I rarely read Huffington Post, but a friend from work emailed a link to this post from Sam Stein ~ the letter is fairly innocuous, but the "Obstruction Manual", sent with the letter, is truly enraging ~ it was impossible to c/p the letter and "Manual" from this article because it was a pdf ~ but I have now found copies of both at Politico and ThinkProgress ~ so I will post Gregg's letter to his "Republican Colleagues" along with the truly enraging "Obstruction Manual" next ~ as is obvious in the "Manual", the Rs ONLY goal is to delay, and hopefully derail, health care reform ~ the emphasis/bolding below, meant to provide a preview, is mine ~ ~ Sooz

GOP Senator Pens Obstruction Manual For Health Care

Sam Stein, HuffPost Reporting

First Posted: 12- 2-09 03:37 PM | Updated: 12- 2-09 04:47 PM

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/0 ... 77386.html

Here is Gregg's letter, which is on his personalized official Senate letterhead ~ Sooz

December 1, 2009

Dear Republican Colleague:

As we embark on Senate debate of Majority Leader Reid's massive $2.5 trillion health care reform legislation, it is critical that Republican senators have a solid understanding of the minority's rights in the Senate.

I think that we can all agree that the Democrats' bill is the wrong choice for our nation. It will impact one-sixth of our economy, vastly grow the government, and pile tremendous debt on future generations. We are at an important crossroads both for the economy and for the health care system. Therefore, it is imperative that our voices are heard during this debate.

We, the minority party, must use the tools we have under Senate rules to insist on a full, complete and fully informed debate on the health care legislation - as well as all legislation - coming before the Senate. As laid out in the attached document, we have certain rights before measures are considered on the floor as well as certain rights during the actual consideration of measures. Every Republican senator should be familiar with the scope of these rights, which serve to protect our ability to speak on behalf of the millions of Americans who depend on us to be their voice during this historic debate.

I hope you find the attached information helpful. If you have any questions, please contact my communications office at 202-224-6011.

Sincerely,

Judd Gregg

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM110_0 ... ights.html

Of course this despicable, calculated, abuse of rights can be employed to obstruct ALL bills, not just health care reform.

Here is Gregg's "Manifesto" ~ be prepared for a blood pressure spike ~ all emphasis/bolding below is IN THE ORIGINAL ~ Sooz

FOUNDATION FOR THE MINORITY PARTY'S RIGHTS IN THE SENATE (Fall 2009)

The Senate rules are designed to give a minority of Senators the right to insist on a full, complete, and fully informed debate on all measures and issues coming before the Senate. This cornerstone of protection can only be abrogated if 60 or more Senators vote to take these rights away from the minority.

I. RIGHTS AVAILABLE TO MINORITY BEFORE MEASURES ARE CONSIDERED ON FLOOR (These rights are normally waived by Unanimous Consent (UC) when time is short, but any Senator can object to the waiver.)

ï‚· New Legislative Day - An adjournment of the Senate, as opposed to a recess, is required to trigger a new legislative day. A new legislative day starts with the morning hour, a 2-hour period with a number of required procedures. During part of the "morning hour" any Senator may make non-debatable motions to proceed to items on the Senate calendar.

ï‚· One Day and Two Day Rules- The 1-day rule requires that measures must lie over one "legislative day" before they can be considered. All bills have to lie over one day, whether they were introduced by an individual Senator (Rule XIV) or reported by a committee (Rule XVII). The 2-day rule requires that IF a committee chooses to file a written report, that committee report MUST contain a CBO cost estimate, a regulatory impact statement, and detail what changes the measure makes to current law (or provide a statement why any of these cannot be done), and that report must be available at least 2 calendar days before a bill can be considered on the Senate floor. Senators may block a measure's consideration by raising a point of order if it does not meet one of these requirements.

ï‚· "Hard" Quorum Calls -Senate operates on a presumptive quorum of 51 senators and quorum calls are routinely dispensed with by unanimous consent. If UC is not granted to dispose of a routine quorum call, then the roll must continue to be called. If a quorum is not present, the only motions the leadership may make are to adjourn, to recess under a previous order, or time-consuming motions to establish a quorum that include requesting, requiring, and then arresting Senators to compel their presence in the Senate chamber.

II. RIGHTS AVAILABLE TO MINORITY DURING CONSIDERATION OF MEASURES IN SENATE (Many of these rights are regularly waived by Unanimous Consent.)

ï‚· Motions to Proceed to Measures - with the exception of Conference Reports and Budget Resolutions, most such motions are fully debatable and 60 votes for cloture is needed to cut off extended debate.

ï‚· Reading of Amendments and Conference Reports in Entirety - In most circumstances, the reading of the full text of amendments may only be dispensed with by unanimous consent. Any Senator may object to dispensing with the reading. If, as is often the case when the Senate begins consideration of a House-passed vehicle, the Majority Leader offers a full-text substitute amendment, the reading of that full-text substitute amendment can only be waived by unanimous consent. A member may only request the reading of a conference report if it is not available in printed form (100 copies available in the Senate chamber).

ï‚· Senate Points 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. 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).

ï‚· Budget Points of Order - Many legislative proposals (bills, amendments, and conference reports) are subject to a point of order under the Budget Act or budget resolution, most of which can only be waived by 60 votes. If budget points of order lie against a measure, any Senator may raise them, and a measure cannot be passed or disposed of unless the points of order that are raised are waived. (See http://budget.senate.gov/republican/pressarchive/PointsofOrder.pdf )

ï‚· Amendment Process

Amendment Tree Process and/or Filibuster by Amendment - until cloture is invoked, Senators may offer an unlimited number of amendments -- germane or non-germane -- on any subject. This is the fullest expression of a "full, complete, and informed"debate on a measure. It has been necessary under past Democrat majorities to use the rules governing the amendment process aggressively to ensure that minority Senators get votes on their amendment as originally written (unchanged by the Majority Democrats.)

Substitute Amendments - UC is routinely requested to treat substitute amendments as original text for purposes of further amendment, which makes it easier for the majority to offer 2nd degree amendments to gut 1st degree amendments by the minority. The minority could protect their amendments by objecting to such UC's.

Divisible Amendments - amendments are divisible upon demand by any Senator if they contain two or more parts that can stand independently of one another. This can be used to fight efforts to block the minority from offering all of their amendments, because a single amendment could be drafted, offered at a point when such an amendment is in order, and then divided into multiple component parts for separate consideration and votes. Demanding division of amendments can also be used to extend consideration of a measure. Amendments to strike and insert text cannot be divided.

ï‚· Motions to Recommit Bills to Committee With or Without Instructions - A Senator may make a motion to recommit a bill to the committee with or without instructions to the Committee to report it back to the Senate with certain changes or additions. Such instructions are amendable.

ï‚· AFTER PASSAGE Going to Conference, Motions to Instruct Conferees, Matters Out of Scope of Conference

Going to Conference - 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, 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).

Motion to Instruct Conferees - Once the Senate adopts the first two motions, Senators may offer an unlimited number of motions to instruct the Senate's conferees. The motions to instruct are amendable - and divisible upon demand -- by Senators if they contain more than one separate and distinct instruction.

Conference Reports, Out of Scope Motions - In addition to demanding a copy of the conference report to be on every Senator's desk and raising Budget points of order against it, Senators may also raise a point of order that it contains matter not related to the matters originally submitted to the conference by either chamber. If the Chair sustains the point or order, the provision(s) is stricken from the conference agreement, and the House would then have to approve the measure absent the stricken provision (even if the House had already acted on the conference report). The scope point of order can be waived by 60 Senators.

Availability of Conference Report Language. The conference report must be publicly available on a website 48 hours in advance prior to the vote on passage.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM110_091202_minorityrights.html

Democrats have used these tactics to great advantage whenever they are in the minority in the Senate, as well. Using them is part of the negotiation process in the Senate. These measure help to encourage compromise on key points of legislation by the majority when they don't have enough votes to easily overcome a filibuster.

Tactics such as these prevent a majority position from simply bulldozing those who have a different viewpoint. One of the great foundations of the Senate is that it is a deliberative body that protects the rights of the minority in our democratic system of government.

Whiel I don't like Gregg, he doesn't represent me and I guess his state likes him enough to elect him. However, he doesn't deserve credit for crafting these documents- they are the Senate rules and procedures, as gopqed points out. No surprise or outrage here. The Democrats will get their bill, and the Republicans will be able to show their supporters that they opposed it.

Ahem ...

sooz, the use of delaying tactics is a vital tool for the minority interest in the Senate (and the House) during the legislative process. It's used to encourage compromise on the part of the majority when develooping legislation. It's an important part of the process, as it prevents a tyranny of the majority and allows the minority to have a role in crafting legislation. It has served the nation well for over 200 years because it moderates both sides on most issues, leading to a smoother road of governance in the nation. Democrats, without using such tactics, would have had to stand by in previous years as a whole host of policies were enacted that they opposed. Instead, they were able to kill outright some of those policy proposals, or gain modification to them so they were much less unpalatable.

I can tell you that there is nothing new in Gregg's memo - It's exactly how the Senate has conducted itself for many, many years. The majority always bitches about it because it prevents them from doing exactly what they want to do, but they understand the reasons the rules are the way they are, and they know they will have a need for those procedures at some point down the road.

The Democrats don't need to compromise much to get a bill they will be happy with, as just a little movement will ensure they pretty much hold their caucus together and possibly pick up some Republican votes along the way.