Right-wing media falsely claim Pelosi broke pledge to post health care bill online 72 hours in advance
Right-wing media are claiming Speaker Nancy Pelosi broke a pledge to post the "final" House health care bill online 72 hours before it comes to a vote, echoing a Weekly Standard blog post that claimed amendments allowed by the House Rules Committee the day prior to the vote will change the bill. However, Pelosi's office posted both the text of the bill and the "manager's amendment" -- which The Sunlight Foundation called an "extra final version of legislation" -- 72 hours in advance; those actions meet guidelines set by a House transparency measure that Pelosi told the Weekly Standard she "absolutely" supported.
Right-wing media falsely claim Pelosi broke 72 hours pledge
The Weekly Standard: "Pelosi's agreement to leave the 'final' bill online 'at the very end' of the process wasn't such a straightforward pledge." In a November 5 blog post, the Weekly Standard's John McCormack wrote that Pelosi broke her pledge to put the "final" health care bill online 72 hours before it comes to a vote because, even though she posted the text of the bill and the manager's amendment online, "House members are still negotiating important issues in the bill--whether it will provide taxpayer-funding for abortions, for example." McCormack wrote that this is because the "Rules Committee hasn't yet released its resolution, or rule, that must be passed before the bill can move from committee to the floor. The rule will set the terms of debate and determine what amendments are in order." From McCormack's Weekly Standard post:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the speaker will not allow the final language of the health care to be posted online for 72 hours before bringing the bill to a vote on the House floor, despite her September 24 statement that she was "absolutely" committed to doing so.
House members are still negotiating important issues in the bill--whether it will provide taxpayer-funding for abortions, for example. Pelosi is pushing for a Saturday House vote, and a number of big changes will be introduced, likely less than 24 hours before the vote takes place (if in fact it does). The Rules Committee hasn't yet released its resolution, or rule, that must be passed before the bill can move from committee to the floor. The rule will set the terms of debate and determine what amendments are in order.
It seems likely that the rule will allow very few, if any, up-or-down votes on amendments on the House floor. Rather, the rule will include a series of amendments that will all be adopted at once if the rule passes.
On September 24, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that she was "absolutely" committed to putting the text of the final House bill online for 72 hours before the House votes:
Apparently Pelosi's agreement to leave the "final" bill online "at the very end" of the process wasn't such a straightforward pledge.
TWS: Madam Speaker, do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it's voted on at the very end?
PELOSI: Absolutely. Without question.
But tonight, when asked if Speaker Pelosi will leave the bill online for 72 hours after we see what's in the rule, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly replied in an email: "No; [the] pledge was to have manager's amendment online for 72 hours, and we will do that."
Apparently Pelosi's agreement to leave the "final" bill online "at the very end" of the process wasn't such a straightforward pledge.
The Drudge Report: "Pelosi Breaks Pledge to Put Final Health Care Bill Online for 72 Hours Before Vote..." Internet Gossip Matt Drudge linked to the Weekly Standard post on The Drudge Report with the headline, "Pelosi Breaks Pledge to Put Final Health Care Bill Online for 72 Hours Before Vote..." From Drudge:
The Fox Nation: "Pelosi Breaks 72-HOUR Pledge." The Fox Nation
linked to the Weekly Standard's blog post with the
headline, "Pelosi
Breaks 72-HOUR Pledge." From Fox Nation:
BigGovernment.com: "Of Course: Health Care Bill Won't be posted online 72
hours before vote." Andrew Breitbart's website BigGovernment.com
linked to The Weekly Standard's blog post with the headline, "Of Course:
Health Care Bill Won't be posted online 72 hours before vote." From BigGovernment.com:
Stephen Moore: An "outrage" that the bill is not online. On Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Wall Street Journal editorial writer Stephen Moore said: "It now appears, Greta, the bill as it will be voted on will not be posted on the Internet 72 hours before the vote, which means that most the members with will not have read it and the American people will not have at least 72 hours to read the bill to see what they're voting on. We're talking about one of the most important pieces of legislation in American mystery. It's an outrage." After Van Susteren asked Moore if he was "surprised," Moore said: "I'm shocked. You know what, Greta, I am surprised because of the brazenness of this and the arrogance of Speaker Pelosi to say we're not going to let the American people see the bill. I'm just--I am shocked by it." [On the Record, 11/05/09]
Gateway Pundit: "Pelosi Breaks Pledge- Will Not Post Bill Online for 72 Hours Before Voting to Nationalize Health Care." In a November 6 post, Gateway Pundit blogger Jim Hoft wrote that "Democrats will not post their 2,000+ paged bill online for 72 hours before voting to nationalize the American health care system. The House Democrats will vote on Saturday to swallow one-sixth of the nation's economy." Hoft then posted video of Moore's comments on On the Record, in which Moore discussed what Hoft described as the "latest travesty."
But Pelosi followed transparency "measure" in posting the bill 72 hours in advance
Pelosi told the Weekly Standard she would support "the measure" to put the bill online 72 hours in advance. On September 24, McCormack wrote in a blog post that he "asked [Pelosi] if she supports a measure to put the final health-care bill online for 72 hours before the House votes on it." McCormack said that she replied, "Absolutely...Without question."
House measure McCormack asked Pelosi about requires full text and committee reports to be posted 72 hours in advance, but doesn't apply to amendments. McCormack was presumably referring to a measure Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) introduced in June, H. Res. 554, which would have, according to the Congressional Research Service summary of the resolution, changed the "Rules of the House of Representatives to make it out of order in the House to consider a measure or matter until 72 hours ... after its text (and, if any, the text of all accompanying reports) have been made available to Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner (Members), and the general public." The summary also said H.RES. 554 "[r]equires the full text of the legislation and each committee report, without further amendment before floor consideration, to be posted continuously by means of the Internet" for 72 hours before the bill comes to a vote. According to a September 24 The Hill report, a "discharge petition" being circulated at the time would have forced Pelosi to schedule a vote on H. Res. 554, and McCormack "asked Pelosi about a discharge petition at her press conference, to which the speaker responded that she'd 'absolutely' support it."
The text of the bill, the manager's amendment and related committee reports were posted 72 hours in advance. Pelosi's office posted the text of the legislation, HR 3962, online on October 29, and it posted the manager's amendment to the bill online at on Tuesday, November 3. Since the bill is reportedly scheduled for a vote on Saturday, November 7, that means both will have been online at least 72 hours before the vote. The three House committees that voted on HR 3200, the House's original health care reform bill, all posted committee reports online. After the three bills were merged, it became HR 3962, which the House will reportedly consider on Saturday. The Energy & Commerce Committee linked to its report in a July 14 post, a July 15-17 Republican press release for the Education & Labor Committee linked to its report, and the Ways & Means Committee linked to its report in an October 15 post.
Rules committee amendments don't apply to 72 hour measure
Sunlight Foundation: H. Res. 554 does not cover amendments to bills, and manager's amendment is "an extra-final version of legislation." According to a post on The Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit organization that advocates for government transparency, "the proposed 72 hour rule written into H. Res. 554 (the Read the Bill bill) does not cover amendments to bills," and the manager's amendment "amount[s] to an extra-final version of legislation." The post stated that Pelosi's decision to put the Manager's Amendment online 72 hours in advance was "commendable." From the post:
A Manager's Amendment is a partial substitute for the underlying legislation that often includes many last minute compromises to gain support from lawmakers on the fence. There is no required procedure for the public disclosure of Manager's Amendments, but most are posted with the list amendments to be considered on the Rules Committee web site, usually the day before consideration.
[...]
While the proposed 72 hour rule written into H. Res. 554 (the Read the Bill bill) does not cover amendments to bills, the decision to provide adequate time for the health care bill Manager's Amendment is highly commendable. These long amendments are farther reaching in scope than other amendments and amount to an extra-final version of legislation that is not recognized in most people's mental image of "How A Bill Becomes A Law." Acknowledging that the bill's language should be available at all stages for at least 72 hours before action is taken is an extremely important step in the right direction.
Sunlight Foundation: "A milestone" that the text was posted online. The Sunlight Foundation's John Wonderlich also wrote in a November 1 blog post of the text of the bill: "September 24th, Speaker Pelosi said that the healthcare bill would be online for 72 hours.... That 72 hours is now. The bill is online... We should recognize this as a milestone."
Hoyer: Adding an abortion compromise is not a violation of the pledge. According to a November 4 The Hill article, "Lawmakers said the abortion compromise may not be included in the final version of the bill to be released as soon as Wednesday, called the 'manager's amendment.' Instead, it may be included in the 'rule,' which is done the day before the vote. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday he did not consider that a violation of his pledge to have the bill language available for three days before a vote." According to the article, Hoyer said: "We said the manager's amendment we would give 72 hours for...Obviously, we have had 72 hours on the bill. So I don't think that is a violation."
Of course, that just raises further questions.
1.Repost what the other blogs and Conservative outlets post.
2.Do nothing in regards to clarifing, fact-checking, or finding the origin of the source.
3.Never retract or apologize for erroneous stories.
4.Rinse and repeat.
And why am I not surprised that Dex chimed in to assume that Pelosi is going to do a bait and switch without any evidence that any Democratic-controlled Congress has ever submitted one bill, only to yank it for another version. (And amendments don't count, Dex - hopefully you read the posting by MMFA above)
You're just teed off that I caught you at it! You assumed she would do such a thing, and there's no evidence to back that up - there is no track record upon which to make such a smear.
"And facing the possible collapse of the legislation late Friday night, they [Pelosi and House leadership] brokered a deal to settle a debate within Democratic ranks over abortion.
Under pressure from a group of socially conservative Democrats and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Pelosi and other lawmakers who favor abortion rights were forced to accept a last-minute compromise that placed tight restrictions on federal funding for abortion services"
If the bill passed today (Saturday), and changes were made on Friday night, how is that the final version of the bill was posted publicly online for any more than 24 hours?
Then you'll know that amendments are not covered by that 72 hour pledge!!!
But we know right now that you aren't well enough educated on this topic to bed trying to tell us anything, or make any assertions about a thing!!!
So that's okay with you? I thought the bill was supposed to be developed & finalized THEN posted for 72 hours for transparency purposes? This was so the government OF the people, FOR the people & BY the people had a chance to see what their respresentatives were voting on. Silly me.
This Bill if ever emplimented is a tremendous changed in our coutnry as we know it to be. Why doesn't our elected officials want to be clear & thorough in process? My guess is it's more about power & less about health insurance.
"I am outraged that Speaker Pelosi broke a promise I wish she had made! Also, I can't spell 'implemented.'"
It's apparent you don't do much critical thinking so allow my for you. Speaker Pelosi may have said she will allow the bill to be posted for 72 hours minus any amendments. Fine, but that do me is now different than a car dealership saying: "don't worry about sitting here going through all this paperwork, just sign & I'll finish the rest!"
What type of amendments are we talking about? As you know many very important things can be added in "amendments".
Think about it, this is the same woman who said, "it's not a tax increase but an elimination of a tax decrease." Wow now that sounds like someone I can trust!!
"I also wish the House of Representatives had promised something else instead of what they did promise. But since that argument isn't holding any water, I will try becoming a concern troll ex post facto."
But you might want to reread the headline above. The problem is that the rightwing media lied about Pelosi breaking a pledge to make her look bad and dishonest - in fact, it's their side that's being dishonest.
Clearly you don't know what the original intentions were. The people who made the pledge are aware of how Congress works, and that's why they didn't include the amendment process in there. For you to suggest that leaving out the amendment process is not being true to the process is evidence of your lack of knowledge.
And again we see people who aren't well enough educated on a topic come here and try to educate us! Will it never end? LOL
So your saying Pelosi's pledge was BS to begin with...I get it and thanks for the education.
P.S. I would not presume to educate you on anything because your far superior intellect and level of education are apparent for all to see...the only end in sight is yours' - LOL
There is significant value to that. It's is great that the bill was available to be studied for 3 days before the vote.
But the way the House of Representatives works, it's not possible to have that same waiting period after the amendments are all voted upon.
The people who crafted the pledge understood how Congress works.
The fact that you didn't know that, and apparently don't care about the facts here, is not my problem - it's yours. And really, it is a huge problem that once you were told that your ideas about how Congress works were off-kilter, and your misunderstanding of the bill was explained to you, you still aren't willing to admit your error and accept reality .
And no, given your lack of education on the processes of Congress, you shouldn't try to educate us. But you think you're clever enough to insult me, like that somehow means that you 'won' this round. It doesn't make you a winner.
It makes you a whiner. You get debunked by the facts, and your best comeback is to insult me because I knew more about this and you knew virtually nothing about this? Really? How is admitting that you're ill-informed a win for you?
"Clearly" you think you are above everyone else, even to the point that you try to speak for every liberal on this site, thus the use of the plural pronoun "us" in your note. But I suspect many on here are embarassed by your lack of knowledge in regards to syntax and punctuation. However, they may be impressed by your knowledge of how Congress works. I'm not though...in fact, I could care less. I do find it a bit scary though and a "huge problem" that you seem to appreciate and defend the incompetent way Congress works.
As far as you knowing more than me about anything and me knowing virtually nothing - how do you know so much about someone you don't even know? Where does such arrogance come from?
Thank you for your continued diligence and efforts in bringing us your own brand of truthiness and pointing out for us trolls and misinformation since we are all incapable of thinking for ourselves. It is so greatly appreciated. One million "thumbs up" for you. I hope you get all the attention and thumbs up you desire and deserve.
"Dang it DellDolly, I can't out-argue you. I guess I'll try making fun of you for being right."
In fact, I agree with a good portion of what Dell has to say most of the time. I just dislike Dell's method of arguing and instant resorting to name-calling and labeling and trying to degrade other people's opinions and trying to get them to stop posting. It's apparently Dell's crusade to point out liars and trolls for the rest of us who can't seem to make that assesment on our own in Dell's eyes. I'm simply pointing that out in a sarcastic and smart-ass way. What do you care?
To demand a 72-hour notice of any and all amendments would mean that any amendment, from anyone, could mean up to a further 3-day delay, and would certainly be used by opponents to game the system. At this point, it's "s--t or get off the pot."
Who is being the fascists?
-- TWS: Madam Speaker, do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it's voted on at the very end?
PELOSI: Absolutely. Without question.
-- Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly replied in an email: "No; [the] pledge was to have manager's amendment online for 72 hours, and we will do that." --
Her pledge was the final bill...with nary a mention of the "managers amendment". Typical politician...relying on weasel words and technicalities.
I'm well aware that most politicians...both right and left...will use weasel words and technicalities to push legislation....so save your ink on defending Pelosi's actions...because I'm not interested.
Of course she broke her pledge...which has become the standard M.O. for our elected leaders...conjuring the image of Pres.Nixon claiming, "I am not a crook".
Your misunderstanding about what the "final bill" consists of is the problem here.
It's not weasel words or technicalities here, but thanks for admitting that you don't care about the facts, and that the truth doesn't matter to you at all - that you'd rather not even hear the facts, much less have to admit your error here.
Why you think saying "I'm not interested" in learning the truth about the pledge that Pelosi made is a proud moment for you?
But guess what? I don't care what you want, Weaselly. The thing she agreed to do, she did. The thing the bill called for, a new thing sponsored and supported by the Democrats, she did!!! Your lack of desire to accept reality is not an excuse.
McCormack was presumably referring to a measure Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) introduced in June, H. Res. 554, which would have, according to the Congressional Research Service summary of the resolution, changed the "Rules of the House of Representatives to make it out of order in the House to consider a measure or matter until 72 hours ... after its text (and, if any, the text of all accompanying reports) have been made available to Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner (Members), and the general public." The summary also said H.RES. 554 "[r]equires the full text of the legislation and each committee report, without further amendment before floor consideration, to be posted continuously by means of the Internet" for 72 hours before the bill comes to a vote.
BRAVO!
See how that makes it look like she "supported a measure," rather than "promised to do whatever wesley thinks she should have said?"
1. Can a bill that has not been voted on or passed be amended?
2. If so. When the House version goes to the Senate will the amendments be included as amendments or will they be written in as a completed draft?