” votes on that bill, and right now she probably only barely has 200. Pelosi’s only real chance of making this happen is to satisfy the Democrat “no’s” that if they vote “yes” they’ll be able to get a supplemental bill through both houses that will fix the objectionable parts of the Senate bill.
This, of course, is a sucker play, because if the House passes the Senate bill the President can immediately sign it into law and any “fix” could be tossed into the dumpster. Those Democrat “no’s” understand this, and so do some of the “yes” votes who are now wavering.
What to do? Just pass a bill with all of the “fixes” included in it, say that it’s the Senate bill, and start the reconciliation process. The House would then “deem” the Senate bill passed in such a case.
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.
Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. “Once the CBO gives us the score we’ll spring right on it,” she said. . . .
House members are concerned the Senate could fail to approve the corrections bill, making them nervous about passing the Senate bill with its much-maligned sweetheart deals for certain states.
“We’re well beyond that,” Pelosi said Tuesday, though she did not clarify.
Slaughter, you might remember, was the purveyor of this bauble at the Blair House Project a couple of weeks ago:
She’s also famous for her opinion of town hall meetings:
Slaughter, as head of the House Rules Committee, is in a position to define representative democracy as it relates to the passage of major legislation. Given her statements about democracy as it relates to town halls, is it really a surprise that she would endorse a plan to twist the definition of a bill’s passage into a balloon poodle?
UPDATE: National Review’s Daniel Foster notes that Slaughter’s Rules Committee has played the “self-executing rule” game before in “deeming” a bill passed so as to further Democrat policies. Foster quotes Don Wolfensberger of Roll Call in describing how this was done to squeeze the Waxman-Markey Cap And Trade bill though the House…
The [cap-and-trade] bill went to the House Rules Committee on Thursday, June 25. Of the 224 amendments filed with the committee, only one was cleared for floor consideration — an amendment in the nature of a substitute by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.). The Rules Committee turned down the Republican substitute offered by Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) on grounds that it was not compliant with the pay-as-you-go rules (and reportedly had a shot at being adopted).
Moreover, the special rule, reported at 3:47 a.m. Friday, ditched the entire Energy Committee bill as reported in favor of a new bill introduced by Waxman on June 22 (without benefit of a summary explanation) and self-executed its adoption along with a further 309-page amendment by Waxman. (A self-executing rule avoids a separate debate and vote on amendments.)
Despite the fact that few Members had a clue as to what was in the new bill as modified by Waxman’s amendment, the rule was called up just six hours after it had been reported. The rule squeaked by, 217-205, and the bill subsequently passed later that day by an even slimmer margin, 219-212.
UPDATE: NRO’s James Geraghty catches it on the sweet spot in today’s Morning Jolt:
Is this a legislative maneuver, or a twisted joke? National Journal reported, “House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday. Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.”
Dave Schnittger in House Minority Leader John Boehner’s office sounds the alarm: “The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter’s scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply ‘deeming’ the Senate bill passed in the House — without an actual vote by members of the House.”
NRO’s Daniel Foster: “Indeed, a similar trick has been used to increase the national debt for years, under the so-called ‘Gephardt Rule’ (House Rule XXVII) adopted by the last House Democratic majority. The rule states that upon passage of each year’s budget resolution, a concurrent resolution raising the debt limit by the amount required in that budget is automatically considered passed, thus sparing members separate, potentially embarrassing votes on increasing government borrowing. Unlike in the Senate, where individual Senators have broad discretion to steer debate and introduce amendments, the legislative process in the House is rigidly governed by the Rules Committee. This limits the Republicans’ options in fighting a self-executing rule for Obamacare. As one Republican House staffer put it to me today, ‘the Rules Committee can do just about anything if they can get the votes to pass the rule.’ And the Senate was supposed to be undemocratic, right?”
Newt Gingrich reacts, “Incredible. We’ve gone from passing bills without reading them to passing bills without voting on them.”
Are they out of their minds? What, the town hall meetings of last summer were too genteel and conciliatory for House Democrats’ tastes? Trying some sort of stunt like this in order to pass a bill without actually making members vote for it — that’s the sort of thing that takes “armed insurrection” talk out of the realm of chat rooms. We’ve long suspected that the Constitution means nothing to our counterparts on the left, but the idea of working around the requirement that bills be passed by the House strikes a new and disturbing we’ve-lost-democracy note.
To say nothing of how ridiculous this talk makes Obama’ s current “the time for talk is over, it’s time to vote” rhetoric sound.
They still have to get 216 people to agree on a bill, though. That's still the problem. To get this passed, they are going to have to cave to Stupak on abortion. It isn't going to be easy, but there is a reason that Obamacare is trading at 57% on Intrade.
They do, but it's easier to get to 216 if they can convince their people to vote on a bill with "fixes" in it with enough bribes and goodies to grease it through the door. The Senate bill is a loser, but this program might pick up a few votes to get to 216.
They still have to get 216 people to agree on a bill, though. That's still the problem. To get this passed, they are going to have to cave to Stupak on abortion. It isn't going to be easy, but there is a reason that Obamacare is trading at 57% on Intrade.
They do, but it's easier to get to 216 if they can convince their people to vote on a bill with "fixes" in it with enough bribes and goodies to grease it through the door. The Senate bill is a loser, but this program might pick up a few votes to get to 216.
I still suspect that using the Slaughter method of "passing" the bill won't work, because some vulnerable Dems who are otherwise bound to Pelosi would use this as an excuse to vote no and save their hides. If she fixes the abortion language so that Stupak and his gang of 12 agree, she would only have a margin of one, based on the way the votes went last time. Even if she can switch another vote or two, it's likely that this un-Constitutional power grab would be rejected by more than two of those 216. This is all very creative of Pelosi, but I still am skeptical of her ability to line up the votes. We still have a very good chance of defeating Obamacare.
The fact that this thing got out onto the internet and generated a fresh round of outrage didn't help the cause at all. That much is certain.
I still suspect that using the Slaughter method of "passing" the bill won't work, because some vulnerable Dems who are otherwise bound to Pelosi would use this as an excuse to vote no and save their hides. If she fixes the abortion language so that Stupak and his gang of 12 agree, she would only have a margin of one, based on the way the votes went last time. Even if she can switch another vote or two, it's likely that this un-Constitutional power grab would be rejected by more than two of those 216. This is all very creative of Pelosi, but I still am skeptical of her ability to line up the votes. We still have a very good chance of defeating Obamacare.
The fact that this thing got out onto the internet and generated a fresh round of outrage didn't help the cause at all. That much is certain.
There's still no guarantee the "fixes" to the senate bill will be fixed in the senate. This is just another sucker play for the dimmest of the Dems.
There's still no guarantee the "fixes" to the senate bill will be fixed in the senate. This is just another sucker play for the dimmest of the Dems.
http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/44110-1.html
This would seem to be a death blow to the Slaughter maneuver. The Senate parlimentarian has said that a bill must be signed by the President before it can be reconciled. The House can't "deem" the Senate bill passed at the same time they reconcile it. They have to pass the bill first. I'm glad that the U.S. Senate has a parlimentarian who can read the Constitution.
I really liked Yuval Levin comment over at National Review Online:
"Democratic leaders should be asking themselves just how they have gotten to the point that their strategy is to amend a law that doesn’t exist yet by passing a bill without voting on it. Surely it’s time to start over."
I just noticed that Obamacare has dropped to 46% on Intrade, down from 53% earlier today. I agree with the market that Obamacare is now likely to fail, and I wouldn't even give it a 46% chance now.
http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/44110-1.html
This would seem to be a death blow to the Slaughter maneuver. The Senate parlimentarian has said that a bill must be signed by the President before it can be reconciled. The House can't "deem" the Senate bill passed at the same time they reconcile it. They have to pass the bill first. I'm glad that the U.S. Senate has a parlimentarian who can read the Constitution.
I really liked Yuval Levin comment over at National Review Online:
"Democratic leaders should be asking themselves just how they have gotten to the point that their strategy is to amend a law that doesn’t exist yet by passing a bill without voting on it. Surely it’s time to start over."
I just noticed that Obamacare has dropped to 46% on Intrade, down from 53% earlier today. I agree with the market that Obamacare is now likely to fail, and I wouldn't even give it a 46% chance now.
[...] Nancy Pelosi and her acolytes in the Democrat leadership couple this action with an attempt to force the Senate bill through via the Slaughter Rule – in other words, just deem the bill passed by voting on something else – it would [...]
[...] Americans to refuse to comply with the Obamacare law on health care if the Democrats use the Slaughter Rule to “deem” the Senate bill passed without actually voting on it. Bachmann said that if [...]
[...] Rules Committee chair Louise Slaughter concoct a legislative Frankenstein now being called the Slaughter Rule whereby the current 2,309-page Reconciliation Bill (see it in all its destructive glory by [...]
[...] Rules Committee chair Louise Slaughter concoct a legislative Frankenstein now being called the Slaughter Rule whereby the current 2,309-page Reconciliation Bill (see it in all its destructive glory by [...]
[...] Nancy Pelosi and her acolytes in the Democrat leadership couple this action with an attempt to force the Senate bill through via the Slaughter Rule – in other words, just deem the bill passed by voting on something else – it would indicate [...]