Did you guys just hear Thom Hartmann? He said he read the bill and

[ej510]

it says the Super Congress only needs a majority to agree on the piece of legislation. Oh, and if the Super Congress agrees on tax increases, it can be amended in the house. Only taxes can be amended nothing else. Cuts to programs, cannot be amended.

[villager]

1. Figures. Wish I could say any of it was a "surprise..."

n/t

[valerief]

2. Well, we're an official Frankfood corn republic (instead of banana). nt

[n2doc]

3. ...

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Oh my should I be...

:sarcasm:

[ej510]

5. Disgusting isn't it?

[gateley]

The legislation can't be filibustered - straight up and down

votes - which is a definite plus.

And the "rules" can always be broken - ask Bush.

[ej510]

13. Yep, that is what makes this comission so dangerous.

[gateley]

41. I see it as a plus -- the bill has to get to the floor past the

Super Committee (which may not turn out to be truly objective and bi-partisan, but assuming at this point it will be...), so the Republicans can't pull their filibuster crap just to stop anything that might help Obama/Dems.

But like everything, there's probably positives and negatives associated with this aspect.

[paparush]

51. Wait till you see the makeup of the super committee...

6 tea baggers, 4 neocons, and 2 blue dog democrats.

[RaleighNCDUer]

58. Can't be filibustered - so, if they have 51 senate votes for raising the

SS eligibility age to 70 - it's law.

If they have 51 votes to turn SS over to Wall Street - it's law.

A definite plus.

[William769]

6. And here is where entitlement programs get screwed.

And of course with President Obamas blessing.

[Lorien]

7. Repugs in lockstep, Dems willing to "compromise"

we know how each piece of legislation will go. May as well have repugs own all three branches of government!

[ej510]

20. Yep, rethugs will vote together and we will split in half again.

[jpak]

8. and if the House does not agree to pass the bill - the triggers get pulled

yup

[ej510]

10. It will pass, because you only need one dem to agree to the garbage the repukes on the

Super Congress will come up with. I doubt any progressives will be in the super congress. It is possible to get one for a symbol.

[jpak]

15. Yes - we all know there will be no progressives in the Super Duper Thingy

The Bad Obama will see to this

yup

[ej510]

30. I said maybe one, but he or she will be powerless.

[tularetom]

9. The more I hear about this "super congress"

The more convinced I am that it will turn into a giant cluster fuck and after a few attempts to get it to accomplish anything, it will be marginalized and ultimately abandoned.

[paparush]

53. I dunno, that's some potentially powerful toothpaste to put back into the tube.

The Baggers are absolutely drunk with power now. They'll try to stack this Stupid Congress.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. so let's play this out...Say, miraculously, the Super Congress

half them, half us, (right?) agree on a tax increase of say taking a rate bracket from 15% to 17%

the House with rep majority, can amend it to say No, we will only raise it to 16%

how does it matter since we still can nip it in the senate

sounds like it's basically meant to allow the house and the senate, based on representation, to agree to increases

[ej510]

12. I won't hold my breath for a miracle from that crowd.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

14. I agree...6 republicans and 6 democrats...they will NEVER agree nt

[ej510]

25. Repukes will, do an all cuts bill. And one corporate dem will pass it.

All the Senate needs is 51 senators to pass the piece of garbage.

[jpak]

19. ((((((Shhhhh)))))))

you're not supposed to say that

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. say what? that's representative? (tax hikes)

[jpak]

29. That the straight jacket fits the GOP nicely and tax increases are on the table

yup

[paparush]

55. 6 Tea Baggers, 4 Blue Dogs, and 2 moderate Dems.

Kaching.

The middle class is dead.
Democracy is on life support.

[Ruby the Liberal]

16. Holey sheet!

Did anyone read this thing before they voted on it? ANYONE?

[ej510]

17. Progressives dems voted no, and corporate dems voted yes.

[Ruby the Liberal]

24. Not so fast there, kimosabe.

Al Franken voted for it. Still waiting to see what other liberal "stalwarts" couldn't be bothered to take a stand against this poison pill.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

18. who is picking our six? Reid and Pelosi? nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

26. Sam Stein proposed a rule.

The only people allowed to sit on the committee can't run for re-election.

I love it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

31. Ok... Bingaman, Kent Conrad, and Herb Kohl (don't trust Webb) nt

[jtown1123]

33. You want Conrad and Kohl? They will vote for cuts.

[jtown1123]

32. Probably. It'll be all Blue dogs with a token progressive. Warner, Conrad, Durbin, etc.

[ej510]

35. I agree, the bill will be an austerity bill.

[jtown1123]

42. Conrad said yesterday it'll be a mix of Catfood Commission and Gang of 6

[Ikonoklast]

21. The entire House and Senate still needs to vote on any bill presented.

Geesh.

It's just another committee, whose very existence can be terminated by the very next majority.

[ej510]

27. The vote will take place during the week of Christmas.

[enlightenment]

39. Presumably it won't last that long -

if they don't produce by December 23rd, the 'triggers' are activated.

This isn't 'just another committee', though. Read the fine print.

[ej510]

43. I doubt the protections get a chance yo kick in.

[myrna minx]

23. It's a big win for the baggers and the blue dogs. n/t

[ej510]

28. Big win for the Koch Brothers.

[MessiahRp]

34. Can't wait for this entire bill to be struck down in the courts

They screwed the pooch on this. The Super Congress is unconstitutional and will not hold up in the courts. This entire bill will be rendered DOA in the courts.

Rp

[ej510]

36. WIth the Supreme court we have now, it will.

[enlightenment]

37. Where is he getting that, because it doesn't look like any amendment

is allowed. After the 'super committee' decides what it will look like, it goes to committees in the House and the Senate. They consider the bill without amendment, and have two choices - to pass it along for consideration by the full House or Senate, or discharge it back to the 'super congress' (but that option is limited).

Once the committees pass the bill along to the full House or Senate, the remaining members get to vote on it. All points of order are waived and 'debate' is limited to two hours (in the House) or thirty hours (in the Senate) of equal-time posturing by two members (I assume they can cede the floor to others in their allotted time). There can be one motion to shut down the 'debate' but none to reconsider voting.

MODS: Bill section analysis quoted in full, as this is a public document and not subject to copyright.
Link to the analysis: http://www.rules.house.gov/singlepages.aspx?NewsID=445

Emphasis is my own.

Sec. 402. Expedited Consideration of Joint Committee Recommendations.

Subsection (a) provides for introduction of the joint committee’s legislative recommendations. If approved by the joint committee, the legislative language accompanying their recommendations
must be introduced on the next session or legislative day in the House or Senate, respectively. The measure is to be introduced (by request) in the Senate and House by the majority leader of each body or a designee.

Subsection (b) provides for expedited consideration in the House. Each committee receiving a referral of the joint committee bill must report that bill without amendment not later than December 9, 2011. If a committee fails to report the bill prior to that date, a member may offer a motion to discharge the bill. That motion is debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled between the proponent and an opponent and a motion to reconsider the vote disposing of the motion is not available. The motion to discharge is not available after the last committee reports the bill or the House has considered a prior motion to discharge.

If the motion is adopted or after the last committee reports the joint committee bill, a motion to proceed to the consideration of the bill is in order. The motion to proceed is not debatable, and a motion to reconsider the vote disposing of the motion to proceed is not available.

If the House proceeds to consideration of the joint committee bill, all points of order against the bill and its consideration are waived, and it is considered as read. The joint committee bill is debatable for 2 hours, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. One motion to limit debate is available, while a motion to reconsider the vote disposing of the joint committee bill is not in order. The vote on passage of the joint committee bill must occur on or before December 23, 2011.

Subsection (c) provides for expedited consideration in the Senate. The joint committee bill must be referred jointly to the committees of jurisdiction. Each committee to which the bill is referred must report the bill with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or no recommendation, by not later than December 9, 2011 and without amendment. If any committee fails to report the bill by that date, that committee will be automatically discharged and the joint committee bill placed on the appropriate calendar.

Two days after the last Senate committee reports the joint committee bill or is discharged, the majority leader of the Senate or a designee may move to proceed to the consideration of the joint committee bill, even if a prior motion to proceed has failed. All points of order against the motion to proceed are waived and it is not debatable, and it is not subject to a motion to postpone or reconsider. If the motion to proceed is agreed to, the joint committee bill will remain unfinished business until it is disposed of.

Consideration of the joint committee bill, including all debatable motions and appeals, is limited to 30 hours equally divided between the majority and minority leaders of the Senate. All points of order against the joint committee bill and its consideration are waived. A non-debatable motion to limit debate is available and requires an affirmative three-fifths vote. Any debatable motion or appeal is limited to one hour, equally divided between a proponent and an opponent. All time used for consideration of the joint committee bill, including time used for quorum calls, counts against the 30-hour total.

No amendments to the joint committee bill or a motion to postpone, proceed to the consideration of other business, or recommit are in order. Appeals from decisions of the chair regarding application of the rules of the Senate to consideration of the joint committee bill are non-debatable.

The Senate must vote on passage of the joint committee bill immediately after the conclusion of debate and a quorum call, if requested. The Senate must also vote on the joint committee bill not later than December 23, 2011.

Subsection (d) provides that the joint committee bill is not subject to amendment in either the
House or Senate.

Subsection (e) provides standard language to address the handling of the joint committee bill if passed by one chamber before the other has completed its consideration. It also provides that if the joint committee bill is a revenue measure, the subsection does not apply to the House.

Subsection (f) also contains several standard provisions to address issues in the Senate when they receive a joint committee bill from the House. First, it provides that joint committee bill originated by the House is entitled to expedited consideration in the Senate if the Senate fails to introduce or consider a joint committee bill. Second, if the Senate receives the joint committee bill after passage of the joint committee bill, the House version is not debatable and the vote on passage of the Senate version is considered to be the vote on the House version. Finally, it provides that debate on a veto message on the joint committee bill in the Senate is limited to one hour, equally divided between the majority and minority leaders.

Subsection (g) provides that the joint committee bill loses its privileged status if the joint committee fails to vote on the report or legislative language by November 23, 2011 or the joint committee bill does not pass both the House and Senate by December 23, 2011.

Link to the actual bill:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s627eah/pdf/BILLS-112s627eah.pdf

[ej510]

38. I will listen to the repeat, and find out.

[ej510]

40. I think this is what he meant.

(2) REVENUE MEASURE.—This subsection shall not apply to the House of Representatives if the joint committee bill received from the Senate is a revenue measure.

[enlightenment]

45. Oy. Major congressese in this part . . .

This one leaves you scratching your head. crap.

(e) CONSIDERATION BY THE OTHER HOUSE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—If, before passing the joint committee bill, one House receives from the other a joint committee bill—
(A) the joint committee bill of the other House shall not be referred to a committee; and
(B) the procedure in the receiving House shall be the same as if no joint committee bill had been received from the other House until the vote on passage, when the joint committee bill re11
ceived from the other House shall supplant the joint committee bill of the receiving House.

(2) REVENUE MEASURE.—This subsection shall not apply to the House of Representatives if the joint committee bill received from the Senate is a revenue measure.

What the hell does 'If, before passing the joint committee bill, one House receives from the other a joint committee bill" mean ??

There is only one 'joint committee' and presumably they only pass along one 'joint committee bill'. How can either house receive a different one? Something is seriously hinky with this section.

[Unvanguard]

46. Duplicate. n/t

[enlightenment]

50. Okay, that makes more sense.

I still don't get why it sounds like they are creating more than one bill, though - since there is no amendment allowed.

[Unvanguard]

52. It's not two separate bills substantively, but it is two separate bills procedurally.

That is, what will probably happen is that a member of the Senate and a member of the House will introduce the bills simultaneously, so you'll have a House bill that has the Joint Committee recommendations and a Senate bill with identical text.

Ordinarily, when a bill is passed by one house, it goes to the other, and there are procedural mechanisms tied to that process. Probably because the bills will be identical, and maybe for reasons of efficiency too (they want this on the fast track), subsection (e) waves that process. But because the House has a special constitutional role with respect to revenue bills, the subsection permits it to retain that role. It still doesn't allow amendments, though; that's addressed elsewhere.

[enlightenment]

63. Finally figured it out on the umpteenth reread.

My brain was tying it in knots for awhile.

Thanks.

[Unvanguard]

47. Thom Hartmann's interpretation is totally wrong, then.

He has the scope of the exception wrong: it applies only to subsection (e), not to the prohibition on amendments. Subsection (e) is just an unimportant procedural rule modifying how the houses deal with bills passed in one but not (yet) in the other. Different rules apply to revenue bills because of an obscure constitutional requirement (see Art. 1 Sec. 7) that revenue bills originate in the House.

[jsamuel]

60. That doesn't seem to be right either. If it must originate in the House, then why does it say that

it must be introduced in the Senate and the House at the same time. If it must originate in the House, then how could it possibly be passed by the Senate and then sent to the House?

[Unvanguard]

61. My guess is that there is some workaround that Congress ordinarily uses.

And the exception lets them use it here. But I don't really know.

[NorthCarolina]

44. Thats called "fairness" and "shared sacrifice" in the new right wing Democratic Party. nt

[ej510]

48. You know after all people living in shacks do not pay taxes. It isn't fair.

:sarcasm:

[Unvanguard]

49. I really don't think this is true. If it were, we'd be hearing a lot more about it.

If the discussion above is correct (see post #40 and #47), Thom Hartmann is misunderstanding the point of certain language in the bill connected to obscure rules about how Congress works.

[ej510]

54. It appears to be that way, but maybe he read something else which is why I will listen to the repeat

[MrDiaz]

56. This

IS ALL ON OBAMA'S HEAD, I highly doubt he will be victorious in the next election. This country has nowhere left to turn. I really was voting for hope and change in 2008, I haven't seen any... at all. And please don't show that link with the list of so called "accomplishments."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Insert shaft, tell the people it's good for them, proclaim Glorious Victory.

[grahamhgreen]

59. Please, Super Congress EXTREME!

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. The second part is complete bullshit--UTTERLY FALSE

Find where the House can amend any part of the recommendations/legislative language.

I want Section and subsection.

Here's the link:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/228727/debt-bill.pdf

I suspect Hartman is simply misreading Section 402(e)(2) (the "subsection" obviously refers to 402(e), not SECTION 402 in its entirety, duh), which states that if the bill has already been passed by the Senate and includes revenues, it has to go to the House committees before being reported to the House as a whole, but that does not give the committees any power to amend the legislation, since the committees CANNOT amend under Section 402(b)(1).

There can be no amendments from committees.

The reason for the sub-section that Hartmann is - I suspect - so badly misreading has to do with House rules related to raising revenues, and does not in any way affect the preceding subsection 402(b)(1), which prohibits amendments.