Samhain
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,939
- Reaction score
- 2,131
- Location
- Northern Ohio
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
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****.
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.
So what. Trade bills were not excluded from the original discussion.
You are correct on this one.
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
So what? The final version was passed by both houses with no amendments.
So what? The final version was passed by both houses with no amendments.
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.
Total fail on your part. That's what happens when you jump into a dispute between posters that you know nothing about.
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??
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.
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.
Yes, actually it happens all the time.
Yes, they should have definitely voted on the original House bill with no amendments.
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.
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.
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
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.
Already did.
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
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
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.
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.
Then he should have stipulated that these types of bills were not to be included in the discussion.
He didn't.
The Health Care Reform Act was passed with no amendments.
HR 3080 was passed with no amendments.
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 10:20amlaced 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 10:20pmursuant 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 4:41pmOSTPONED 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.
10/12/2011assed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 83 - 15. Record Vote Number: 161.
10/13/2011:Message on Senate action sent to the House. 10/13/2011resented 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.
Then he should have stipulated that these types of bills were not to be included in the discussion.
He didn't.
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, actually it happens all the time.
Yes, they should have definitely voted on the original House bill with no amendments.
HR 3080 is not an "original House bill" as was dishonestly claimed by Gill. It was negotiated and submitted by the Executive branch.
The Senate didn't amend, discuss, or change HR 3080 according to what you posted.
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.
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:
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.
HR 3080 is not an "original House bill" as was dishonestly claimed by Gill. It was negotiated and submitted by the Executive branch.
S 627 was passed with no amendments
5/26/2011assed 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?