Ruling Kills an Option for Moving Health Bill - Parliamentarian says House must pass bill first.

[jefferson_dem]

Ruling Kills an Option for Moving Health Bill
March 11, 2010, 2:30 p.m.
By David M. Drucker
Roll Call Staff

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.

The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.

House Democratic leaders have been searching for a way to ensure that any move they make to approve the Senate-passed $871 billion health care reform bill is followed by Senate action on a reconciliation package of adjustments to the original bill. One idea is to have the House and Senate act on reconciliation prior to House action on the Senate’s original health care bill.

Information Republicans say they have received from the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office eliminates that option. House Democratic leaders last week began looking at crafting a legislative rule that would allow the House to approve the Senate health care bill, but not forward it to Obama for his signature until the Senate clears the reconciliation package.

<SNIP>

http://www.rollcall.com/news/44110-1.html?type=printer_friendly

[DrToast]

1. Considering the sources....don't buy it

It may be true, but the GOP is trying to spread a lot of misinformation over this.

[vaberella]

2. I'm with you. If this was true it would have come up during that whole meeting.

This is a set up to sell misinformation. Because they would have ran on this from the get-go.

[Cleita]

3. Funny when the Senate Parliamentarian has more power than the

Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader. Totally weird. I guess he must be a registered Republican favoring minority rule and obstruction.

[zipplewrath]

4. Actually, the VP can over rule him

In this case, the VP could over rule the parliamentarian.

[angelicwoman]

29. Do you have a link to back up your claim? n/t

[Supersedeas]

12. Suddenly, one parlimentarian, one Senator, a Rep with a C-Street Abortion Agenda

amazing how easily Congress can be shut down.

And when Bushler was in office, the Patriot Act flew threw without peep from the Media in the middle of the night and was signed before a signal Congress Critter could sneeze.

What a difference media War Drums can make.

[dmr]

20. If only one of us could go there as the "One Citizen"!

We'd get it done, so we could move on to other business.

<sigh>

[Supersedeas]

27. One Citizen gets crowded out by all the noise made by Corp Lobbyist and their Media shills

[Cleita]

22. Not too mention two wars and a redefinition of enhanced interrogation

aka known as torture.

[Jennicut]

17. There have only been two since the mid 80's. Alan Frumin and Robert Dove.

Dove worked for Dole at one time, but was actually fired by Trent Lott over some ruling Dove made that Lott didn't like...go figure that one out!
He joined the Parliamentarian's office in 1966. He was named Parliamentarian of the United States Senate in 1981 and remained in this position until 1987. He served on the staff of Senator Robert Dole from 1987 until 1995, when he was again made Parliamentarian of the United States Senate. In 2001, he determined that Senate rules allow only one budget bill per year to be immune from filibuster. The Parliamentarian may delete provisions in a budget bill if the provision is only there for policy implications or if it has no budgetary implications. In 2001, Dove ruled to remove a Republican provision to allocate over $5 billion in the 2002 budget for natural disasters. Following Republican anger about these rulings, he was fired by Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott.<4>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dove

Some info on Frumin:
"A graduate of Colgate University in Hamilton, New York, and Georgetown University’s law school in Washington, he’s worked in the parliamentarian’s office since 1977. He was appointed to the top job in 2001 after his predecessor, Bob Dove, was fired by then-Majority Leader Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican. Frumin became the first parliamentarian named by both parties."http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a5R5Kp1llkYk

Seems Frumin is probably legit. But Joe the VP can override him on the issues with reconciliation.

[angelicwoman]

28. when it comes to deciding when reconciliation can be applied,the Parliamentarian is the sole referee

That's what he's paid for.

[Cleita]

30. He's not paid to obstruct. Shouldn't his function be non-partisan?

Yet, this nonsense seems to be partisan inasmuch as the strictness of the 60 senator majority wasn't invoked during all the abuses of the Bush administration.

[The Wielding Truth]

5. Seems to me to be another republican fabrication trying to make their own reality.

[Raine1967]

6. I have been trying to get the link to load.

Keep getting a server busy error.

GRR.

[jefferson_dem]

8. Hmmm. Try this one, Raine.

:hi: http://www.rollcall.com/news/44110-1.html

[Raine1967]

11. :)

Sent you a pm.

Had another person try to figure it out. Not doubting the story, but They aren't coming up for me.

:(

[Raine1967]

14. NEVER MIND.. GOT IT NOW!

Thanks Jefferson.

Ignore my strange PM. ;)

[Raine1967]

7. Still, it isn't making sense.

/it's GOP sources.

[Solomon]

9. I wish somebody could explain in plain laymen's terms what

the hell this means. Hannity is yelling and shouting all over the radio as though Obama has been impeached and the republicans have won the whole enchalada.

[Connie_Corleone]

10. Wasn't this the plan all along?

The House pass the Senate version of the bill. Obama signs it into law. Then the senate passes the "fix" bill through reconciliation.

Am I missing something?

[Jennicut]

19. This is a new strategy by the House because they don't trust the Senate.

They can go back to the old plan...which is the Senate passes it, Obama signs it, then reconciliation fixes. Or perhaps Biden could overrule it.

[flpoljunkie]

13. Interesting, no one else is reporting this yet. 'Answers provided verbally?' Seems suspicious.

[Solomon]

15. LOL Now Hannity is backtracking. Saying something about

he's just heard about some other "corrupt" way the democrats are going to skirt the rules, this time with Biden overruling something. The guy is cracking me up. He's practically yelling and screaming though as if the world is coming to an end.

(Sorry - his radio show is one on the few things I can get at work- wonder why that is?)

[leftynyc]

24. Corrupt?

As opposed to simply firing the Parliamentarian they way Trent Lot did? He's such a schmuck.

[HughMoran]

16. This is not that surprising based on the story posted here yesterday

It wouldn't surprise me if this was true, though it's weird how the Repukes are poking their nose into this to start trouble. Though another way of looking at it, they may have given the Dems a heads up.

[Raine1967]

18. Nope -- I'll believe it when I get a anything beyond Anonymous GOP Sources

I have no reason to trust them whatsoever.

[ProSense]

21. Yeah, remember how bush had to sign all those bills before they passed via reconciliation?

The media pushing GOP bullshit.

[flpoljunkie]

23. TPM reports Reid's office had no comment on this story.

Translated: the reconciliation bill, which would amend the Senate health care bill, will likely be on hold in the Senate until the President signs the latter into law. Assuming the ruling is made official, it could be overturned by the Senate chair--likely Vice President Joe Biden--but there's little-to-no precedent for such a maneuver.

That could unnerve some House Democrats, many of whom don't want the Senate bill signed into law until after the reconciliation bill has been passed by both the House and Senate. They worry that the Senate won't be able to follow through with its promise to pass a reconciliation bill, and that the result will be that the Senate health care bill will become law without any changes.

Nevertheless, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent McConnell a sternly worded letter this afternoon, vowing to press ahead with reconciliation anyhow. Perhaps that will put House Democrats' minds at ease.

Reid's office had no comment on this story.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/mcconnell-spox-parliamentarian-says-obama-must-sign-health-care-bill-before-senate-passes-reconcilia.php?ref=fpa

[karynnj]

25. This could actually make things easier - as long as the House vote goes through

The fixes are cleaning up the bill and for the most part, getting rid of things no one likes. An interesting angle on this is, with the main bill already passed and signed into law, could the Republicans be pushed into voting for the reconciliation package. Imagine how this works for Mr 41, the choice he might have is to either vote against a bill that get rids of the special deals (thus being for keeping them) or he votes for it. It would be funny if the recociliation bill passes with more than 60 votes.

[jefferson_dem]

31. "as long as the House vote goes through"

Huge qualifier. I guess that's what everyone is freaking out over. The obstuctionist gNOp is clicking their heels thinking this is enough to put the fear into wavering, weak-knee'd Dems that the reconciliation package will never happen. Friggin' wimps.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

26. Hmmm... kind of makes sense.

A bill changing a law that doesn't exist does pose a conceptual problem.

[onenote]

32. So is there precedent for using reconciliation to amend legislation before its actually enacted

into law?

I had understood the original reconciliation prooposal to involve the House passing the Senate bill and then the two chambers agreeing on a the reconciliation bill after which the president would sign the bills in the order in which they were enacted. Now it appears that the Parliamentarian is saying that the first bill must become law in advance of reconciliaton being used to change it. That actually makes some sense from a procedural standpoint, but I'm wondering whether there is any precedent for doing it the way that was being contemplated and whether it can be argued that the Parliamentarian's ruling would go against that precedent. My guess is that there is not... that reconciliation has not previsouly been used to amend a piece of legislation that has not yet become law. But it would be interesting to know if someone has checked this out.