House Democrats have signaled that they will avoid voting on the Senate health care bill by introducing a rule that would deem the bill passed once the reconciliation package is adopted. The so-called “deem and pass” rule has a long bipartisan history. Congress originally used the rule to “expedite House action in disposing of Senate amendments to House-passed bills” but has recently relied on the procedure to “enact significant, substantive and sometimes controversial propositions.” In 1995, Newt Gingrich’s Republican majority set a new record:

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules. On April 26, the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule.

In 2005, Republicans in Congress approved a national debt limit increase using “deem and pass” and Reps. Pelosi, Waxman and Slaughter — along with Public Citizen — “went to federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the move.” The court ruled against the Democrats (without ruling on the constitutionality of the procedure) and they’re now using the rule to avoid taking a tough vote. Predictably, Republicans are objecting to the maneuver, while Democrats are arguing that “deem and pass” is a time honored tradition.

Democrats may be right, but it doesn’t matter. The problem is that voters can’t be expected to understand how someone can pass a bill without voting for it (full disclosure: the Speaker had to explain the procedure twice yesterday to a group of bloggers who have been writing about this stuff for some time). Or how the President can call for an up or down vote on health reform but then allow Democrats to avoid directly voting for the Senate bill. The distinction is purely political, Washingtonian, and fairly dull and it really makes this process more complicated than it needs to be. Voters don’t even know the differences between the House and Senate health care bills and here you have Democrats jumping through hoops to ensure that voters understand that they never officially voted for the Senate measure.

The reality is, in their effort to avoid voting for “special deals,” cautious Democrats are forcing leadership to rely on a procedure that sounds as hokey as the Cornhusker Kickback. The rule only reinforces the Republican narrative about back room deals and “jamming through reform.” It energizes conservatives and allows Republicans to argue that not only is reform itself unconstitutional, but so is its passage!

At this point — given the loss of the 60th vote in the Senate and the united Republican opposition — House leaders believe that rule will placate paranoid caucus members and secure 216 votes before the end of the week. And if that’s the case, then so be it. Health care reform is more important than a short-term controversy over process. But if the whip operation drags on any longer, the organized opposition to “deem and pass” will scare the very same lawmakers who demanded it in the first place and doom this entire effort.

Yesterday, the House Budget Committee approved The Reconciliation Act of 2010 — the place holder for the actual reconciliation bill — by a vote of 21 to 16 and sent the bill to the Rules Committee. Rules will take up the measure on Wednesday at 3:15pm and will insert the actual reconciliation package into the bill and draft the procedural motion outlining the rules for floor debate.

Last night members spent almost eight hours introducing motions instructing the chairman to take a certain negotiating position when he appears before Rules. At around 9:20pm, Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS) tried to substantiate the GOP motion to drop the health bill until the deficit is in order by pulling up a chart showing the Presidential Records on Budget Deficits.

Harper argued that Republicans secured a surplus in the mid 1990s by passing Clinton’s Welfare Reform Act and SCHIP legislation and claimed that health care reform would increase the deficits that began on September 11, 2001. “If you extrapolate a few years forward that red line would go down to the basement right now,” another Republican lawmaker (possibly Rep. Paul Ryan) remarked.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), however, was having none of it. Scott asked staff to pull the chart back up and tore into Republicans for taking credit for balancing the budget:

SCOTT: Because you know, there is just amazing how the other side can take any credit for that bill. Their contribution to the blue when we passed it to begin with was without a single Republican vote, House or Senate. In 1993, not a single Republican vote, House or Senate. That is right, and that is how you created the blue….You take credit for his veto and if you want to know what would have happened if you had signed your budgets, we found out in 2001 when President Bush signed the budget and you saw what happened. You can’t blame 9/11 because the first tax-cut happen before 9/11 and you had gone to through to rob a cash surplus before 9/11. A second set of tax cuts happened after 9/11. You can’t a surprise that 9/11 had already happened because that was after 9/11.

Watch the exchange:

In 1993, Congress approved the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 with Vice President Gore casting the tie-breaking fifty-first vote. As Scott pointed out, not a single Republican votes for the act, which reduced the deficit by $504.8 billion over 10 year. Among other things, the act “created two new personal income tax rates and a new tax rate for corporations.”

Conversely, President Bush presided over the largest increase in the debt of any president in history. When he took office, “the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion.” In eight years, there has been an increase of over 70%. CAP’s Michael Ettlinger has calculated that “changes in federal law during the Bush administration are responsible for 40 percent of the short-term fiscal problem,” while “only 16 percent of the projected budget deterioration for 2009 and 2010 are attributable” to Obama’s policies.

As Scott concluded, “we are going to get the budget back under control but we can’t do it until we get the budget straight and health care is going to help because that is the biggest thing in terms of the problems with the budget.”

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) sounded fairly optimistic that Democrats would secure 216 votes to pass reform before the end of the week, telling Bill Press this morning, “We’re getting there. Momentum is in the right direction.” Asked if he would bet that Democrats would have the votes before the end of the week, Van Hollen suggested that the party could have enough votes by Sunday:

VAN HOLLEN: I would bet we have the votes certainly by the time the President is ready to depart. But we’re working very hard to get there. But yes, if I was a betting man, I would do that. I am for time to time a betting man.

Listen:

Van Hollen’s comments come on the heels of House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson’s (D-CT) rosy assessment that Democrats “have the votes and that we will get this bill done this week” and Speaker Pelosi’s reassurances at yesterday’s meeting with progressive bloggers.

House members are still waiting to see the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates of the reconciliation package before committing to a vote, however, and some Democrats are growing anxious. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) — who expressed great optimism about securing enough votes earlier this month — told McClatchy newspapers today that the vote could be delayed until Easter. “The chances are good, but I wouldn’t bet on it,” Clyburn said. “I need 216 votes to pass this bill,” Clyburn told McClatchy. “I think I’m going to get 216 votes. It could be closer than last time. All I want is 216 votes.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) tells POLITICO “he thinks leadership is seriously struggling to marshal the votes.” “They’re calling the hardnosed people…who have put out firm statements saying no,” he said. “They wouldn’t be doing that if they were anywhere close.”