TPMDC

Leap Of Faith: House Dems Will Have To Vote For Senate HCR Bill Before Fixes


The U.S. Senate in Session

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Well, it's official. Wary House Democrats are going to have to trust their Senate colleagues to pass legislation fixing the problems they've got with the upper chamber's health care bill if they want reform to become a reality.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today at a press conference confirmed what's been hinted at for several days - the rules governing the legislative process known as budget reconciliation won't allow the "fix" bill to go first.

It's a leap of faith that House Democrats have been worried about for nearly two months since Scott Brown won the special Senate election in Massachusetts. But it's the rules - Congress can't reconcile something that isn't yet a law, and it won't be law until President Obama signs it. That could be one reason he opted today to delay his trip to Indonesia and Australia.

Pelosi (D-CA) said the House will be acting on the Senate bill and laid out the rules.

"In order to have the Senate bill be the basis and build upon it with the reconciliation, you have to pass the Senate bill, or else you're talking about starting from scratch," she said.

"So we will pass the Senate bill. Once we pass it, the President signs it or doesn't, it's - people would rather he waited until the Senate acted, but the Senate Parliamentarian, as you have said, said in order for them to do a reconciliation based on the Senate bill, it must be signed by the President."

Earlier today, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) said the House expects to vote in the next 10 days on the Senate-passed health care bill.

"You can't reconcile a bill you hope to pass," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Republicans for the last week have been attempting to poke at the sore spot between House and Senate Democrats, saying repeatedly that House Democrats are right not to trust their counterparts.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said today on Fox News the Senate bill "can't be fixed" and that pro-life lawmakers who don't like the upper chamber's bill and House Democrats in general should be worried about it.

"Members don't like the Senate bill, especially with the special deals in it. So why would we vote on it or vote for it, send it to president so he could sign it, it becomes law, then the special deals are law, and then trust that they're going to fix it later? It's not just me, many members said they don't agree with that process," Pence said.

Comments (20) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

March 12, 2010 1:14 PM   

"Members don't like the Senate bill, especially with the special deals in it. So why would we vote on it..?"-- Rep. Pence

You wouldn't. But this is no longer about you. And that's totally your doing.

Harry Reid needs to reassure House members that he will make it happen over on his side, if they do him a solid.

(And it also wouldn't hurt for ol' President Bipartisan to open his mouth, and express a goddamned preference!)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 1:32 PM    in reply to Barry Champlain

How does it feel to be so fucking late on everything, Goober.

Reid reassured House members yesterday when he officially informed the Senate and the House "we have the votes are doing reconciliation."

The president offered his own HCR bill to pass through reconciliation. The president has been pushing for the House to pass HCR with the sidecar for weeks. The president has campaigned on getting this done through reconciliation. The president postponed his trip to Asia to get this done.

But unless he says some magic words written by and for Barry Champlain, he hasn't expressed a preference.

I hope you have someone cut your meat for you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 2:08 PM    in reply to FreeRider

How does it feel to be an obnoxious motherfucking asshole who, like my worst clock, is right precisely two times a day and a complete fucking blight on my landscape, the rest?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 2:15 PM    in reply to Barry Champlain

It feels better than being an obnoxious motherfucking asshole who is NEVER right and a complete fucking blight on the earth's landscape 24/7, like YOU!

Try to keep up tough: Reid offered his assurances to the House yesterday. The president offered his own HCR bill two weeks ago. You'd know that if you cut your own meat.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 10:27 PM    in reply to FreeRider

And I assume the President also got out his LBJ Big Stick, and laid some shit on the 51 senators who have meekly suggested that if absolutely forced to do so, yes, they would reluctantly vote for the public option?

This just in: no, no he didn't.

What was your point, again, before you went all psycho on us? I mean, the one besides how stupid, late to the issue, and uninformed I am?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 13, 2010 2:10 PM    in reply to Barry Champlain

Oh, you complete and other piece of shit. I have to keep hearing people like Weiner saying that Obama is too focused on being LBJ (which we won't find out until much later) and at the same time wanting him to be a raging populist and when he does, it is always SHUT UP!

Inconsistent much?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 13, 2010 8:54 PM    in reply to Nutter

Being as stupid as I am, I don't think I understood a thing about what you just wrote, except that you're really psycho... um... sort of like... that other guy...

I've never seen such nonsequitur rage from anyone ostensibly with the same basic ideology but nuance they don't happen agree with. Especially when half of it's couched in juvenile attack, and the other half claims an ignorance of fact on my part, which doesn't actually turn out to be the case.

(Oh who are we kidding, you're the same fucking guy...! And probably about 15...)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 2:59 PM    in reply to FreeRider

It's impossible to teach stupid, my friend. good job trying.....i am convinced we are dealing with the dumbest of the dumb in here....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 4:26 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

Stupid=intentionally ignorant. Fits.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 5:22 PM    in reply to FreeRider

It's impossible to teach stupid, my friend. good job trying.....i am convinced we are dealing with the dumbest of the dumb in here....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 10:48 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

lousgirl: Assuming you're still lurking on this thread...

You're saying that I'm "stupid" and "dumb", or that Freeper is? Honestly, the way these things work, I'm unclear.

For the record, I find your posts interesting; but of course, you're in no way obliged to feel mutual.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 1:32 PM   

Question: does the House have to take a separate vote on the Senate bill, or can they pass the Senate bill with a "self-executing rule" while passing the reconciliation bill?

Obama would still have to sign the Senate bill before the Senate acted on the reconciliation bill, but at least skittish House Dems would only have to take ONE vote.

Does the parliamentarian's ruling allow this or would the House not be able to take up a reconciliation bill either without the Senate bill already passed?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

March 12, 2010 2:23 PM    in reply to Aksh486

Note: The parliamentarian did not rule the House has to go first. The thing widely reported yesterday was a paraphrase of a statement by Republicans paraphrasing something the parliamentarian said when asked in person.

The parliamentarian later clarified his remarks (although maddeningly we here also only have paraphrases of things people in the Senate paraphrased the parlimentarian saying):

The parliamentarian, however, later reportedly clarified his position to Senate aides, saying that the reconciliation bill could be written in a way that would not require Obama to sign the Senate bill into law before the reconciliation bill is voted on.

So as far as I understand the specific procedure you describe is still possible. However Pelosi may want to avoid it for other reasons (i.e. it may be legally allowable but practically problematic).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 13, 2010 10:31 AM    in reply to mcc

What you are reporting is consistent with a written report to Congress prepared last year by the Congressional Research Service titled "The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate's 'Byrd Rule'". This report is located at http://budget.house.gov/crs-reports/RL30862.pdf, and on pages 4-5, it states:

"The Byrd rule is a relatively complex rule that applies to two types of reconciliation measures considered pursuant to Section 310 of the CBA of 1974 -- reconciliation bills and reconciliation resolutions. (A reconciliation resolution could be used to make changes in legislation that had passed the House and Senate but had not yet been enrolled and sent to the President. The practice of the House and Senate has been to consider only reconciliation bills.)"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 1:56 PM   

Rather good chances this is why the president stayed behind. The whole thing, really, makes no sense. The House should have passed the senate bill months ago and then any fixes would have been much easier. Of course Republicans will probably try to say the president can't sign something that doesn't have 400 house votes and 80 senate votes. Yes, they are that crazy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

March 12, 2010 2:19 PM   

I think the word "reconcile" is being used as a verb incorrectly a few times in the article.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 4:02 PM   

There's really only one way to convince House Dems that the Senate will pass the sidecar legislation in a form that's acceptable to them. They have to pass it first, then get commitment from at least 50 members of the Senate caucus to vote for it. It then has to be brought to the floor of the Senate and passed without allowing any amendment (along the lines of what Durbin indicated yesterday). Only by not allowing any amendments can the House Dems be sure the bill that's passed will be what's promised. Once you start allowing amendments, any previous commitment is rendered worthless since there's no telling what the final product will be.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 4:23 PM   

Go gopers, plant the seeds of doubts to the ignorants masses.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 4:24 PM    in reply to AhTrini1

Ooops, that should be: Go gopers, plant the seeds of doubts to the ignorant masses.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 13, 2010 4:08 AM   

Democrats should just do what Repukes did: Fire the Senate parliamentarian and put in a new one. Or simply have Biden, as presiding officer, overrule the parliamentarian.

When did Repukes ever not use all of their power to get what they wanted?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on