
We're less than a week away from the House vote that could seal the deal on health care reform, but a number of key procedural hurdles still stand in the way, as does the related, but more fundamental task of actually rounding up the 216 votes Speaker Nancy Pelosi will likely need to succeed.
So let's walk through all the (complicated) steps: The ultimate goal remains for the House to pass the Senate health care bill along with a series of amendments, which will be fast-tracked using the budget reconciliation process. Yesterday, the House Budget Committee approved a shell bill and sent it along to the Rules Committee, where its language will be stripped and replaced with the language of the reconciliation fix. That fix is still being tweaked behind the scenes as leadership goes back and forth with the Congressional Budget Office in search of a score that does not drastically alter the cost-estimate of the Senate health care bill.
Still with me?
Once the final score is in, Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter will determine exactly how to structure the final vote on reform. Slaughter and Pelosi--and, according to Pelosi, the majority of the Democratic caucus--would prefer to use what's known as a "self-executing rule."
Here's where things get complicated. Instead of requiring Democrats to take separate votes on the Senate health care bill and the reconciliation fix, a self-executing rule would allow the House to do the whole thing in a single vote. The rule would be written in such a way as to "deem" the Senate bill passed, if the House votes to pass the reconciliation bill. And voila. Health care reform.
Rank and file Democrats think this would spare them from the political peril of voting for the Senate bill, and all of its unpopular provisions. But whether they're right about that or not, Republicans have taken to calling the parliamentary maneuver the "Slaughter Solution," suggesting it's an unprecedented and undemocratic way around standard procedure. (In fact, self-executing rules are fairly common, and, as a memo from Slaughter's office demonstrates, they're used more commonly by the GOP than by the Democrats.)
In order to do any of this, though, House leadership and the White House will need to turn out the votes. And right now, despite sounds of optimism, they don't have them. Pelosi says that's because the final language of the reconciliation bill is still being edited. House Democratic Caucus Chair John Larson says the votes are there, and have been all along--but he takes that as an article of faith.
But Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA)--an in-play freshman who voted "no" on the House health care bill in November--told Politico yesterday that leadership is still seeking votes from the hard-line opponents of reform in their own caucus, suggesting, he said, they're still a way's off from the needed 216. And, of course, there's still Stupak's posse, many members of which are still holding out over the Senate bill's abortion language.
So when will all this happen? Democrats have committed to putting the final language on the internet for 72 hours before holding a final vote, and if they stick to that, it won't happen until Friday at the earliest. But it could be a long weekend.
Indie Pro
March 16, 2010 9:43 AM
Democrats think this would spare them from the political peril of voting for the Senate bill,
but it's the greatest "mission accomplished" progressive doo-hickey-ma-bob ever and ever, why so cowardly?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
March 16, 2010 11:13 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Point taken. I might understand if House Democrats were proposing to use this procedural maneuver simply to tie the two votes together. But political cover? In a bill of this magnitude, with this level of public attention, citizens deserve to see how our elected representatives vote. That's transparency.
Yet the vote count I'm even more eager to see concerns Rep. Alan Grayson's four-page bill (HR 4789) that would allow any American that wishes to buy in to Medicare at cost. I'm praying Speaker Pelosi has Grayson's bill firmly in her mind as she moves forward with the Senate's insurance mandate package. Surely a few House Democrats have made it clear that their vote for the mandate is contingent upon their ability to cast a separate vote on HR 4789.
Here's a link to Grayson's brief statement when he introduced the bill before Congress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy2Y5Uevisk
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 16, 2010 11:28 AM in reply to Watt Childress
if there is political peril, this procedure will not save them.
Yes, I read Grayson's statement. Well done. Thanks for highlighting it and his bill!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
March 16, 2010 11:37 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Here's the text of the bill, for anyone else who wants to read it.
http://grayson.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Public_Option_Act.pdf
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
March 16, 2010 10:04 AM
Fraud. This is nothing but garden variety fraud.
Keep up the good work and we'll see you in November, not to mention court.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
March 16, 2010 10:17 AM in reply to shooter242
How is it fraud to use a common procedure to vote on legislation? Now, I'd rather see a separate vote in the House on the Senate bill and on the reconciliation fixes, just to not hear Republicans kick and scream about it. But, holding the hands of the wussed House Dems by using the self-executing rule will mean nothing to most voters in November. The substance of the legislation (good or bad) will be more important than how they got there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Acewrap
March 16, 2010 10:31 AM in reply to Rick Jones
I personally prefer watching the Republicans kick scream and flal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Acewrap
March 16, 2010 10:32 AM in reply to Acewrap
Insert an i where needed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The BBQ Chicken Madness
March 16, 2010 10:33 AM in reply to Rick Jones
Are you suggesting that if there was a seperate vote on the Senate Bill and the Fixes, that the GOP wouldn't "kick and scream"?
Screw them. They are going to whine and complain no matter what Dems do. Democratic Leaders should be doing everything possible within the rules to pass legislation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
March 16, 2010 11:24 AM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
Not suggesting that at all. Republicans will most certainly kick and scream about everything the Dems do. Hell, they even make stuff up to complain about. It's just how they roll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
March 16, 2010 11:29 AM in reply to Rick Jones
Oh, I guess its only fraud when Dems use it. When Republicans use it, Jesus himself came down from heaven and blessed it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 16, 2010 10:33 AM in reply to shooter242
oooh, you're almost as scary as the fat old teabaggers!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 16, 2010 10:35 AM in reply to human
oh wait, you probably are a fat old teabagger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jerry
March 16, 2010 11:35 AM in reply to human
come to texas and say that you ignorant moron
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 16, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to jerry
project much? Oooh, I'm scared!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jerry
March 16, 2010 11:38 AM in reply to human
see ya at the supreme ct, you will not trash the constitution, or on the battlefield
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 16, 2010 12:04 PM in reply to jerry
you couldn't even haul your fat ass to the refrigerator much less the Supreme Court. But I'll be there to laugh at all you fat moronic teabaggers after you lose, if they even hear whatever case you think you have, which they probably won't. LOL!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Peter Principle
March 16, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to shooter242
When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively).
Source: Wilson International Center
One party's fraud is another party's parliamentary procedure, I guess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
March 16, 2010 10:19 AM
Do whatever the hell is necessary or else you all lose lilttle, some seats in republican swing districts or lose BIG no progressives and liberals will vote for you all again, since what would be the freakin' point!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The BBQ Chicken Madness
March 16, 2010 10:30 AM
Here's a recap...
1. House finishes "reconciliation fixes" language.
2. Senate Bill attached to fixes with self-executing rule.
3. House votes on fixes (& Senate Bill), needing a 216 majority.
3a. Pres. Obama signs Senate Bill into Law.
4. Fixes go to Senate for a majority vote under reconciliation.
5. Pres. Obama signs fixes into Law.
I'd still prefer to have Pres. Obama wait on signing the Senate Bill until the fixes are passed, but that might not be proceedurally possible.
Those are the "steps" that the Dems have left. I figured I would post them, since this article didn't actually do it, as the headline advertised.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ogliberal
March 16, 2010 11:12 AM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
I agree but #2 could also read.
2. Vote for Senate bill and reconciliation fix. (ie - on the same day, one after the other)
I think this self-executing stuff is a waste of time. It will do nothing to stop the GOP from saying whatever the heck they please regarding the votes. And it gives them another line of attack - "they're bending the rules". (yeah, I know they would be following the rules but, well, it's the GOP we're talking abou there) Trying to explain the self-executing stuff to voters is just too hard. Better to say, "I voted for the Senate bill because the good far outweighed the bad and I was willing to take a chance that we could fix it soon after. And then I voted to remove the bad. My colleagues in the Senate did the same and we got rid of the bad stuff before it was even enacted." I don't see how individual House members think it protects them. But then there are a lot of folks in the House who just aren't all that smart.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The BBQ Chicken Madness
March 16, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to ogliberal
Two things:
First, using the self-executing rule means 1 vote instead of 2. I'm in favor of the least number of votes possible to get this done, which is why I'd like them to go that route. If it helps some on-the-fence Dems swallow the Senate Bill, then great.
Second, voters don't care about it, so there's no reason to try to explain it to them. The line between the "fixes" and the "bill" are gone anyways - that's why reconciliation is "ramming the HCR bill down our throat" when it's really just the fixes. Just vote on it, get it passed, and say "Hey we passed this bill." Americans like Winners, even if they don't always agree with them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The BBQ Chicken Madness
March 16, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
To be clear, when I say "We passed this bill", Dems should be referring to Health Care Reform as a total package - the end result of the Senate Bill plus the fixes.
Move beyond the arguement about the differences. Just say "This is what the Bill does" and explain the end results.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
March 16, 2010 11:39 AM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
I don't think it's constitutionally possible for Obama to wait on signing the Senate bill until the Senate passes the reconciliation fix.
Think about it. If the Senate passes a health care measure and the House passes the Senate's health care measure, the Senate/House bill becomes law unless Obama vetoes it.
I agree with those who contend that the House should use a majority vote on the senate bill but also understand House leaders' desire to please members who want to be able to say, "Yes, I voted for a bill that took care of health care reform AND took care of that sleazy package of preferences put forth by Reid, Nelsons and Landrieu."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The BBQ Chicken Madness
March 16, 2010 12:44 PM in reply to Mateo123
It doesn't matter if the House and Senate have passed it. It won't become law until Pres. Obama signs it. He can hold on signing it for 10 days, after which it becomes law automatically. A pocket veto extends that time if the Congress is not in session - but since the Senate would still need to be there to pass the fixes, I don't know if he could go that route (the House would have to adjurn).
There's debate about if the Senate can vote/pass the fixes to something that hasn't technically become law yet. I've heard both that they can, and that they cannot. Despite reports in either case, we've not gotten an "official" ruling from the Parlimentarian on that question...yet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ecksicon
March 16, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
Thanks, BBQ. I have some questions though. If the Senate fails to pass the fix does this self-executing rule still pass the Senate Bill? If so, is there any way that they could craft a self-executing rule that stipulates that the House only agrees to the Senate Bill if the fix is signed into law? Am I dreaming here?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
March 16, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
"2. Senate Bill attached to fixes with self-executing rule."
The above is not correct because the moment the Senate Bill is attached to the "fixes" bill the whole becomes a *different* bill than what the Senate Bill is. As such, the "whole" cannot be signed by Obama to become law - or at least becomes something that five Senior Citizens (no offense!) on the Supreme Court can use declare it unconstitutional.
Rather, what the "self-executing" rule does is this: it states that if the "fixes" bill passes, then the Senate Bill is "deemed" voted on and passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wyt
March 16, 2010 11:01 AM
Any competent house leadership will be seeking every possible vote up until the time of the voting, for any bill of importance. They could already have 220 votes, but would still be leaning on the votes they don't have yet, both as insurance, and because they don't want to insult members by not courting them. So there's nothing about this that "suggests" one way or the other what the current whip count is. To take such a suggestion from it is naive, and potentially misleading.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
March 16, 2010 11:09 AM in reply to wyt
Right.
If it were Reid rounding up the votes, I'd be concerned.
But Nancy is nails.
I highly suspect she's simply pocketing votes - probing the caucus to see which twisted arms from the progressive and/or blue dog caucus she can cut loose.
I highly suspect the votes are already there, and now - it's just down to the tactical matter of which 216 yes votes make the most sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
March 16, 2010 11:08 AM
Bitch McConnel just lied again, saying the Dems are concocting a new way to pass this.
Running scared there Mitch ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
synchronicity
March 16, 2010 12:13 PM
If they are going to make everything this difficult... why don't they just put medicare available for purchase for all Americans in the bill.
Seriously, if they are going to make it this excruciating why not give us what we really need.... really save some money and save our education system and create more jobs.
Such a dramatic mess for passing such poor reform is ridiculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pugmaker
March 16, 2010 6:06 PM
With the democrats forcing this bill under Pelosi, Why is it so unpopular and why are no republicans in support?, If they get their way 1/6th of this countries business will be controlled by the federal government. With changes to the regulations, I.E. allowing insurance sales interstate, cap on lawsuits, Simplifying regulations to avoid massive amounts of unnecessary tests to avoid any possibility of downstream lawsuits. A way of helping with preexisting conditions Instead of taking over, perhaps a small hand with guidance would be better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 12, 2010 7:15 PM
When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively).
Source: Wilson International Center
One party's fraud is another party's parliamentary procedure, I guess.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?