Best and clearest explanation of Democrats’ reconcilation problems
This is from a joint memo by Senate Whip Jon Kyl and House Whip Eric Cantor. Everybody these days is talking about the minutiae of parliamentary procedure and what the Dems may or may not try. But this lays out the procedural pitfalls, the effects of shaky levels of trust between the House and Senate, the risk/rewards of certain votes, and the names of Democrats who could be pivotal in bringing it all down.
As an example, one of the big problems Dems face is trying to fix substantive problems with the Senate bill through reconciliation. Significantly, it is these very problems that have prevented health care from passing thus far.
This means that Democrats probably cannot use the reconciliation bill to make changes to abortion and immigration provisions, or to include the President’s new insurance regulation proposal. At face value, these would appear to violate the Byrd Rule.
It also means that provisions that were added to the original House bill to gain the support of certain lawmakers cannot be included in reconciliation. For example, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) publicly stated that he voted for the House bill only after adding a provision authorizing a new program to benefit medical centers in his district. That provision, which is not in the Senate bill, would appear to be subject to the Byrd Rule point of order.
Even the president’s proposal to hold the Social Security trust fund harmless from the impact of his proposed changes may run afoul of the requirement that reconciliation cannot make any changes to the Social Security program.
Then there is the tennis-match problem. If a point of order is sustained in the Senate, then the House will have to revote on the Senate bill.
If the point of order is sustained and not waived by 60 senators, then the provision is stripped from the bill and the remainder of the bill is sent back to the House. Consider, for example, the last time Congress considered a controversial bill under reconciliation, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The House passed a conference report on the bill that it believed would survive all Byrd Rule points of order. The Senate ultimately sustained three points of order (one relating to cost sharing for emergency room care). The House then had to revote on the bill minus the three provisions.
There is a lot of good stuff in the memo, and if you want a clear picture, go check it out. But it really still all comes down to whether the House passes the Senate bill, which, in light of the foregoing difficulties, is anything but certain. Kyl and Cantor think it comes down to the following 21 Dems who voted “yes” last year who may be on the fence and could flip to “no” on the final vote.
Congressman Michael Arcuri (NY)
Congressman Marion Berry (AR)
Congressman Tim Bishop (NY)
Congressman Dennis Cardoza (CA)
Congressman Chris Carney (PA)
Congressman Jim Costa (CA)
Congressman Joe Donnelly (IN)
Congressman Steve Driehaus (OH)
Congressman Brad Ellsworth (IN)
Congressman Gabrielle Giffords (AZ)
Congressman Baron Hill (IN)
Congressman Paul Hodes (NH)
Congressman Dan Maffei (NY)
Congressman Harry Mitchell (AZ)
Congressman Bill Owens (NY)
Congressman Earl Pomeroy (ND)
Congressman Mark Schauer (MI)
Congressman Kurt Schrader (OR)
Congressman Zach Space (OH)
Congressman Dina Titus (NV)
Congressman Charlie Wilson (OH)
Finally, and significantly, the parliamentarians are expected to make a ruling soon on whether the House has to pass the Senate bill first, then have Obama sign it into law before any changes can be made through reconciliation. This will potentially throw sand in the gears because then House Democrats have absolutely no assurance that the Senate will fix anything. After all, once Obama signs the bill, it becomes the law of the land.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
These are well-made points, and a good illustration of the absurdity of where health care reform stands. The idea that you’d pass a bill and then immediately turn around and try and undo various provisions of it…it’s just dumb.
Beyond that, I think it’s just a political question for these 21 Democrats in the House (and the rest of them). Even if health care reform dies outright, it’s not like their swing districts are going to be any safer in November. Republican candidates will happily run against what they can characterize as members of a do-nothing Congress that failed to govern on its own principles. Why not have a Republican majority if these guys can’t get anything done?
I have to say, I was kind of surprised to learn that Senators can filibuster a conference report. Like, if you can’t amend a bill, then what’s the point of having extended debate on it? Clearly procedural reform is needed in the Senate, although there’s no use crying over that spilled milk in the Senate right now.
On the issue of whether a Dem in a swing district will be any safer in November if health care fails, I really think those folks represent a constituency that opposes the current reform effort. Every poll shows that to be true. I think it is also a fact that an incumbent is unlikely to lose, as a general principle, because of the incumbent-you-know versus the newbie-you-don’t. That is true, unless the rep. makes an egregious mistake with a vote his constituents think is a deal-breaker.
Our friends on the left vehemently believe that failure to pass a bill will be bad for incumbents, but in a swing district, the status quo will be preferable to passing an unpopular bill. After all, the status quo can still be improved upon anytime, but once an unpopular reform bill passes, it cannot easily be undone. That dynamic means that it is far safer for the swing Dem to vote no and tell his constituents he listened to them and he thinks reform is mandatory, but that it has to be done another way. He will have a much easier time keeping his seat because the Political Hippocratic Oath has been respected: First, do no harm.
In response to another comment. See in context »They already voted ‘yes’ once. It’s not like Republicans in ‘94 didn’t run on the BTU tax that failed to pass. They turned around and said, “Look what these guys tried to do, they’ll try to do it again.” The GOP is happy to set that message up, and compounded by the anti-incumbent feeling and motivation of right-leaning voters who are trying to avenge 2008, it’s an ugly position to be stuck in. And if these Democrats have any prayer of motivating their core of Democratic voters (who are already depressed as Gallup’s polling shows) to turn out and help re-elect them it will be by demonstrating an accomplishment around which to rally. So I think you’ve got that Oath wrong – it’s Do Something and Campaign On Why It Did Good For Our District.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think there is no doubt you are right as it pertains to deeper blue districts, but I was specifically referring to swing (or even right-leaning) districts. If a majority opposes the bill, then you get more votes by opposing the bill.
Here is an example. I’ll bet Democrat Rep. Joe Donnelly from Indiana (who voted for the House bill the first time around) votes no and still gets reelected. His objections are eminently reasonable and most of them even I could support.
This is, after all, what the Dems should have done in the first place. Fix the broken parts and leave the vast majority of people who like their current gig alone. You watch, if he votes no and health care goes down, he’ll get reelected. In fact, I’ll bet you will see a lot of Dems in the coming days or weeks start to talk just like Donnelly as a prelude to a no vote.
In response to another comment. See in context »Also, This poll of swing districts shows that,
Now you can say that those guys are toast anyway because of previous yes votes, but I think the American people are forgiving if ultimately the reps do the “right” thing and vote it down, which is consistent with the constituents’ wishes. It is also painfully apparent that the congressmen will surely lose their jobs if they vote yes. It may be a choice between two bad options (to some people), but only one option has a near certain outcome.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m not talking about deeper blue districts because those districts are safe. The American people would be forgiving if these incumbents were running in a vacuum. Instead, they’re running against an energized GOP that won’t be as forgiving as they run campaign ads against them. They will spin their earlier votes against them brutally. That’s the precise scenario that happened with BTU, and it will happen this time around.
And you can’t discount the impact that a depressed Democratic base within those swing districts will have for the incumbents. If they can’t motivate blue voters to defend them to their purple neighbors, they lose.
So I’ll take the wager – if Donnelly votes no, and the bill dies, he won’t be in the next Congress. I’m not saying that if he votes yes he will be. I’m just saying that there’s nothing for a resurgent minority like running against weak members of a failed Congress. It’s what happened to the district in 1994, and as the political scientists and college debaters say, “winners win.”
In response to another comment. See in context »The clowns, pelosi, reid, obama. don’t care if they pass a blank page…..as long as they can wave it in america’s face
In response to another comment. See in context »The one really really really great thing about this point in the HCR process is that the Republicans are benched. Actually, two really really really great things: the Republicans benched themselves.
It’s comparable to a sports team that spitefully decided to intentionally lose every game in the second half of the season but keeps telling its fans that, with a statistically improbable combination of opponent wins and losses, the team still has a way outside shot at winning a wild card berth.
Doesn’t make for good ticket sales.
Have the Republicans lost? Guess I missed that signing ceremony.
In response to another comment. See in context »What have the Republicans won lately?
In response to another comment. See in context »VA, NJ, MA
In response to another comment. See in context »And lost NY-23 for the first time in a hundred years.
In response to another comment. See in context »NY-23? You can do better than that. I gave you three states the GOP won and you give me a three way race in which the Dem won with 49% of the vote. If this were poker, you’d have about a jack-high hand.
In response to another comment. See in context »Three states? Do you remember the 2008 election at all, or do elections only matter when Republicans win?
Good luck in the mid-terms.
In response to another comment. See in context »2008 is ancient history and is utterly irrelevant. Politics is extremely dynamic and the dynamics have completely flipped the other way. Obama is not a candidate like he was in 2008. He is the president and has been for more than a year. He and the Democrats are actually making policy and governing. People are taking stock of that and are rebelling. So you can stick your fingers in your ears and say la-la-la-la all you want, but just because you don’t want to see a very bad trend for the Democrats (one that, I might add, even big time Dems recognize as a fact) doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. There is not a single poll that shows a single Democrat in better shape now than he/she was a year ago. Not one.
And while we could argue back and forth with witty retorts all day long, I will just note that all last year as the polls tanked for Dems, I was predicting a backlash in the November elections. Every time I mentioned it, Dems came on and said the elections were either too far away or I was cherry-picking the polls. I was right then. And the numbers are even worse for the Dems this year.
In response to another comment. See in context »“2008 is ancient history and is utterly irrelevant.”
Thanks for proving that you aren’t a serious person at all. If you think that 2008 is ancient history and “utterly irrelevant”, that tells me all I need to know about you. Partisan hack.
In response to another comment. See in context »Remember Bill, 2008 is ancient history and is utterly irrelevant.
LOL
In response to another comment. See in context »Accurate on the procedural issues – the one additional fly in the ointment is the V.P.’s ability – as president of the Senate- to rule on a ruling of the parliamentarian, and thus overcome a parliamentary objection. I think it is unlikely that Biden would exercise this opportunity on each of these issues – maybe on one or two.
If it comes down to Biden, I think he will overrule everything to push it through. They would be too close to lay down at that point.
In response to another comment. See in context »Those aren’t hairplugs – they’re a pattern of sudden, natural hairgrowth from the testosterone surge he got after running for president meant he had massive testicular fortitude. His bench press is up 80 pounds, he eats sauerkraut at every meal, and he can rip a phone book in half WITH ONE HAND.
Look for Biden to be in testosterone overdrive when he presides over the Senate on this bill.
In response to another comment. See in context »These clowns would do anything…they are above the law….Biden is in the middle east undoing peace talks, this guy is the dumbest hammer in a bag of dumb hammers
In response to another comment. See in context »Oh yeah the Republicans were very concerned for the middle east peace talks when they had power for 8 years.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] been having this debate with some conservatives for months, and our own site’s Bill Dupray in particular. It’s not like voting no on a health care reform bill that passes gets you out [...]