PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Even Democrats don't want their name on the bill


mlyonsd
03-16-2010, 02:04 PM
Republicans Battle Pelosi Over Plan to Pass Health Bill Without Traditional Vote

Republicans and Democrats are locked in an unusual battle over how to vote on the health care package as House Republicans try to block Speaker Nancy Pelosi from using a legislative trick that would allow rank-and-file Democrats to vote for the health care bill without really voting for the health care bill.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell slammed Democrats on the floor Tuesday for even considering the tactic, which he called "extraordinary."
House Minority Leader John Boehner called it "the ultimate in Washington power grabs."

House Republicans plan to introduce a resolution that would require an "up-or-down" vote in the House on the Senate-approved health care plan, to ensure everyone goes on the record as for or against the bill.

But Pelosi and Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, are cooking up a plan to pass the original health bill from the Senate side without forcing rank-and-file Democrats to technically go on record in support of it.

Democratic leaders are considering the option because many House Democrats don't want to cast a vote in favor of the Senate bill, which they oppose for numerous reasons. Problem is, the House must pass the Senate bill in order to move on to the package of changes intended to correct all the things about the Senate bill that House members don't like.

Enter the Pelosi tactic, known as a "self-executing rule."

Under this tactic, the House could simultaneously approve the Senate version of the bill while voting on the package of changes. This would "deem" the Senate bill passed, though not directly show members voting in favor of passage.

It may sound murky, but the option is winning favor among Democrats.
"It is one of the ways that's being discussed," House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., told Fox News, rebutting criticism.

"There's been a vote in the Senate. They got 60 votes for this," Clyburn said Tuesday. "This is nothing unusual. There's no trickery here at all."

The maneuver is not rare, though it's not typically used for something so sweeping and high-profile. The House most recently used the tactic to raise the debt limit while simultaneously passing a measure requiring the chamber to pay for the measures it approves.

"We're playing it straight," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said. "They used it 30 percent of the time. We used it 16 percent of the time."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs would not say whether President Obama favors the option but appeared to defend it. He called the debate a "legislative process game."

"This week there will be a final vote on health care. ... You're going to know where people are on health care," Gibbs said.

Pelosi reportedly told liberal bloggers Monday that "nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill," and so she's strongly considering the non-vote vote.
"I like it, because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill," she said.

But Republicans were fuming. The consideration of the "self-executing rule" comes after Democrats moved to consider the package of changes under rules that would allow the Senate to pass the bill with just 51 votes, as opposed to the usual 60.

"Anyone who believes they can send this bill to the president without being tarred by it is delusional," McConnell said Tuesday. "Anyone who endorses this strategy will be forever remembered for trying to claim they didn't vote for something they did. It will go down as one of the most extraordinary legislative sleights of hand in history."

House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence, R-Ind., called the option "a betrayal of the commitment of every member of this Congress to the American people."

Boehner said in a written statement that Democrats are considering a "legislative ploy that lets Democrats defy the will of the American people while attempting to eliminate any trace of actually doing so.

"It shows you just how controversial this government takeover of health care has become that it takes a controversial maneuver just to vote on it," Boehner said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/16/pelosi-plan-pass-health-care-traditional-vote-riles-critics/

mlyonsd
03-16-2010, 02:04 PM
How anyone can defend these low lifes is beyond me.

Donger
03-16-2010, 02:07 PM
How anyone can defend these low lifes is beyond me.

It has basically devolved into "You need this legislation, even though you don't like it and don't want it, but we know what's best for you. So, we are going to pass it no matter what."

Direckshun
03-16-2010, 02:22 PM
Good lord some of these guys are idiots.

I don't even know what the point of voting without your name on the record IS.

When you run for reelection in November, I'm pretty sure people are going to ask...

So what do you say then? That you did? Then what was the point of doing it anonymously?

Lie, and say that you didn't?

Or defer to the record, which has no record, which is why you're being asked.

Facepalm, facepalm, facepalm.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-16-2010, 02:25 PM
Good lord some of these guys are idiots.

I don't even know what the point of voting without your name on the record IS.

When you run for reelection in November, I'm pretty sure people are going to ask...

So what do you say then? That you did? Then what was the point of doing it anonymously?

Lie, and say that you didn't?

Or defer to the record, which has no record, which is why you're being asked.

Facepalm, facepalm, facepalm.

Here you go Democrats. You're going to be eaten by your own. I swear every last one of them are fucking idiots. I don't care what party they're in. Okay, not every last one of them, but most definitely the majority of them.

It's like having your toddler aged children map out your life goals.

Direckshun
03-16-2010, 02:26 PM
They're going to be eaten by the American people if they don't start acting like legislators and stop acting like PR students. Shit.

HonestChieffan
03-16-2010, 02:41 PM
The left has taken the real democrats out of the picture so all you have left are these beanheads.
The Dem Party will be years getting over this.

Guru
03-16-2010, 02:46 PM
Oh but they're "playing it straight" straight out of office.

orange
03-16-2010, 05:40 PM
Good lord some of these guys are idiots.

I don't even know what the point of voting without your name on the record IS.

When you run for reelection in November, I'm pretty sure people are going to ask...

So what do you say then? That you did? Then what was the point of doing it anonymously?

Lie, and say that you didn't?

Or defer to the record, which has no record, which is why you're being asked.

Facepalm, facepalm, facepalm.


I can't believe you're swallowing this bullshit.

The House WILL VOTE - ON THE RECORD - for the amended Bill. The one that will be sent to the President to sign.

Can you understand that basic reality? I know the wingnuts can't.

Did Boehner suddenly become your standard for honesty?

mlyonsd
03-16-2010, 05:48 PM
It has basically devolved into "You need this legislation, even though you don't like it and don't want it, but we know what's best for you. So, we are going to pass it no matter what."

Perfect example of elitism overriding representaion.

ClevelandBronco
03-16-2010, 07:51 PM
I can't believe you're swallowing this bullshit.

The House WILL VOTE - ON THE RECORD - for the amended Bill. The one that will be sent to the President to sign.

Can you understand that basic reality? I know the wingnuts can't.

Did Boehner suddenly become your standard for honesty?


You would remain a stranger to honesty if it ass fucked you.

mlyonsd
03-16-2010, 08:14 PM
I can't believe you're swallowing this bullshit.

The House WILL VOTE - ON THE RECORD - for the amended Bill. The one that will be sent to the President to sign.

Can you understand that basic reality? I know the wingnuts can't.

Did Boehner suddenly become your standard for honesty?

Then just bring the bill to the floor. I'm starting to believe even Pelosi is smarter than you.

KC Dan
03-16-2010, 08:57 PM
The House WILL VOTE - ON THE RECORD - for the amended Bill. The one that will be sent to the President to sign.?
But, will they vote for the Senate approved bill as the constitution dictates BEFORE they vote for the amended bill (reconciliation)?

orange
03-16-2010, 10:10 PM
But, will they vote for the Senate approved bill as the constitution dictates BEFORE they vote for the amended bill (reconciliation)?

The Constitution dictates NO SUCH THING.

“Self-Executing” Rules Reported by the House Committee on Rules
Walter J. Oleszek
Government and Finance Division

House Rule X assigns the Committee on Rules jurisdiction over the “order of
business of the House.” The panel’s most noteworthy responsibility is to issue order of
business resolutions; these are usually called “rules,” “special rules,” or, less commonly,
“special orders.” Chamber adoption of these rules accomplishes two main objectives: it
permits the House to take up measures that typically lack a convenient right-of-way to the
floor, and it defines the procedural playing field — for example, time for debate and the
structure of the amendment process — for considering legislation.
The committee’s important scheduling role has meant that congressional scholars
and others have classified rules in various ways. For example, an “open” rule affords any
lawmaker an opportunity to offer amendments to a bill so long as they are in compliance
with the House’s standing rules; a “closed” rule forbids anyone from offering
amendments with an exception sometimes made for amendments recommended by the
committee that reported the measure. Starting about twenty-five years ago, in response
to developments such as increased partisanship and uncertainty with respect to how long
or controversial the amendment process on the floor might be, the Rules Committee
began to issue more procedurally imaginative and complex rules.

Definition of “Self-Executing” Rule.
One of the newer types is called a “selfexecuting”
rule; it embodies a “two-for-one” procedure. This means that when the House
adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is
specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete
policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to
be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will
lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the “self-executed”
provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this
sort contain customary, or “boilerplate,” language, such as: “The amendment printed in
[section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the
Committee of the Whole.”

Traditional Use.
Originally, this type of rule was used to expedite House action
in disposing of Senate amendments to House-passed bills. As mentioned in the
precedents (House Practice by Wm. Holmes Brown and Charles W. Johnson), selfexecuting
rules for these purposes eliminate “the need for a motion to dispose of the
[Senate] amendment.” Brown and Johnson further state that such resolutions are
sometimes called “hereby” special orders “because the House, in adopting the resolution
as drafted, ‘hereby’ agrees to the disposition of the [Senate] amendment as proposed by
that resolution. If the House adopts a resolution, no further action by the House is
required. The [Senate] amendment is never before the House for separate consideration.”
“Hereby” or self-executing rules have also been used to adopt concurrent resolutions
correcting the enrollment of measures or to make other technical changes to legislation.

Contemporary Use.
Self-executing rules are still employed on matters involving
House-Senate relations. They have also been used in recent years to enact significant
substantive and sometimes controversial propositions. Examples from the Congressional
Record will illustrate:
! On August 2, 1989, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 221) that
automatically incorporated into the text of the bill made in order for
consideration a provision that prohibited smoking on domestic airline
flights of two hours or less duration.
! On March 19, 1996, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 384) that
incorporated a voluntary employee verification program — addressing
the employment of illegal immigrants — into a committee substitute
made in order as original text.
! H.Res. 239, agreed to on September 24, 1997, automatically incorporated
into the base bill a provision to block the use of statistical sampling for
the 2000 census until federal courts had an opportunity to rule on its
constitutionality.
! A closed rule (H.Res. 303) on an IRS reform bill provided for automatic
adoption of four amendments to the committee substitute made in order
as original text. The rule was adopted on November 5, 1997, with
bipartisan support.
! On May 7, 1998, an intelligence authorization bill was made in order by
H.Res. 420. This self-executing rule dropped a section from the
intelligence measure that would have permitted the CIA to offer their
employees an early-out retirement program.
! On February 20, 2005, the House adopted H.Res. 75, which provided that
a manager’s amendment dealing with immigration issues shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole
and the bill (H.R. 418), as amended,

http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf

Also:

When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority’s preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O’Neill’s (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright’s (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.

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). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

http://wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1412&fuseaction=topics.publications&doc_id=190504&group_id=180829


I make that 278 self-executing rules PASSED - as of June 2006.

petegz28
03-16-2010, 10:14 PM
I can't believe you're swallowing this bullshit.

The House WILL VOTE - ON THE RECORD - for the amended Bill. The one that will be sent to the President to sign.

Can you understand that basic reality? I know the wingnuts can't.

Did Boehner suddenly become your standard for honesty?

That is against the law, orange. The House and Senate have to vote on a bill that contains the EXACT same wording. The Senate cannot pass a bill, the House change it, approve it and then it is law. That is illegal.

But then again this whole fiasco has shown the Dems care little about legalities.

petegz28
03-16-2010, 10:17 PM
What this has sadly come down to is a handfull of Dems and the President are throwing a temper tantrum cause the people don't want to let them have their way. I firmly believe that this is no longer about health care but about Obama and Pelosi proving to the American people that they can get their way regardless. They just want to pass it to say "see, we can do whatever we want". More or less.

orange
03-16-2010, 10:18 PM
That is against the law, orange. The House and Senate have to vote on a bill that contains the EXACT same wording. The Senate cannot pass a bill, the House change it, approve it and then it is law. That is illegal.

But then again this whole fiasco has shown the Dems care little about legalities.

I won't argue with what your saying because IT WON'T APPLY.

The Final version of the Bill that the House will pass and the Final version of the Bill that the Senate will pass WILL BE THE SAME after all the song and dance. And THAT FINAL VERSION that has passed both houses will be sent to the President and signed.


As I posted just above - IT'S BEEN DONE OVER 278 TIMES - as of FOUR YEARS AGO.


p.s. Oh, yeah - BOTH HOUSES WILL HAVE THEIR VOTES RECORDED.

petegz28
03-16-2010, 10:25 PM
I won't argue with what your saying because IT WON'T APPLY.

The Final version of the Bill that the House will pass and the Final version of the Bill that the Senate will pass WILL BE THE SAME after all the song and dance. And THAT FINAL VERSION that has passed both houses will be sent to the President and signed.


As I posted just above - IT'S BEEN DONE OVER 278 TIMES - as of FOUR YEARS AGO.


p.s. Oh, yeah - BOTH HOUSES WILL HAVE THEIR VOTES RECORDED.


We shall see. And if it does, the only silver lining will be most of the Dems will be out!

orange
03-16-2010, 10:37 PM
<object width='320' height='260'><param name='movie' value='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf'></param><param name='flashvars' value='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=201003160021'></param><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always'></param><param name='allownetworking' value='all'></param><embed src='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' flashvars='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=201003160021' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' width='320' height='260'></embed></object>

Good God Almighty, a beacon of light! From FOX of all places!

Bwana
03-16-2010, 10:42 PM
More "Hope and Change!"

ClevelandBronco
03-16-2010, 10:44 PM
To his credit, Pres. Obama promised transparency and it's very easy to see right through him.

petegz28
03-16-2010, 10:45 PM
<object width='320' height='260'><param name='movie' value='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf'></param><param name='flashvars' value='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=201003160021'></param><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always'></param><param name='allownetworking' value='all'></param><embed src='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' flashvars='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=201003160021' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' width='320' height='260'></embed></object>

Good God Almighty, a beacon of light! From FOX of all places!

Yes, we know. Which is why people are pissed off. They are being handed a political promise to "fix the bill" AFTER the one no one wants becomes law. ROFL

I wouldn't hold your breath on that if I were you.

alanm
03-16-2010, 11:29 PM
How anyone can defend these low lifes is beyond me.This would be the weasel way of voting. If these guys really believed in what they voted for was the right thing they'd put their names to it and be held in favor or accountable for it.
This "Self executing vote" to pass this forward for a bill of such magnitude and against the will of the people would be contemptible and cowardly. :shake:

alanm
03-16-2010, 11:38 PM
The left has taken the real democrats out of the picture so all you have left are these beanheads.
The Dem Party will be years getting over this. This would have to be the comedy of the year if it wasn't so pitiful and frightening. What was it Lindsey Graham said today? "That Pelosi has all the democrats in the house drunk on saki and on a Kamikaze mission". ROFL

The Mad Crapper
03-17-2010, 11:35 AM
http://www.moonbattery.com/billboard_11.JPG