PrintSenate Republicans say they've found a loophole that they could use to kill health care reform. The Democratic plan is to have the House of Representatives pass the Senate health care bill, while having both chambers use a budget reconciliation bill to fix objectionable measures. The advantage of that plan is that a reconciliation bill just needs a straight majority in the Senate and can't be filibustered.
Except Republicans say maybe it can:
Republicans say they have found a loophole in the budget reconciliation process that could allow them to offer an indefinite number of amendments.
Though it has never been done, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) says he’s prepared to test the Senate’s stamina to block the Democrats from using the process to expedite changes to the healthcare bill.
Experts on Senate procedural rules, from both parties, note that such a filibuster is possible. While reconciliation rules limit debate to 20 hours, senators lack similiar constraints on amendments and could conceivably continue offering them until 60 members agree to cut the process off.
The Democrats do have a countermeasure:
Another option for Democrats would be to seek a ruling by the parliamentarian that Republicans are simply filing amendments to stall the process. But such a ruling could taint the final healthcare vote and backfire for Democrats in November.
The story actually provides a fascinating window into the partisan psychology on Capitol Hill. The Republicans might block health care reform by trying a maneuver that, while legal, has never been done before. Democrats might respond in kind with a counter-maneuver that's also legal and has never been done before. Yet the story implies -- accurately, I suspect -- that Democrats fear they would be tainted. The Republicans seem to have no such fear (“You’ll see Republicans do everything they can to delay and stop this process,” says Jim DeMint.)
COMMENTS (5)
This is a crucial reason I've given many times why Democrats should support abolishing the filibuster and like maneuvers. The Republicans will use such things ruthlessly and with great unity. The Democrats will use them much less and much less effectively.
Do you think a special election loss would have stopped the Republicans from passing a bill they wanted as much as the Democrats wanted health care? Are you kidding? They'd pass the Senate bill in the house if they lost 20 special elections.
The biggest reason why I think Democrats should support abolishment of the filibuster, however, is here:
view full comment
This is a crucial reason I've given many times why Democrats should support abolishing the filibuster and like maneuvers. The Republicans will use such things ruthlessly and with great unity. The Democrats will use them much less and much less effectively.
Do you think a special election loss would have stopped the Republicans from passing a bill they wanted as much as the Democrats wanted health care? Are you kidding? They'd pass the Senate bill in the house if they lost 20 special elections.
The biggest reason why I think Democrats should support abolishment of the filibuster, however, is here:
http://richardhserlin.blogspot.com/2009/08/key-reason-why-51-democratic-...
And we can't afford the monumental risk of waiting 50 or more years until luck, skill, and circumstances are just right that we can pass a strong anti-global warming bill over a Republican filibuster.
-
I'm still waiting for a precedent:
When was permanent legislation enacted without the bill being subject to approval of a sixty vote Senate majority (to stop debate & bring the bill to the floor for a vote)? Should "...both chambers use a budget reconciliation bill to fix objectionable measures..." the fix will be limited to the budgetary aspects of the bill. As designed, HCR doesn't even meet the standards of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
As defined by the Senate:
"A provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to report (or submit to the Budget Committee) legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the de ... view full comment
-
I'm still waiting for a precedent:
When was permanent legislation enacted without the bill being subject to approval of a sixty vote Senate majority (to stop debate & bring the bill to the floor for a vote)? Should "...both chambers use a budget reconciliation bill to fix objectionable measures..." the fix will be limited to the budgetary aspects of the bill. As designed, HCR doesn't even meet the standards of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
As defined by the Senate:
"A provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to report (or submit to the Budget Committee) legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution. The instructions specify the committees to which they apply, indicate the appropriate dollar changes to be achieved, and usually provide a deadline by which the legislation is to be reported or submitted.".
So, the best case for Democrats would be to submit a bill that would be limited to the tax-budget elements of HCR and use Reconciliation to avoid filibuster. However, any or all sections of the bill that aren't strictly related to paying-cost would be subject to debate and the approval of sixty members.
I believe it unlikely the bill in this new construct would make it out of the committees and Republicans wouldn't be using 'loopholes'. The rules of the Senate would still apply to any provisions in HCR that are not narrowly related to budget-taxes.
Which party would be using a maneuver that hasn't been tried before? Since 1980, the only successful use of Budget Reconciliation are bill narrowly related to deficits, taxation, and in all cases strictly defined financial legislation.
-
The real mystery to me is why no one outside DC seems to know about Jim DeMint. I mean, this guy and not Limbaugh or some other bloviator should be the face of the GOP -- a rabidly partisan, economically ignorant Senator from Mark Sanford's and Joe Wilson's home state (not to mention the place whose Lieutenant Governor recently compared people on public assistance to stray animals), who proposes an economic stimulus that would guarantee deficits forever, votes against Pentagon budgets so that he can stand up against health care and delays confirmation of the TSA head while people are trying to blow up airliners with underwear bombs. The best thing is, no one even has to hear him speak or k ... view full comment
The real mystery to me is why no one outside DC seems to know about Jim DeMint. I mean, this guy and not Limbaugh or some other bloviator should be the face of the GOP -- a rabidly partisan, economically ignorant Senator from Mark Sanford's and Joe Wilson's home state (not to mention the place whose Lieutenant Governor recently compared people on public assistance to stray animals), who proposes an economic stimulus that would guarantee deficits forever, votes against Pentagon budgets so that he can stand up against health care and delays confirmation of the TSA head while people are trying to blow up airliners with underwear bombs. The best thing is, no one even has to hear him speak or know who he is -- the White House can promote and paint him as the public face of the Republican Party in the Senate and the whole reason why they are obstructionists. Make Republican Senate candidates like Mike Castle and Mark Kirk stand up and say whether they are with Jim DeMint or with the rest of America. And keep doing it until October. Why is this so hard??
Yes, the passage of healthcare would be "tainted" by the arcane parliamentary maneuver used to get it through the Senate.
Because Bush pushing hard with a 50/50 Senate and Cheney as tiebreaker certainly shamed them and cost them the 2002 Midterms. And we certainly remember exactly how Social Security and Medicare passed Congress, don't we?
I think I'm going to send some money to Danny Tarkanian or Sue Lowden, whichever one comes out of the Nevada Republican Senate Primary on June 8th. One of them is the our best shot of having a Senate Majority Leader who isn't a goddamn useless pansy.
Yes, the passage of healthcare would be "tainted" by the arcane parliamentary maneuver used to get it through the Senate.
Because Bush pushing hard with a 50/50 Senate and Cheney as tiebreaker certainly shamed them and cost them the 2002 Midterms. And we certainly remember exactly how Social Security and Medicare passed Congress, don't we?
I think I'm going to send some money to Danny Tarkanian or Sue Lowden, whichever one comes out of the Nevada Republican Senate Primary on June 8th. One of them is the our best shot of having a Senate Majority Leader who isn't a goddamn useless pansy.
-
Medicare passed the House (307-116) and Senate (70-24). However, regional and ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats in 1965 versus 2010 will reveal more contrasts than comparisons. The Social Security Act of '35 would provide less guidance for either party, regarding how they'd maneuver a bill through either house.
After agreeing there were two parties, the comparisons between '35 or '65 and now evaporate.
-
-
Medicare passed the House (307-116) and Senate (70-24). However, regional and ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats in 1965 versus 2010 will reveal more contrasts than comparisons. The Social Security Act of '35 would provide less guidance for either party, regarding how they'd maneuver a bill through either house.
After agreeing there were two parties, the comparisons between '35 or '65 and now evaporate.
-