« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The ObamaCare Nuclear Option

Over at NROnline’s The Corner, Daniel Foster wrote an interesting piece where he explained how Vice President Joe Biden could press the button to launch the Senate’s reconciliation Nuclear Option.  This strategy is the only way the Democrats can get ObamaCare across the finish line and to the President’s desk in the next few weeks.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s office has come up with this partisan strategy to pass a version of ObamaCare that must start in the House.  They need the help of Vice President Biden to usher the bill through the Senate’s consideration, because the plan includes the Vice President issuing rulings, as President of the Senate, that will avoid a filibuster.  Ironically, the Pelosi strategy is all happening as President Obama’s schedules a public bipartisan meeting of the House and Senate to work on a deal to find common ground on health care reform.  The President and Democrats are readying the ObamaCare Nuclear Option if the summit does not produce a deal.  ObamaCare has been soundly rejected by the American people.  The election of Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts and poll numbers (thank you Real Clear Politics) prove that people don’t want ObamaCare — yet the Obama Administration and Members of Congress are still attempting to pass a version of this bill.  As a result of the election of Brown and the sagging poll numbers for ObamaCare, the Democrats have come up with a partisan strategy to pass ObamaCare in the form of the Health Care Nuclear Option.

As I described the situation in Human Events:

An aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says liberals have crafted a way around the Senate’s filibuster rule, so they hope to get ObamaCare signed into law by Easter. First, the House would pass a reconciliation bill making changes to the Senate-passed bill. With a reconciliation bill, the filibuster rule in the Senate would be set aside, and liberal Democrats could ignore the concerns of moderate Democrats and Republicans. Conservatives call this the “Nuclear Option,” because Senate leaders would be bending the rules of the Senate to avoid any chance of a filibuster.

Bob Dove, Senate Parliamentarian until 2001 and current professor at George Washington University, explained the reconciliation process to The Hill as such:

Not only was budget reconciliation created and modified as a means to enact laws to reduce the deficit, which means all the provisions must result in a change in budgetary outlays, but the parliamentarian wields considerable authority to strip anything from the bill that he or she deems to be extraneous, Dove said.  Dove oversaw some budget reconciliation measures in his time and, he notes, ruled out around 300 provisions from a 1995 budget reconciliation bill.Foster argued that the Vice President, who serves as the President of the U.S. Senate, “could in effect commandeer the reconciliation process in the Senate to force through a number of controversial aspects of health-care reform.”

Foster’s piece quotes Dove’s explanation of how the V.P could abuse his authority to pass the reconciliation aspect of ObamaCare in the Senate with a simple majority.  The bottom line is that the Vice President could, with a conspiracy of 50 members of the Democrat caucus, ignore the rules of reconciliation to pass ObamaCare with minimal debate and avoiding the Senate’s filibuster rule.

According to Dove:

The parliamentarian can rule any provisions as “incidental” and remove it from the bill if he or she judges that its purpose is to write new policy not simply to alter the federal budget. “The ‘incidental’ test is a very difficult test because it is very subjective,” Dove said. “You are trying to judge peoples’ motives,” he said. The Senate can overturn the parliamentarian’s rulings with 60 votes — but if Democrats had 60 votes, they would not be using reconciliation. Dove also noted that Vice President Joe Biden, in his Constitutional role as President of the Senate, is the ultimate authority and could overrule the parliamentarian. He added, though, that “no vice president, frankly, since Nelson Rockefeller in 1975, has exercised that right.

Conservatives need to be wary that the liberals are not done trying to pass ObamaCare.  This may be a desperate last ditch effort to pass President Obama’s signature item of his first two year, so be ready for this scenario to play out after the summit, if the summit does not bear any fruit.  For those of you that thought ObamaCare had been laid to rest, remember that it is not over.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • bobojake
    • gman2008

      http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0210/The_trouble_with_reconciliation.html#

      From Robert Dove, former parliamentarian before Alan Frumin and the man who helped craft the reconciliation rules:

      [In addition, to use reconciliation, both the Senate committees on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and on Finance would need to report out the reconciled bill.

      When, or if, the panels did so, senators could still make endless amendments. Dove recalled a senator making 43 points of order, which took the chair five hours to rule on.

      Unlike the cloture rule, which cuts off debate, the "20 hours" with reconciliation only includes actual open debate. That means any time spent reading amendments or taking quorum calls does not count.

      ?At the end of 20 hours, you don?t shut off amendment process,? Dove said. ?If there are senators sufficiently annoyed by the process, they can offer amendment after amendment ... they can demand they be read ... they can force votes on them. This can be a very long and exhausted process.?]

      This is basically what I am saying below in some of my responses and what we need to lean on the GOP to ensure they do it. Amend the crap out of this bill until it is dead, dead, dead.

  • bags64

    Mr. President, there are reports that Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Biden are planning on a so-called ‘nuclear option’ if these meetings do not produce an acceptable bill. Is this true, and can you vow now to veto any such bill should it reach your desk? If not, then why are we meeting now?

    • The_Gadfly
    • Adjoran

      And EVERY single question needs to be on this subject until Obama issues a Shermanesque statement on it.

      If he does promise to veto it, he should be asked if that’s like his other promises, or one he means to keep this time?

      If he refuses to commit, Republicans should not discuss anything else beyond Democrats’ open defiance of the will of the people.

  • gman2008

    There is even talk of bringing back the public option using this method. However, the public option, despite progressive’s blathering about its popularity, is in fact VERY unpopular: http://tinyurl.com/yeynrnc.

    Not to mention that reconciliation bills expire in five years. The Dems are bluffing and I doubt they could get the 50 votes they need. There would be an insurrection in this country if they tried this BS. This is just a scare tactic to provide leverage during the so-called “bi-partisan” healthcare summit. I don’t even think the Democrats are this stupid.

    • azred

      Pelosi is delusional in her quest to pass this POS. Reid is no different. And we know the gaffe-master is no different in his view of the world. Truth does not dare show itself in the minds of these individuals.

      Let me say again, they ARE that stupid!

      • The_Gadfly

        a whole lot of “frankly my dear, I don’t give a ____.”

        Reid already knows he is toast in the next election. I think he’s going to retire he just hasn’t announced it yet. I’m convinced the same is true for Pelosi. Yeah, unlike Reid she has a safe seat, but this leadership thing is more than she bargained for. Just the other day my mother was commenting on how much she has “aged” since she took the job. They’ll try anything to cement what they believe will be their legacy legislation.

  • earlgrey

    What else could we have done or can do to stop this? Mass and Brown should have had an impact.

    What I can’t understand is how in the midst of this scheming The One approval has actuall increased according to Rasmussen. I keep hearing that conservatism is on the ascendency, but I see no evidence of that.

    Is ther any hope that the House will stop this? Does Bayh’s retirement have an impact?

    If we still get this horrible bill, what did we win with the Brown victory?

    • writeblock

      We’re in a cold civil war and need to fight fire with fire. For years I’ve heard about “shutting down the Senate” if the opposition ever dared to do this or that. Was that all hot air? What the overly-polite GOP needs now more than anything are warriors who can get nasty.

  • IJB

    There’s nothing I love more than the smell of napalm on a Nov. morning after election day.

    If they actually try this, I think it is quite likely that a number of *liberal* Dem Rep’s and Senators would be instantly endangered come election time.

    They’d have to be absolutely insane to go this route – if they do, I hope they have their “People’s Militia” on standby, ‘cos they’re gonna need ‘em…

    • E Pluribus Unum

      First, what happens in America will border on open insurrection. Second, this guarantees two responses – (a), they will lose even MORE in the House, and will ABSOLUTELY lose the Senate, and (b) the new GOP majorities in both Houses are going to be extremely angry, and will institute hearings and investigations that will produce convictions and sentences. No Obama nominees for anything, of any kind, will be approved. Not courts, not cabinets, not bureaucrats. Executive orders will be countermanded, and EPA will be defunded. To zero.

      Third, they may not get 51.

      Fourth, if it does pass, that way, it will not be implemented.

  • gman2008

    All of this sounds dire, but I ran across this on the Hill:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81273-healthcare-reform-and-reconciliation-a-bad-mix-ex-parliamentarian-says

    “Senators are also entitled to offer as many amendments as they choose during reconciliation. Though Democrats have a large enough majority to beat back GOP attempts to alter the bill, neither they nor the parliamentarian can limit the number of amendments introduced, Dove said.”

    So even if the VP can over-ride the parliamentarian, the real question is, if the parliamentarian cannot limit the number of amendments then there is nothing to overrule. Could the Republicans still offer amendment after amendment to slow down this thing until it is dead?

    • gman2008

      Just got an email from a Senate insider:

      “The Biden overruling issue is where he would sit in the chair and ignore points of order against the bill (Byrd Rule violations).

      Biden cannot stop Senators from offering a bunch of admts.”

      So we now have to hope the GOP is going to take this approach if the Dems are stupid enough to try this. Not only would the Dems be exposed as truly partisan ideological hacks, but the bill itself may be slowed down enough to kill it and then the Dems could be in serious sh*t come November – more so than they are now. That is why I think this is a bluff.

      • The_Gadfly

        time frame for debate, after that it is an up or down vote. So, you can offer as many amendments as can be considered in the time frame, but once time expires, you can’t offer more amendments. Essentially, you can’t filibuster under a different procedure.

        • gman2008

          http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/uh-oh-what-if-reconciliation-isnt-quick

          Also check out: http://tinyurl.com/yk46y5w

          • Brian Darling

            I wrote abot this exact issue on The Foundry blog – http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/03/fighting-the-nuclear-option/
            Can be done and there is not much that the proponents of ObamaCare can do to stop a reconciliation filibuster by Amendment.

  • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

    I would hope that Republicans tell Democrats that if they push ObamaCare through via reconciliation, then nothing else gets through the Senate. No judges, no mid-level appointees, not one more ambassador or attache. No tax increases. No troop funding. No election-year pork. Nothing.

    But they won’t, because some of that stuff is too yummy for Republicans.

    Which is the problem.

    • The_Gadfly

      I’d even take away their end of day 1 minute speeches. Everything that is commonly done by unanimous consent would require a vote.

      But yeah, your last two lines nail the problem.

    • earlgrey

      I understand they are preparing for two vacancies. Can the court function with less than 9?

  • The_Gadfly
  • http://www.ufcle.com/willis/willis.htm Steven Willis

    When Gov. Palin suggested she’d like to expand the role of VP as President of the Senate, the left and the press (is there a difference?) howled. Yet now Biden is considering the same thing.

    Yes, the VP and the dems have the power to do this . . . but they’d be nuts to use it. I hope they try.

    • Brian Darling

      Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history. The idea he doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that. And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there’s a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit. The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he’s part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

      • Brian Darling

        If Biden sits in the Chair to help the liberals pull the ObamaCare Nuclear Option, then he will be ignoring his own opinion, while a candidate, of the proper role of the VP.

  • Spiral

    Ironic, really. That the Democrats could end up using the Constitutional Option (whereby they pass Senate business on a majority vote, bypassing the 60 vote cloture requirements of Senate Rule 22) on a piece of legislation that is an uncontitutional power grab by the feds.

    • gman2008

      If by constitutional option you mean Biden overrides the parliamentarian. See other posts above. We fight this by offering amendment after amendment until the bill dies a death of a thousand cuts.

      And to make things fun, make the amendments painful for the Dems to vote on. Things like Tort Reform, buying insurance across state lines, etc.

      • Spiral

        Well, in 1977 when a few senators were “filibustering by amendment,” Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd used the Byrd Option to break the filibuster.

        So, if 50 US Senators and Joe Biden are determined, they can pass anything they want.

        The question is whether they would be willing to take the heat on such moves.

        • gman2008

          Who is the former parliamentarian (left in 2001). See: http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0210/The_trouble_with_reconciliation.html#

          This is not a filibuster, but an amendment bomb. It is a different creature.

          • gman2008

            As stated in the article reference above:

            Dove would know. In 1974, in the midst of his 36-year Senate career, he helped design the Congressional Budget Act, which first created the rules for reconciliation.

          • gman2008

            Ending the filibuster is what you are stating. I don’t think you will get 50 Senators to do that in this case. Is that what you are stating? If so, it would ruin the comity of the Senate for the foreseeable future and when the GOP gained power, especially in 2012, there would be serious hell to pay. I don’t think the Dems have the testicular fortitude.

          • PoliFanatic

            While the amendment bomb is nice, it will not necessarily work. It would basically be the same thing as the vote-o-rama that occurs on the budget resolution every single year.

            Unless the Dems choos to treat the amendments as real, and not dilatory (which they will treat them as if they are crazy enough to take the Biden route) they will defeat every one on procedural grounds. At the end of the day, there will be votes, and they can pass it.

            Dove will admit this if you talk to him about the precedent when the President pro-tem chose to ignore the R’s in 1975.

          • Spiral

            I agree that this would be the Byrd, Constitutional, Nuclear Option. But I think the Democrats, desparate to enact their socialized health care bill, might do it.

            Here is what I am referring to. This is from Martin Gold and Dimple Gupta’s essay titled “The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: A majoritarian means to over come the filibuster.

            Here’s a link to the essay: The Constitutional Option by Martin Gold and Dimple Gupta.

            Here’s an excerpt, pages 58 through 60 of that essay:In 1977, Byrd led a Senate majority in setting a precedent to address a loophole that then existed in Rule XXII?s cloture device? the post-cloture filibuster. Senators Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) and James Abourezk (D-SD) had set out to filibuster a proposal to deregulate natural gas prices. The Senate had invoked cloture, triggering Rule XXII?s provisions limiting each Senator to one hour of debate and prohibiting any ?dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane,? but to no avail. Metzenbaum and Abourezk circumvented these limits by proffering a slew of amendments without debating them (thus preserving their time for debate) and then forcing quorum calls and roll call votes for each proffered amendment. Further, making points of order against the amendments would not save time or avert these filibusters by roll call. Although a point of order, if decided by the Chair, was not debatable, an appeal from the Chair?s ruling was debatable. Under the Senate?s rules, the minority could appeal the Chair?s ruling on the point of order, debate the appeal, and thereby continue their delaying tactics. If a motion were made to table the appeal, Metzenbaum and Abourezk would secure a roll call vote on the tabling motion. The result was that by October 3, 1977, the Senate had spent ?13 days and 1 night? debating the natural gas bill, which included ?121 rollcalls? and ?34 live quorums.? That day, Byrd set in motion a two-part plan to end this postcloture filibuster. First, he sought partially to reverse the Senate procedure requiring the Chair to wait for a point of order before ruling on a procedural defect:

            I make the point that when the Senate is operating under cloture the Chair is required to take the initiative under rule XXII to rule out of order all amendments which are dilatory or which on their face are out of order.

            The Vice President [Mondale] sustained Byrd?s point of order:

            [T]he point of order is well taken. The Chair will take the initiative to rule out of order dilatory amendments which, under cloture, are not in order ? . and which on their face are out of order[.]

            Abourezk criticized Byrd for attempting ?to change the entire rules of the Senate during the heat of a debate ? on a majority vote? (that is, for attempting to exercise a variant of the constitutional option) and appealed the ruling. Byrd responded with a tabling motion, which carried 79-14. The result was that a majority of Senators had succeeded in altering Senate procedures without changing the text of a Standing Senate Rule. Armed with this new precedent, Byrd began calling up procedurally defective amendments filed by Abourezk and Metzenbaum. The Chair then ruled each amendment out of order without waiting for a Senator to raise a point of order against his ruling. Despite Byrd?s assurances to Senators Howard Baker (RTN), Edmund Muskie (D-ME), and Abourezk that the right to appeal would remain untouched if his point of order were sustained, Byrd exercised his Majority Leader?s right of preferential recognition to call up the next amendment before Abourezk could appeal, thus mooting the possibility that Abourezk could appeal the earlier ruling. Byrd called up thirty-three amendments in succession, foreclosing all appeals along the way, and the filibuster was broken.

          • gman2008

            and it would destroy Senate comity for years. I don’t think the Dems are that desperate or stupid. They may pound their chests, but at the end of the day, I don’t see them doing this. The proverbial sh*t would hit the fan.

  • olddog

    continues with his policies behind the scenes, in nullifying Congress , the elections may not have the perceived effect we hope for! But then my oh-oh radar has been on full scream since” the One” got elected.
    Trust not ,anyone who has been in that swamp for more than a few years, judge them, not by what they say, but look closely at the money flow, to and from them, from those who do not represent the people.
    R’s and D’s be d–ned, If they don’t hold to their oath to protect and defend the constitution. It is time to hold accountable, all who would sell out the country for, power or money or both. Help create new job openings, VOTE them out.
    Support our Troops! They need it!
    One Old Dog

  • leehazel

    First let me say that no Republican should even consider attending this trap/meeting.

    That said, if for some reason our GOP delegation does decide to attend the following should be considered as a given:

    Should any Republican attempt to have common cause with the Democrats and either of the House or Senate versions of Obamacare in full view of the cameras. They should be looking for new employment come November.

    The gauntlet must be thrown down. The Obama agenda must be destroyed utterly. This is war, and anyone incapable of taking the necessary partisan/conservative stands should be dropped from the party. Please note, I am talking about the non-RINO Republican Party.

    PC is Thought Control
    LEE

  • tnmccoy

    Wow!!! Another honest-to-goodness brain-dead RINO! Just we we need! Argghhh!! Will it never end?

  • ruascott1

    Not the “nuclear option”. Big difference.