• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boehner demands Senate cancel its vacation

No. Go back in the thread and see for yourself.

Here's the bottom line - Gill claimed that one house routinely passes bills from the other house without making any changes. That's bull****.


And that's what he showed you, because that's what you asked for( see your quote from post 134 above ). Now you are stating that the instant a bill has a change within a single house, it doesn't count as an "non-altered bill between houses". That's not what you asked for, and that's not what he gave you.

He gave you a list of bills that once passed a chamber, were not changed and passed the other chamber.
 
Then why don't you stop posting the drivel.... or you could mind your own business.



So what, it was a bill passed by both houses with no amendments, which was the subject of the discussion.

Umm, no. That wasn't the subject.


So what. Trade bills were not excluded from the original discussion.

Umm, yes they were. I guess some people need everything explained to them in explicit detail



You are correct on this one.

Thanks


What the hell are you babbling about???? HR 1473 was the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, hardly a bill on tariffs, :lamo

You are right. I must have looked up the wrong #. Unfortunately, Appropriation bills are subject to input from all members of Congress, and not simply written by one side, and voted on by the other party.


So what? The final version was passed by both houses with no amendments.

Again, that bill was subject to input from all members of congress.


So what? The final version was passed by both houses with no amendments.

Again, that bill was subject to input from all members of congress.


So what? I claimed that bills were frequently passed by both houses with no amendments. I never claimed that no amendments were added in committee before it was passed by both houses.

No, you were arguing that one part of congress should just vote on a bill that they had no input in writing, without giving any consideration to amending it. In the examples you gave, both houses of congress had a hand in drafting the legislation. You're just trying to BS your way through by rewording and pretending it matches the current circumstances where you think that one part of congress should have no opportunity to amend the legislation.


Total fail on your part. That's what happens when you jump into a dispute between posters that you know nothing about.

We're still waiting for you to come up with an example that compares with the current circumstances.

Hope you learned a lesson. By the way, I noticed you didn't mention the Healthcare Reform Act. Couldn't you think of any snarky excuses??

Yes, I learned that instead of citing an example where one house of congress drafted legislation and the other side just voted on it without having any input, you would rather post dishonest blather. However, I already knew that before you wrote that last post
 
Last edited:
And that's what he showed you, because that's what you asked for( see your quote from post 134 above ). Now you are stating that the instant a bill has a change within a single house, it doesn't count as an "non-altered bill between houses". That's not what you asked for, and that's not what he gave you.

He gave you a list of bills that once passed a chamber, were not changed and passed the other chamber.

You are misinterpreting the discussion with a singular quote taken out of context. Here's what MM asked for

No chamber ever votes on the other chamber's bills with "no changes" unless it is extremely non-controversial legislation. Why would they do that? The point of considering a bill is to consider changes to it. Are you suggesting the Senate should have held a vote on the bill without allowing any amendments to it?

Stop pretending you know what you're talking about or that you have a point. You are hanging your hat on a piece of useless, irrelevant information as if it matters. Now that is childish.

In the quote you posted, MM obviously shortened his request to avoid having to type the same thing over and over and save time. Quoting that as if it were what he requested was dishonest. From the beginning, MM clearly requested an example wher one house passed a bill written by the other house without making any changes. Those "changes" he mentioned were not limited to "amendments" voted on by the entire house of congress. They also included changes made in committee, or changes made in negotiations, or any other changes made at any time. The Obamacare bill was not "original House legislation". It was written with input from both houses of congress.

Your post wasn't honest enough to admit that, but Gill's response to MM's post (the one I just quoted) made it clear that Gill was in agreement about the subject of the dispute. To wit:

Yes, actually it happens all the time.

Yes, they should have definitely voted on the original House bill with no amendments.

Please note that Gill starts out by claiming "it" (ie "One chamber voting on the other chamber's bills with 'no changes'") happens "all the time"

Also note that Gill corroborates the condition by stating that the Senate should have voted on the "original" House bill.

Then, in spite of his claim that "it happens all the time", instead of coming up with examples of same, he gives examples of both houses voting on legislation that were not "original" House bills. Trade treaties do not "originate" in the House. Presidents negotiate them. Appropriation bills do "originate" in the House, but are changed with input from all members of congress, including members of the senate, who can and DO amend them.

And just to be clear that we're talking accurately about what Gill claimed, here's another quote from Gill talking about the "original" House bill
It took long enough for you to admit you were wrong. The bill passed by the House was never voted on in its original form by the Senate.

Even your liberal buddy Justabubba agrees with me.


Maybe now, Gill will post an example of the Senate voting on a non-controversial piece of legislation from the House in its original form.


Or maybe not
 
Last edited:
I had a feeling you'd display your ignorance.

No, none of these were passed with no amendment. That's absurd.

The amendment were simply made at the committee level, or in an informal process to create a "manager's amendment" or some other process. Then the ENTIRE BILL was replaced (technically - amended!) to reflect those changes. I explained how this works earlier - remember "amendment in the nature of a substitute?"

Seriously, did you really believe that these bills were simply swallowed whole without any changes by the other chamber? That's ridicuous. You simply don't know how the process works and you aren't willing to figure it out.

I knew you were dishonest which is why I should have ignored you. I never claimed that the Senators don't change Senate bills before voting on them or that the House doesn't change House bills before they vote on them. I said, and now have proved, that some bills passed by the Senate are approved by the House with no amendments and vice versa.

To claim that bills are mysteriously written in pristine form in either house in one attempt is ludicrous and I never made any such claim.

What is "ridicuous" is that you refuse to admit you were wrong. The bills I posted were passed by both Houses and signed by the President with no amendments requiring reconciliation. That was my claim and I have proven it.

I have not only proven you wrong, but have exposed you as a dishonest poster. You can not make a claim, then decide to change it after being proven wrong without looking like a fool, so I suggest you leave and go home to lick your wounds.

You are dismissed.
 
Maybe now, Gill will post an example of the Senate voting on a non-controversial piece of legislation from the House in its original form.


Or maybe not

Already did.
 
I knew you were dishonest which is why I should have ignored you. I never claimed that the Senators don't change Senate bills before voting on them or that the House doesn't change House bills before they vote on them. I said, and now have proved, that some bills passed by the Senate are approved by the House with no amendments and vice versa.

To claim that bills are mysteriously written in pristine form in either house in one attempt is ludicrous and I never made any such claim.

What is "ridicuous" is that you refuse to admit you were wrong. The bills I posted were passed by both Houses and signed by the President with no amendments requiring reconciliation. That was my claim and I have proven it.

I have not only proven you wrong, but have exposed you as a dishonest poster. You can not make a claim, then decide to change it after being proven wrong without looking like a fool, so I suggest you leave and go home to lick your wounds.

You are dismissed.

You are now denying your original claim, which was that the Senate passes House bills in their original form "all the time"

You have exposed yourself with dishonest posts. You can not make a claim, then decide to change it after being proven wrong without looking foolish, so I suggest you take your own advice
 
Already did.

Nope

None of the bills you cited were bills "in the original House form". Trade bills do not originate in the House. Appropriations are changed with input from both houses before being voted on. Obamacare was subject to input from both houses
 
You are now denying your original claim, which was that the Senate passes House bills in their original form "all the time"

You have exposed yourself with dishonest posts. You can not make a claim, then decide to change it after being proven wrong without looking foolish, so I suggest you take your own advice

Getting testy now, eh. Being shown to be a liar makes some people that way. I suggest you go away and cool off before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.
 
Nope

None of the bills you cited were bills "in the original House form". Trade bills do not originate in the House. Appropriations are changed with input from both houses before being voted on. Obamacare was subject to input from both houses

Then he should have stipulated that these types of bills were not to be included in the discussion.

He didn't.
 
And that's what he showed you, because that's what you asked for( see your quote from post 134 above ). Now you are stating that the instant a bill has a change within a single house, it doesn't count as an "non-altered bill between houses". That's not what you asked for, and that's not what he gave you.

He gave you a list of bills that once passed a chamber, were not changed and passed the other chamber.

It's called moving the goal posts. It's all they have at this point.
 
And that's what he showed you, because that's what you asked for( see your quote from post 134 above ). Now you are stating that the instant a bill has a change within a single house, it doesn't count as an "non-altered bill between houses". That's not what you asked for, and that's not what he gave you.

He gave you a list of bills that once passed a chamber, were not changed and passed the other chamber.

False. That's not what he gave me.
 
It's called moving the goal posts. It's all they have at this point.

You are the one who moved the goal posts.

Here is the bottom line, once again - no chamber of Congress simply passes whatever the other chamber sends it without making any changes, except in rare circumstances such as trade agreements that are fast-tracked or emergency legislation, or with minor ceremonial bills. That would be ridiculous.

I don't care what you claimed before, and how you're weaseling out of it now. Not getting into a pissing match about it. The statement above is all that matters.
 
Then he should have stipulated that these types of bills were not to be included in the discussion.

He didn't.

You know what you were talking about in the beginning. You were talking about the tax bill in the OP.
 
Let's look at this more closely:

The Health Care Reform Act was passed with no amendments.

Really? One chamber of Congress passed the other's version without a single change?

Let's look further:

HR 3080 was passed with no amendments.

ALL ACTIONS:
10/3/2011:Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
10/5/2011:Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
10/5/2011:Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 31 - 5.
10/6/2011 10:20am:Reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 112-239.
10/6/2011 10:20am:placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 158.
10/6/2011 3:02pm:Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 425 Reported to House. The bills shall be considered as read and debatable for the time specfied in the report. Pursuant to section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on H.R. 3079 and H.R. 3080 to final passage without intervening motion. The resolution provides one motion to recommit for H.R. 3078. The resolution makes in order a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2832. The Senate amendment shall be considered as read. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on the motion to concur.
10/11/2011 6:59pm:Rule H. Res. 425 passed House.
10/11/2011 9:42pm: Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 425. (consideration: CR H6758-6771)
10/11/2011 9:42pm:The bills shall be considered as read and debatable for the time specfied in the report. Pursuant to section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on H.R. 3079 and H.R. 3080 to final passage without intervening motion. The resolution provides one motion to recommit for H.R. 3078. The resolution makes in order a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2832. The Senate amendment shall be considered as read. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on the motion to concur.
10/11/2011 9:42pm: DEBATE - The House proceeded with 90 minutes of debate on H.R. 3080.
10/11/2011 10:20pm:pursuant to clause 1(c) of Rule 19, further proceedings on H.R. 3080 were postponed.
10/12/2011:Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S6399-6404, S6405-6407, S6412-6417, S6418-6446, S6447-6452)
10/12/2011 3:17pm: Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6812-6832)
10/12/2011 3:17pm: DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 425, the House proceeded with further debate on H.R. 3080.
10/12/2011 4:40pm:The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H6832)
10/12/2011 4:41pm:pOSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 3080, the Chair put the question on passage, and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Levin demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of passage until a time to be announced.
10/12/2011 6:09pm:Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6839-6840)
10/12/2011 6:16pm:On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 278 - 151 (Roll no. 783). (text: CR 10/11/2011 H6758-6767)
10/12/2011 6:16pm:Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
10/12/2011:Received in the Senate, read twice.
10/12/2011:passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 83 - 15. Record Vote Number: 161.
10/13/2011:Message on Senate action sent to the House. 10/13/2011:presented to President.
10/21/2011:Signed by President.
10/21/2011:Became Public Law No: 112-41.

:roll:

And free trade acts are the one possible exception, since they are negotiated like treaties and can't simply be changed. It's hardly routine.

The idea that one chamber routinely passes, without any changes, major legislation from the other chamber is obviously ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Link


Time for the Senate to get their lardasses back to work. :lol:

I get so tired of that type of political grand-standing by both sides. No, they aren't going to give up the holidays. No, it wouldn't make any difference if they did. All just pointless words at the basest form of politics.
 
Really? One chamber of Congress passed the other's version without a single change?

Let's look further:

ALL ACTIONS:
10/3/2011:Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
10/5/2011:Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
10/5/2011:Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 31 - 5.
10/6/2011 10:20am:Reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 112-239.
10/6/2011 10:20am:placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 158.
10/6/2011 3:02pm:Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 425 Reported to House. The bills shall be considered as read and debatable for the time specfied in the report. Pursuant to section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on H.R. 3079 and H.R. 3080 to final passage without intervening motion. The resolution provides one motion to recommit for H.R. 3078. The resolution makes in order a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2832. The Senate amendment shall be considered as read. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on the motion to concur.
10/11/2011 6:59pm:Rule H. Res. 425 passed House.
10/11/2011 9:42pm: Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 425. (consideration: CR H6758-6771)
10/11/2011 9:42pm:The bills shall be considered as read and debatable for the time specfied in the report. Pursuant to section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on H.R. 3079 and H.R. 3080 to final passage without intervening motion. The resolution provides one motion to recommit for H.R. 3078. The resolution makes in order a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2832. The Senate amendment shall be considered as read. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on the motion to concur.
10/11/2011 9:42pm: DEBATE - The House proceeded with 90 minutes of debate on H.R. 3080.
10/11/2011 10:20pm:pursuant to clause 1(c) of Rule 19, further proceedings on H.R. 3080 were postponed.
10/12/2011:Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S6399-6404, S6405-6407, S6412-6417, S6418-6446, S6447-6452)
10/12/2011 3:17pm: Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6812-6832)
10/12/2011 3:17pm: DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 425, the House proceeded with further debate on H.R. 3080.
10/12/2011 4:40pm:The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H6832)
10/12/2011 4:41pm:pOSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 3080, the Chair put the question on passage, and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Levin demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of passage until a time to be announced.
10/12/2011 6:09pm:Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6839-6840)
10/12/2011 6:16pm:On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 278 - 151 (Roll no. 783). (text: CR 10/11/2011 H6758-6767)
10/12/2011 6:16pm:Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
10/12/2011:Received in the Senate, read twice.
10/12/2011:passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 83 - 15. Record Vote Number: 161.
10/13/2011:Message on Senate action sent to the House. 10/13/2011:presented to President.
10/21/2011:Signed by President.
10/21/2011:Became Public Law No: 112-41.

:roll:

And free trade acts are the one possible exception, since they are negotiated like treaties and can't simply be changed. It's hardly routine.

The idea that one chamber routinely passes, without any changes, major legislation from the other chamber is obviously ridiculous.

The Senate didn't amend, discuss, or change HR 3080 according to what you posted.
 
Then he should have stipulated that these types of bills were not to be included in the discussion.

He didn't.

He didn't have to stipulate that. You did:

Yes, actually it happens all the time.

Yes, they should have definitely voted on the original House bill with no amendments.
 
The Senate didn't amend, discuss, or change HR 3080 according to what you posted.

HR 3080 is not an "original House bill" as was dishonestly claimed by Gill. It was negotiated and submitted by the Executive branch.

Yes, actually it happens all the time.

Yes, they should have definitely voted on the original House bill with no amendments.
 
The Senate didn't amend, discuss, or change HR 3080 according to what you posted.

Yes it did. It did so before the changes became part of Hr 3080. They worked on the changes in a different bill, and then the bills were combined and the changes accepted by the House so they wouldn't have to do it all over again:

The resolution makes in order a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2832. The Senate amendment shall be considered as read.

Look on page h6711 (oct. 11) of the Congressional Record, and it will show you where the House agreed to the Senate's amendment to the bill.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 425, I call up the bill (H.R. 2832) to extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate amendment.

The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

The Senate's debate, including amendments, starts on page S5800 (Sept. 21). It is on a different bill number (HR 2832) - but that bill was then used as an amendment in the House to patch it all together as one bill - H.R. 3080. That process of patching together is also amending.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 625. I ask unanimous consent that it be made the pending business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment numbered 625 to amendment No. 633.

...and so on.

Those amendments were then thrown in when the House combined the bills.

The legislative process isn't always as simple as Schoolhouse Rock.
 
Last edited:
HR 3080 is not an "original House bill" as was dishonestly claimed by Gill. It was negotiated and submitted by the Executive branch.

Yes, trade agreements are like treaties, and are often either voted up or down without amendments because they are already negotiated with a foreign power. Some are even "fast-tracked" (like NAFTA was) so that no amendments are allowed. That makes sense.

That is one exception. The idea that chambers of Congress routinely pass bills from the other chamber without making any changes - in any process, whether through amendments at the committee level or informal negotiations with the other chamber - is obviously false.
 
Let's keep looking:

S 627 was passed with no amendments

False again.

5/26/2011:passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.

...

7/27/2011 9:21pm:Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 375 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of S. 627 with 2 hours of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the report of the of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, modified by the amendments printed in part B of that report shall be considered as adopted.

This brings up another procedural mistake you're making - the House often adopts rules that forbid or limits amendments from the floor. However, the rule often allows a single amendment in the nature of a substitute (replacing the entire text of the bill) or the bill has been amended in committee. In the case of the above bill, the rule forbid floor amendments but adopted (the old "deem and pass" thing that was suddenly controversial when amateurs discovered it for the first time in the health care debate) an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom