Mar 18, 2010 Article by Theodore Roe | 3 comments

The DNC Self-Executes Their Credibility

The meandering path towards government-run healthcare has taken yet another turn for the worse. Right on the heels of Massachusetts’ historic rejection of all things Democrat came promises that no underhanded tactics would be used to pass this monumental debacle of a health care bill. Then we had the move to pass the Senate bill in toto on the House floor. That move would have eliminated the pesky need for the thing called democracy, as there was no way the Senate could ever have passed that clusterfu*k piece of legislation again after reconciliation, thanks to Scott Brown.

Thank god Ted Kennedy was so terrified that Mitt Romney would appoint a Republican to the Senate if John Kerry got the presidency in 2004. Because the only Kennedy not worth shooting decided the governor could not be trusted with an interim appointment for the Senate, he got the state legislature to pass rules for emergency elections. Not that I think elections are a bad idea. If Illinois had such a system Hot Rod Blagojevich might still be in office himself.

But I digress. The most hilarious part is the House will not budge on the Senate bill. Too many representatives are worried the Senate will screw them over during reconciliation (or they’ve come to their senses and realized what a bloated, miserable bill they have on their hands). Either way it seems like Nancy Pelosi can’t squeeze the necessary votes out of her lowly peons, so a new route must be taken.
Enter Louise Slaughter, whose name has become synonymous these past few days with the newest parliamentary tactic the DNC is employing to move the health care bill forward. Deem and Pass, or the ‘Slaughter Rule’ has Republicans have dubbed it, is a self-executing rule unique to the House of Representatives. Here is the definition of the procedure according to rules.house.gov

Definition of “Self-Executing” Rule. One of the newer types is called a “self executing” 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.”

So basically the House can vote on a bill directly from the Senate without voting on certain provisions or amendments the House finds distasteful (like the Cornhusker Kickback). In essence, the House does not ever really vote on the original Senate bill, rather they vote on the amendments they want to make to the Senate bill. Once the House has come to terms with their changes to the Senate bill, their validation of those changes are considered a sort of retroactive passing of the original Senate bill, while at the same time the House changes are also included.

So what is the matter with this procedure? It has become very popular in both parties (so Republicans quit your crying). The problem is that it denies due process of law, countermanding some very fundamental rules about how laws are formed in the United States. The Constitution specifically states that a bill must pass both the Senate and the House. Right now that is not happening with the Health Care bill.

There have been some scathing comments made by Senators and House Representatives decrying the use of deem and pass. Here’s a little bit a flavor for the stew:

“…we didn’t even get an opportunity to vote on the bill itself except by reference in a self-executing rule. What kind of lack of confidence does that display? What kind of process in pursuit of effectiveness does that mean that we are adopting? What kind of demeaning of democracy is the objective of efficiency resulting in?”

That was Steny Hoyer in 2003. If you’ve been watching the news the last few days, you might have noticed now he’s all excited about how fair and utterly democratic self-executing rules are.

The greatest nut-punch of all is that in 2005 there was a federal challenge to the Constitutionality of Deem and Pass by the activist group Public Citizen. Here is their argument:

“Article I of the United States Constitution requires that before proposed legislation may “become[] a Law,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, “(1) a bill containing its exact text [must be] approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate [must] approve[] precisely the same text; and (3) that text [must be] signed into law by the President,” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998).

“Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) (“DRA” or “Act”), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute’s enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk’s error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate.

“Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. Nor does it matter, Public Citizen argues, that the congressional leaders’ signatures attest that indistinguishable legislative text passed both houses.”

Wow. That reads a lot like the Republican argument against the use of Deem and Pass (though obviously they have no trouble using the rule, either). But I haven’t gotten to the good part yet. This argument is, in my opinion, a cogent one, check out who added their imprimaturs to the brief.

Henry Waxman – who recently said: “If the Republicans refuse to support the end of debate so that a majority can work its will we’re fortunate enough to have a process (Deem and Pass) so the majority can work its will through the reconciliation activities.” Evidently he no longer has a problem with the self-executing rule.

Louise Slaughter (of recent ‘Slaughter Rule’ fame) – who less than a year ago said of Deem and Pass: “Supporters of the weak Senate bill say ‘just pass it — any bill is better than no bill.’ I strongly disagree — a conference report is unlikely to sufficiently bridge the gap between these two very different bills. It’s time that we draw the line on this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board. The American people deserve at least that.”

And (drum roll please)…

Nancy Pelosi – who evidently now loves the idea of Deem and Pass: “But I like it (Deem and Pass), because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.” And: “The fact is, what we’re talking about here (Deem and Pass) is the regular order that has been used hundreds of times.”

I know Deem and Pass has been used before, and it will most likely be used again, but to use misuse such a parliamentary tactic simply to force an unpalatable bill down our throats is despicable. And at the end of the day, that is why any application of the newly christened Slaughter Rule will ultimately backfire on the DNC. No matter how legitimate deem and pass may be, it will only been seen as another way for the Democrats and Barack Obama to step on America’s wishes.

All that is important right now is that that the DNC gets exactly what they want, and everything else be damned. Remember, a vote against this terrible bill is much more than an attempt to properly address the very real concerns of health care reform. A vote against this bill is a vote against truth, justice, freedom, the American way, puppies, butterflies and common human decency. Right, Mr. President?