[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: House May Block Food Safety Bill Over Senate Error A food safety bill that has burned up precious days of the Senate’s lame-duck session appears headed back to the chamber because Democrats violated a constitutional provision requiring that tax provisions originate in the House. By pre-empting the House’s tax-writing authority, Senate Democrats appear to have touched off a power struggle with members of their own party in the House. The Senate passed the bill Tuesday, sending it to the House, but House Democrats are expected to use a procedure known as “blue slipping” to block the bill, according to House and Senate GOP aides. The debacle could prove to be a major embarrassment for Senate Democrats, who sought Tuesday to make the relatively unknown bill a major political issue by sending out numerous news releases trumpeting its passage. Section 107 of the bill includes a set of fees that are classified as revenue raisers, which are technically taxes under the Constitution. According to a House GOP leadership aide, that section has ruffled the feathers of Ways and Means Committee Democrats, who are expected to use the blue slip process to block completion of the bill. “We understand there is a blue slip problem, and we expect the House to assert its rights under the Constitution to be the place where revenue bills begin,” the GOP aide said. The blue slip could lead to one of two likely outcomes. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could simply drop the issue and let the next session of Congress start from scratch, a strategy that would allow him time in the lame-duck session to tackle other last-minute priorities, such as the expiring 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, a long-term continuing resolution, an immigration bill and a repeal of the military’s ban on openly gay service members. Or he could try to force the issue in the Senate after the House passes a new version of the bill. But in order to do that and still tackle the other issues, he would need a unanimous consent agreement to limit debate. According to Senate GOP aides, a unanimous consent agreement is all but certain to be a nonstarter because the bill’s chief opponent, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), will not agree to such a deal. Coburn “will object and demand changes as [he has] from the get-go,” a GOP aide familiar with the situation said. This is not the first time that Reid has run afoul of the Constitution’s tax origination provisions. His efforts to pass a tourism promotion bill that was key to his re-election hopes was temporarily stymied earlier this year because the Senate passed a version with revenue raisers similar to those in the food safety bill. Spokesmen for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Ways and Means Democrats and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a co-sponsor of the food safety bill who authored its language, did not immediately return requests for comment. Aides for Ways and Means Democrats also did not immediately return requests for comment. NOTE: Blue Slipping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip): House of Representatives The Origination Clause of the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 7, Clause 1) provides that the House of Representatives has exclusive authority to introduce bills raising revenue: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." Under House precedent, this includes bills "raising revenue and appropriating the same" and the House considers itself to be the only proper venue to originate any bills appropriating revenue. The Senate can simply circumvent this requirement by substituting the text of any bill previously passed by the House with the text of a revenue bill, as was done with Public Law 110-343.[citation needed] When, in the opinion of the House of Representatives, a Senate-introduced bill that raises revenue or appropriates money is passed by the Senate and sent to the House for its consideration, the House places a blue slip on the legislation which notes the House's constitutional prerogative and immediately returns it to the Senate without taking further action. This blue-slipping procedure, done by an order of the House, is routinely completed to enforce its interpretation that the House is the sole body to introduce revenue or appropriations legislation. The failure of the House to consider the legislation means it cannot become a law. This tactic has historically proven to be of great use to the House and, as a practical matter, the Senate does not introduce tax or revenue measures to avoid a blue slip.[1] Senate In the Senate, a blue slip is an opinion written by a Senator from the state of residence of a federal judicial nominee. Both senators from a nominee's state are sent a blue slip in which they may submit a favorable or unfavorable opinion of a nominee. (They may also choose not to return a blue slip.) The Senate Judiciary Committee takes blue slips into consideration when deciding whether or not to recommend the Senate confirm a nominee. It is a means through which the practice of senatorial courtesy is carried out. Professor Brandon Denning has suggested that "the executive branch take a more active role in identifying and publicizing what it perceives to be abuses of the procedure during the confirmation process.”[2]
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
#1. To: Phant2000 (#0)
Whatever it takes to ash-can that pos bill.
Dirty bastards. I have been making phone calls and sending emails all morning ... in the hopes that, in the least, the ears of all the bums supporting such BS are burning. In the most, I hope they can't get it passed.
There are no replies to Comment # 5. End Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||