After the election of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown in January, which gave Republicans enough votes to sustain a filibuster, Democrats have been unable to pass their health care bill through the normal means: taking the different versions passed in the House and Senate and harmonizing them in a "conference committee" between the two chambers.
So instead, they've reverted to the plan of having the House pass the Senate version of the bill as is, in exchange for a promise that the Senate would then be able to use a parliamentary trick to bypass the filibuster and push through a series of revisions demanded by House Democrats.
But this has run into a big problem: the House has to pass the Senate bill first—at which point it becomes law, and there is no incentive for the Senate to pass the revisions. It was already doubtful that Senate Democrats would be able to pass the revisions, as moderate Senate Republican Judd Gregg has been warning. It is even more doubtful that Senate Democrats would even be willing to try, once they've already got what they wanted.
In response, the House this week prompted an even weirder parliamentary tactic, described here:
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….
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.
The purpose of this, as I understand it, is to change the chronology—in weird sort of "I am my own grandpa" kind of way: the bill will be passed only when Congress passes a revision to the bill that they haven't passed yet.
The same report notes that "While members await a final package and a CBO score, Senate Majority Whip Durbin said Democrats have asked Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin for information on how reconciliation can be used 'with our goals' and what 'the basic rules are.'"
Well, the Senate parliamentarian has responded, and he shot down the idea, "ruling President Barack Obama must sign the broader Senate healthcare legislation before the upper chamber can take up changes demanded by the House." In other words, you cannot pass legislation amending a law that doesn't exist yet. Imagine that.
On Capitol Hill, the whole fiasco has prompting mocking parodies of the old "Schoolhouse Rock" song about a bill sitting on the steps of the capital waiting to become a law. Here is Bill's new summary of how he gets passed:
So then, after I'm drawn up behind closed doors, I get released minutes before they're expected to vote on me, which of course they are expected to do without reading me. And if they don't do as they're told, they can expect a visit from Rahm Emanuel in the shower. Or maybe even a primary challenge.
All of this is what you can expect from a House of Representatives run by a Speaker whose idea of representative government is to tell us that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
It's still looking unlikely that this thing is going to get through. Below, horse race authority Michael Barone describes why the votes aren't there, partly because of a dozen or so anti-abortion Democrats who voted for the original House bill but won't vote for the Senate version, and partly because it relies on House Democrats to take a leap of faith in a Senate which, as one House member puts it, "can't promise its way out of a wet paper bag."
"Can Nancy Pelosi Get the Votes?" Michael Barone, Wall Street Journal, March 11
Are there enough votes in the House to pass the Senate's health-care bill? As of today, it's clear there aren't….
The arithmetic as I see it doesn't add up….
The House bill included an amendment prohibiting funding of abortions sponsored by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak. The Senate bill did not. Mr. Stupak says he and 10 to 12 other members won't vote for the Senate bill for that reason. Others have said the same, including Minnesota's James Oberstar, chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Dan Lipinski, a product of the Chicago Democratic machine.
Mrs. Pelosi may have some votes in reserve—members who would have voted yes if she needed them in November and would do so again. But we can be pretty sure she doesn't have more than 10, or she wouldn't have allowed the Stupak amendment to come forward at the last minute the first time. She also might get one or two votes from members who voted no and later announced they were retiring.
But that's not enough—and there are other complications. Voting for the Senate bill means voting for the Cornhusker kickback and the Louisiana purchase—the price Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid paid for the votes of Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. It's not hard to imagine the ads Republicans could run attacking House members for sending money to Nebraska and Louisiana but not their home states.
To be sure, Democratic leaders say they want to repair the Senate bill by subsequent legislation that could be passed with 51 votes in the Senate under the reconciliation process. But…It can't include the Stupak amendment, which experts say doesn't qualify for the reconciliation process. And there's no way they can credibly promise the Senate will pass it….
"I am not inclined to support the Senate version," Nevada's Shelley Berkley told the New York Times last week. "I would like something more than a promise. The Senate cannot promise its way out of a paper bag."
Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of "The Intellectual Activist (TIA)" and contributor to "The Freedom Fighter's Journal."
0 comments:
Post a Comment