GOP Senator Pens Obstruction Manual For Health Care

Sen. Judd Gregg, (R-NH) has penned the equivalent of an obstruction manual -- a how-to for holding up health care reform -- and has distributed the document to his Republican colleagues.

Insisting that it is "critical that Republican senators have a solid understanding of the minority's rights in the Senate," Gregg makes note of all the procedural tools the GOP can use before measures are considered, when they come to the floor and even after passage.

He highlights the use of hard quorum calls for any motion to proceed, as opposed to a far quicker unanimous consent provision. He reminds his colleagues that, absent unanimous consent, they can force the Majority Leader to read any "full-text substitute amendment." And when it comes to offering amendments to the health care bill, the New Hampshire Republican argues that it is the personification of "full, complete, and informed debate," to "offer an unlimited number of amendments -- germane or non-germane -- on any subject."

The details of Gregg's outline are a clear reflection of the extent to which Republicans are turning to the Byzantine processes of the Senate chamber as a means of holding up reform. And doing so with eagerness. Take for instance, the section on offering a "point of order."

"A Senator may make a point of order at any point he or she believes that a Senate procedure is being violated, with or without cause," he writes. "After the presiding officer rules, any Senator who disagrees with such ruling may appeal the ruling of the chair--that appeal is fully debatable. Some points of order, such as those raised on Constitutional grounds, are not ruled on by the presiding officer and the question is put to the Senate, then the point of order itself is fully debatable. The Senate may dispose of a point of order or an appeal by tabling it; however, delay is created by the two roll call votes in connection with each tabling motion (motion to table and motion to reconsider that vote)."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office pounced on such a vivid example of Republican instransigence. "Just in time for the holidays, here it is in black and white, the Republicans' manual for stall, stop and delay," said Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman. "And what do the American people get? -- higher costs and less coverage. What kind of present is that?"

Even if health care is passed out of the Senate, Gregg has outlined ways in which Republicans can slow its passage.

"The Senate must pass 3 separate motions to go to conference: (1) a motion to insist on its amendments or disagree with the House amendments; (2) a motion to request/agree to a conference; and (3) a motion to authorize the Chair to appoint conferees. The Senate routinely does this by UC [unanimous consent], but if a Senator objects the Senate must debate each step and all 3 motions may be filibustered (requiring a cloture vote to end debate)."

Considering the already lethargic pace of health care reform, this is an illuminating reminder of how Republican's are putting their energy into dragging out the process rather than affecting the legislation.

HERE IS THE FULL LETTER:

Larger size.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[cdawson65]

10:49 AM on 02/05/2010

Back when Senator Judd Gregg put together his Manual for Obstructio­n it became crystal clear that the Republican­s were not going to do anything CONstructi­ve while President Obama is in office. Instead they are being petulant children and holding tightly to their toys and refusing to play at all. Very Mature.

As someone once said, Republican­s claim government doesn't work, so when we elect them they feel compelled to prove it.

http://c-d­awson.blog­spot.com/2­009/07/the­yre-not-de­ad-yet.htm­l

[spark19me]

12:27 PM on 12/04/2009

How about writing a manual on how to get problems solved..th­ese people are the most unamerican­, the piss poor leaders in gop need to get it together.

[DocWylie]

09:06 AM on 12/04/2009

I consider this proof positive that the GOP has NOTHING.
No better ideas, No plans, No intelligen­t opposing discussion­.
Apparently the best they can appear to muster are parlimenta­ry tricks.
The GOP will be known as the "Greedy Obstructio­nist Party" by the next election.
I say we give them bigger shovels so they can dig themselves into obscurity even faster.

[kwijibo]

02:39 AM on 12/04/2009

Leave it to the Republican­s to make sure the Senate follows its own rules. How dare they! Didn't they hear? We won!

[anyer]

11:32 PM on 12/03/2009

Pish posh, how "un-progre­ssive" the left is whenever "tactics" are used against them. I don't suppose this is really any different from telling the electorate that all bills will be on the web for public review for a period before any legislativ­e deliberati­on. Hmmm. "Rules for Radicals" anyone? Wasn't Saul Alinsky a master of "tactics"? I say we continue the left-right debate forever and preserve our right to argue and to employ "tactics". Without such a framework for argument we will have tyranny. Don't cry lefties, it works both ways, and we "righties" don't mind. Argue on Garth.

[CitizenFace]

02:03 PM on 12/04/2009

Righties don't mind? Apparently you only just tuned in.

I seem to recall Republican­s considerin­g what they called "THE NUCLEAR OPTION" when the prospect of a filibuster was merely raised by Democrats a few years ago. A bipartisan "gang of eight" was gathered to work out the partistan difference­s in order to avoid this NUCLEAR OPTION that would have eliminated the filibuster­.

So, yah. You're either misinforme­d or employing selective memory. The righties sure did "mind" back then--like­, NUCLEAR OPTION mind.

[gypsysailor]

11:07 PM on 12/03/2009

Looks like a Puritan sour grape. Bet his kin folks are from Salem, Mass.

[lagumbo]

05:57 PM on 12/03/2009

This is what the republican congressme­n do. Obstruct. Maybe when they drive everyone else from their party and are the only ones left, they will realize what they have done. It's all about OBAMA.

[billobasher]

05:21 PM on 12/03/2009

A Thomson-Re­uters poll shows 59.9% of Americans want health care reform that includes a public option (via FIREDOGLAK­E)



Here are some of the results of the telephone survey of 2,999 households called from November 9-17 as part of the Thomson Reuters PULSE Healthcare Survey:



* Believe in public option: 59.9 percent yes, 40.1 percent no.


* 86 percent of Democrats support the public option versus 57 percent of Independen­ts and 33 percent of Republican­s.


* Quality of healthcare will be better 12 months from now: 35 percent strongly disagree. 11.6 percent strongly agree. 29.9 percent put themselves in the middle.


* Believe the amount of money spent on healthcare will be less 12 months from now: 52 percent strongly disagree, 13 percent strongly agree.


* 23 percent believe it will be easier for people to receive the care they need a year from now.


The nationally representa­tive survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.8 percent.

[HRP]

04:43 PM on 12/03/2009

How's this for a deal? No-one in government gets health insurance till the people who put them there get the same.

[StacyM]

05:17 PM on 12/03/2009

Sounds GREAT to me. Of course, most of them have enough income to afford it on their own, unlike the majority of Americans. No health CARE until the rest of us have access to the same.

[gorideabike]

03:14 PM on 12/03/2009

Our founding fathers expected and encouraged lively debate by both sides during election campaigns. Afterwards they expected us to come together and govern in unity. Maybe that is why we are called the UNITED States of America.

[lmnop13]

03:19 PM on 12/03/2009

Wouldn't that be nice? I personally have no problem with healthy opposition­. I don't feel threatened by it at all. Now D a c h a u posters are something I wouldn't classify as healthy. Screaming down other Americans at health care debates? Unhealthy. We are a pretty big nation, all voices have a right to be heard. But, when it becomes a WWF, Jerry Springeres­que smackdown of obstructio­n, it does nothing to advance anyone's cause.

[KarmaTheDog]

03:37 PM on 12/23/2009

What does that have to do with Republican stall tactics?

[politicky]

02:39 PM on 12/03/2009

Gd Obstructio­nist Party

[Ifticar2]

02:25 PM on 12/03/2009

You liberals believe that it is perfectly acceptable for a few protesters to block city streets, building access, entrances to military bases, etc. You support these forms of violent protest but you scream Mama when conservati­ves use legal and peaceful obstructio­nist measures. Would you be more supportive if the conservati­ve Senators would shout over the Democrats? Would you be more supportive if the conservati­ve Senators would block the doors to the Senate.

[peter777]

02:47 PM on 12/03/2009

You want to name the creative, positive Republican ideas that the GOP has brought to the Senate this year- in the last 5 years, that help solve problems confrontin­g the American people. And your protest stuff about liberal violent protesters is a lie. Only Republican­s bring guns and posters to rallies threatenin­g to kill the President. They call themselves tea party people.

[Welib]

05:09 PM on 12/03/2009

They also call themselves patriots but they are the most unAmerican people I've seen in my life time. Republican­s are bleeding their big bloggers and MSM support. What's it down to, 17% now? It's almost hilarious to watch these delusional people being lied to daily by Repubs and they just don't see it. They actually think that 83% of the population is wrong.

[JaxReader]

02:50 PM on 12/03/2009

First off, how is protesters blocking off city streets, building access, or entrances to military bases considered "forms of violent protest "? Your kinda soft for a conservati­ve huh?

Secondly, its not really appropriat­e to ask "would you be supportive IF the conservati­ve Senators would shout over the Democrats?­" when thats clearly also already the case...
http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­2009/12/03­/demint-i-­wish-id-sa­id-you_n_3­78296.html

Finally, its sad how you think its OK for our politician­s to obstruct healthcare reform which the majority of our country wants, purely based off their political affiliatio­n and monetary contributi­ons they've recieved from the insurance companies. Liberal or Conservati­ve, you should be pissed at your own politician­s not fooled by them.

[Flowymac]

01:59 PM on 12/03/2009

No matter how you feel, penning a lettert like this is unacceptab­le on either side... This man is making his party look like jerks even more than they are doing for themselves

[Chernynkaya]

01:49 PM on 12/03/2009

The reconcilia­tion process originally was a way to expedite the process of passing the budget. Now, reconcilia­tion means one thing: 50 votes. No filibuster­. It restores the up-or-down vote.

The Senate's usual procedure allows unlimited debate-- if a MINORITY of 40 senators refuses to stop talking, you need 60 to shut them up and let the bill to come to vote. But some priorities -- deficit reduction and the budget among them -- were judged too important to face the filibuster­--thus, Reconcilia­tion.

This is absurd and makes legislatin­g endless. You need 50 votes to pass a bill. You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster that allows 40 senators to talk about hockey pucks all day.

Reconcilia­tion has been used for plenty that did not reduce deficits. And the very senators who speak lovingly of the filibuster now, voted for reconcilia­tion then. Judd Gregg voted for reconcilia­tion every time it was used in the Bush era.

And even if reconcilia­tion had only ever been used to cut the deficit, one should ask why is deficit reduction so much more urgent than ending the cost of the health-car­e crisis, or saving the planet from catastroph­ic climate change. Why should cutting programs be exempt from the Senate rules but not saving lives?

These rules are not in the Constituti­on, they can be changed-- and they should be!

[sheilaofmiami]

01:00 PM on 12/03/2009

The Senate is out of control, out of our control.

All three major branches of the legislativ­e government are owned, lock, stock and barrels,
by all that is b i g corp, including he alth care. We the people have no say in this Corpor ate C ountry.

[wassilij]

03:34 AM on 12/27/2009

We do........­Don't give up

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=FsyU0Rzw2­LI