But first, there's more! YertleMcT is attempting to get this legislation passed through what is known as the reconciliation process, which was originally created for budget passage and only requires a bare majority of 51 votes for passage and cannot be filibustered. Last month Senate Parliamentarian Liz McDonough ruled that portions of Yertle's bill require a 60-vote threshold. As far as I know, those issues have not yet been worked out.
So I think that's the death knell of this particular piece of legislation, and I think the vote next week will be pulled (and/or Liz - a fellow VT Law alum and very cool person who adores her job and who has always been appreciated by both sides of the aisle - will get fired).
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/ ... bill%3famp
The Republicans have not yet resolved these issues according to The Hill yesterday:
Normally, controversial legislation requires 60 votes to pass the Senate, but Republicans hope to pass the ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill with a simple majority vote under a special budgetary process known as reconciliation.
The catch is that the legislation must pass a six-part test known as the Byrd Rule, and it's up to the parliamentarian to advise whether legislative provisions meet its requirements.
The toughest requirement states that a provision cannot produce changes in government outlays or revenues that are merely incidental to the nonbudgetary components of the provision.
In other words, a provision passed under reconciliation cannot be primarily oriented toward making policy change instead of affecting the budget. Arguably, attaching Hyde language to the refundable tax credits is designed more to shape abortion policy than affect how much money is spent to subsidize healthcare coverage.
The abortion language that conservatives want in the healthcare bill may run afoul of a precedent set in 1995, when then-Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove ruled that an abortion provision affecting a state block grant program failed to meet reconciliation requirements, according to a source briefed on internal Senate discussions.
One GOP source identified the parliamentarian's objection to the Hyde language along with Republican infighting over how to cap ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion as two of the biggest obstacles to passing a bill.
A Republican senator confirmed that negotiators have wrestled with the procedural obstacle facing the anti-abortion language.
"That has come up, and there well could be a challenge," the lawmaker said.
The lawmaker, however, said that the problem is surmountable, arguing, "There are ways around it."
One possibility would be to change the form of assistance to low-income people by changing it from a refundable tax credit to a subsidy filtered through an already-existing government program that restricts abortion services, such as the Federal Employee Health Benefits program or Medicaid.
A second Republican senator said discussions on the topic are ongoing.
GOP negotiators picked up the pace of their discussions with the parliamentarian after the Congressional Budget Office released an updated score for the House-passed healthcare bill in late May.
President Trump is pushing the Senate to pass its version of the legislation by July 4.
If GOP leaders are forced to strip the Hyde language from the healthcare bill and cannot find an alternative way to seal off insurance tax credits or subsidies from being used for abortion services, they would lose the support of anti-abortion rights groups, a devastating blow.
"We've made it clear in a lot of conversations and some letters that any GOP replacement plan has to be consistent with the principles of the Hyde Amendment," said David Christensen, vice president of government affairs at Family Research Council, a conservative group that promotes Christian values.
"Abortion is not healthcare and the government should not be subsidizing elective abortion," he added.
Christensen predicted that activists would be up in arms if abortion services aren't barred under the bill.
"If the Byrd Rule were to be an obstacle to ensuring the GOP replacement plan in the Senate does not subsidize abortion, that's something that would be a serious problem for us and the pro-life community," he said.
Republican senators who are thought to be safe votes to support the GOP leadership's ObamaCare repeal-and-replace plan may suddenly shift to undecided or opposed.
"Would that be a deal killer? I'd have to think about it. I'm inclined to think it would [be]," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who has jurisdiction over the tax credits in the healthcare bill, acknowledged it could be tough to pass the bill without the anti-abortion language.
"I think a lot of people do think that's essential," he said.
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/ ... bill%3Famp
Liz's ruling here: https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media ... 5B1%5D.pdfMajor portions of the Republican bill to repeal and replace ObamaCare will require 60 votes, according to the Senate parliamentarian, meaning they are unlikely to survive on the floor.
The parliamentarian has advised senators that several parts of the bill could be stripped out, according to a document released Friday by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. (Read the guidance here.)
The provisions that would likely be removed include polices important to conservatives, such as restrictions on tax credits being used for insurance plans that cover abortion.
Language in the bill defunding Planned Parenthood for a year also violates budget rules, according to the parliamentarian. That guidance is sure to anger anti-abortion groups who backed the bill specifically because of those provisions.
In a statement, Planned Parenthood said it was "obvious" that the defunding provision would be a violation of the reconciliation rules.
"No amount of legislative sleight of hand will change the fact that the primary motivation here is to pursue a social agenda by targeting Planned Parenthood," the group said.
The parliamentarian has also not yet ruled on a controversial amendment from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that would allow insurers to sell plans that do not meet ObamaCare regulations. If that provision were struck, conservative support for the bill would be in doubt.
Republicans are trying to use the budget reconciliation process to pass their healthcare bill with only a simple majority. The provisions deemed impermissible under that process can be stripped if a senator on the floor raises an objection.
Democrats would be virtually certain to deny Republicans the 60 votes they would need to keep portions of the bill intact.
The result is that the arcane rules of the Senate could end up making the bill harder for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to pass.
A spokesman for McConnell was quick to point out that the parliamentarian only provides guidance on the legislation to help inform subsequent drafts. The bill will have to change before it gets to the floor if Republicans want to salvage any of provisions in question.
GOP leaders have said they want to vote on a procedural motion to begin debate on ObamaCare repeal legislation early next week. However, it's still not clear if they have the votes, or which legislation they will be voting on; the replacement bill, or repeal-only legislation.
Some conservatives were already questioning Friday why the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, would rule against Planned Parenthood defunding, when that provision was allowed under reconciliation in 2015.
A spokesman for Sanders said the guidance has changed because it is now clear that Planned Parenthood would be the only organization affected by the defunding language.
"It passed last time because there was at least a question that other entities could be affected by the language," the spokesman said. "In the interim, Republicans have not been able to show that any entity other than Planned Parenthood is affected, and the new [Congressional Budget Office] score confirms that."
In a blow to the insurance industry, the parliamentarian has advised that two key market stabilization provisions in the bill would be against the rules. First, the legislation can't appropriate the cost-sharing reduction subsidies insurers rely on to keep premiums and deductibles low; it can only repeal them.
Additionally, a "lockout" provision requiring consumers with a break in coverage to wait six months before buying insurance also violates the rules, according to the guidance.
The provision was added to the bill to address concerns that people would only sign up for health insurance when they're sick, if insurers are still prevented from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.
The parliamentarian also advised that a specific provision dealing with New York State's Medicaid program would be a violation of the rules. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) seized on that decision.
"The parliamentarian made clear that state-specific provisions" violate the rules, Schumer said. "This will greatly tie the majority leader's hands as he tries to win over reluctant Republicans with state-specific provisions. We will challenge every one or them."
CRS pamphlet on quorum and voting here: https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/577d2a5e ... e41461.pdf
