Tag Archives: Senate parliamentarian

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.

You're not gonna believe how low down in the weeds we're gonna have to get for this one.

We just learned from mcjoan that Bart Stupak is after a deal that would somehow jam a foot in the health insurance reform door for his now-notorious Stupak amendment on abortion:

This morning, during an appearance on Good Morning America, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) reaffirmed that he might vote for the Senate health care bill if Democrats pass the Stupak abortion amendment as a separate measure. Stupak said that Democrats have shown a "renewed" interest in tying his amendment to the Senate bill:

STUPAK: George, that’s called an enrollment corrections bill. I presented that to leadership about ten days ago. There’s renewed interest in that piece of legislation that I and a number of us are ready to introduce. It’s prepared. Everybody’s looking at it right now. That’s one way, maybe. But we set the deal with the Senate. You give us a vote in the House. We had a vote in the House. It was overwhelmingly 240-194, to keep public law, no public funding for abortion.

It seems to me that if the Senate parliamentarian is indeed insisting that the reconciliation bill address "current law," then that means the Senate bill must be not only enrolled, but signed by the President before reconciliation can be considered, at least in the Senate. I assume the House parliamentarian has no such objection to the House beginning its work (which is curious in itself), since he's apparently allowing the House to consider and pass reconciliation before the Senate bill is enrolled.

Will the Senate parliamentarian insist that the bill be signed before permitting the Senate to begin its reconciliation work on the floor? He may have no say over what the House parliamentarian approves with respect to when the House passes reconciliation, but he can prevent the Senate from beginning until the Senate bill becomes "current law."

So, does Stupak have an opportunity, then, to get the House and Senate both to approve an "enrollment correction" bill inserting his preferred language in the Senate bill, and get the Senate bill to the president for signature before the Senate takes up reconciliation?

And if he does have that opportunity -- and the tool for taking advantage of it even has a name, that is, an "enrollment correction" bill -- does that finally lay to rest the question of whether pending legislation can be amended by other legislation before the original underlying bill actually becomes law?

UPDATE:

Here's something else fun!

I found a previous use of the enrollment corrections process. It was used in the 108th Congress under Republicans.

Do you remember that crazy provision that got slipped into an appropriations bill that nobody would claim credit for  -- but which was eventually blamed on former Rep. Ernie Istook (R-OK) -- that would supposedly have given the Chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees the right to send people into the IRS to examine people's individual tax returns, etc.?

Well, that crazy piece of crap provision was removed with an enrollment correction bill when the Republicans got caught with it in the conference report and were too embarrassed to let it stand, but didn't want to have to vote on it because it would be to admit the "error," not to mention requiring recommitting the bill to conference.

But wait, there's more! The enrollment correction bill was designated H. Con. Res. 528, and do you know how the Republicans passed it?

They used "deeming" to pass it! Section 3 of H. Res. 866 (which was the rule for the appropriations bill) reads as follows:

SEC. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the House shall be considered to have adopted House Concurrent Resolution 528.

Help! Police! Deeming! Socialismz!