The genie is out of the bottle.

And the challenge now facing Congressional Democratic leaders is how to put the genie back in the bottle.

In this case, the genie is abortion.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) did the unthinkable two weeks ago. The powerful Speaker faced defeat on the health care reform bill. And despite being an unwavering abortion rights supporter, pro-life Democrats forced Pelosi to accede to their demands and allow the adoption of a wide-ranging anti-abortion amendment. Just to salvage the health care bill from parliamentary purgatory.

Pelosi’s maneuver stunned pro-choice advocacy groups. And it infuriated abortion rights voices in her caucus, most notably Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and her trusted Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY). They may not have liked Pelosi’s ploy. But they know down deep it was necessary to pass the health legislation.

So as the health bill moves to the Senate, the abortion genie is out of the bottle. That means Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) now carries two titles: Senate Majority Leader. And he’s also tasked with being the “Genie-Back-In-the-Bottle-Stuffer-In-Chief.”

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) drafted the House’s anti-abortion amendment. Stupak’s plan prohibits federally-backed health insurance programs from covering elective abortions and bans the use of federal subsidies to pay for abortions.

Reid didn’t allow the Stupak amendment to become part of his legislation. Instead, the Senate package allows government-run health plans to offer abortions so long as no taxpayer dollars are used to pay for them. The Senate measure also requires women who receive federal subsidies to purchase health coverage to pay for abortions with their own money.

“I think they handle (the abortion issue) much better over there,” said Louise Slaughter of Reid’s decision to leave the Stupak amendment out of the health bill.

“I’m pleased with the language that is in the Senate bill. And I think it is pretty clear that no federal funds will be spent on abortion,” said Pelosi. “The conversations continue and I am optimistic that we will find a common ground.”

But the abortion genie is out of the bottle. And Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) demonstrates why it’s so hard to tuck it back in.

Nelson announced Friday he would vote for a procedural measure that would allow the Senate to debate the health care bill. But Nelson is vowing to block final passage of the Senate legislation unless there are major changes to ensure that no federal dollars would go toward abortion.

Pro-life Republicans are seizing on abortion. Certainly they admire the Stupak amendment. And they are wary of Reid’s approach.

Since the mid-1970s, Democratic and Republican Congresses alike have okayed what’s known as the “Hyde Amendment” to ban the federal funding of abortions. But abortion remains legal. Now there’s worry from pro-lifers that the Reid bill alters what Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) called an “uneasy truce” between the sides.

“Unfortunately what this legislation does is to move that fulcrum to the left and say, yes, under certain circumstances, there will be federal funding of abortions,” Kyl said.

Naturally, the lack of a provision like Stupak in the Senate bill invigorates anti-abortion forces. So GOP leaders are doing all they can to keep the genie out of the bottle and gin up pro-lifers from both sides of the aisle.

“The Democratic bill for the first time in history would allow federal programs to pay for elective abortion,” said Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

So which side will prevail?

The rowdy town hall meetings of August proved that Republicans electrified their conservative base in nearly united opposition to the health care reform bill. Almost immediately, commentators and political handicappers started playing a death fugue for vulnerable Democrats in the next election cycle. Women are the core of the Democratic party. And the Democratic base largely failed to materialize to argue in favor of the health care bill at the August town meetings.

It may be an unintended benefit. But it’s possible the Stupak amendment awakened a sleeping giant of crucial pro-choice Democrats.

“I think it’s energizing like-minded men and women,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). “They’re fired up about this. A change that moves us backwards is not the change we want.”

“This shouldn’t even be in the bill,” echoed Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) about the Stupak amendment. “My hope is this will enliven these people who want health care and don’t want this poison pill in the bill.”

But 41 pro-life House Democrats voted in favor of the Stupak amendment. They could torpedo the legislation if the Senate Democratic leadership manages to wedge the abortion genie back into the bottle.

The trick for Pelosi and Reid is to find a way to tip-toe across the abortion tightrope without alienating either the pro-choice and pro-life wings of their party. The pro-choicers already feel as though they’ve taken a hit with the Stupak amendment. And they believe it’s time the pro-lifers accommodate them this time around.

Pelosi and Reid can emerge victorious if they craft a compromise that’s agreeable to both sides. But no one has clue as to what such a deal would look like.

“This bill is not about abortion,” Pelosi said. “This is a bill about health care.”

But until they can solve the abortion conundrum, the focus of debate centers on abortion.

It’s almost as though Pelosi and Reid need a genie themselves to find their way out of this legislative cul-de-sac.

All genies are card-carrying members of the Genie Society of Professional Altruistic Nomads (that’s “G-SPAN” for short). G-SPAN protocol mandates that all genies offer their liberators three wishes when they conjure them out of the bottle.

Nancy Pelosi may not have unearthed a bottle with a genie in it. But she certainly has three wishes. The Speaker told reporters Thursday that she wants no federal money spent on abortions, no expansion of restrictions on abortions (as imposed by the Stupak plan) and to finally pass a comprehensive health care bill.

In the case of Pelosi, three wishes might be overkill. If she’s shrewd, the Speaker knows she just needs one: to wish the abortion genie back into the bottle. And if that wish becomes reality, it’s doubtful Pelosi needs the other two wishes to haul the health care reform bill across the finish line.

-         Chad Pergram covers Congress for FOX News. He’s won an Edward R. Murrow Award and the Joan Barone Award for his reporting on Capitol Hill.

-         The Speaker’s Lobby refers to a long, ornate corridor that runs behind the dais in the House chamber. Lawmakers, aides and journalists often confer there during votes.

"We don't need 40 Democrats to stand up for what's right. We need just one. if just one pro-life Democrat would say i will not vote to move this bill until it's fixed, until it's truly pro-life, that would happen. So those who say they are pro-life but refuse to take that stand, I worry are not standing up for life. "

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, attempted to fence off federal money from covering abortion in his bill, but pro-life critics say the effort fails. The HHS Secretary is to ensure that each state has one private plan that covers abortion in the state-based healthcare exchanges. The public option is not permitted to cover the procedure.

But those who oppose abortion want to see the stricter language that passed in the House - where abortions are not permitted in plans on the new exchanges where federal subsidies might be used to buy abortion coverage.

A new Pew poll showed that only three percent of Americans who oppose the Democrats healthcare legislation do so because of abortion, still it was an issue that nearly brought the House healthcare bill down.

Johanns issued a challenge that surely had his senior colleague from his home state, Dem Sen Ben Nelson, in mind, saying that merely voting to proceed just to try to change the bill was unacceptable.

Nelson said as much in a statement Wednesday night, that merely voting to proceed was not a vote of support for the bill, rather it was a vote in favor of moving forward and trying to make changes.

Johanns said he believes there are not the necessary 60 votes to strip out what he sees as offensive abortion language.

"I ask for a pro-life senator to come down here and stand up on this bill. Pro-life Americans are waiting, and they aren't fooled."

Now -- if you turn to page 2,045 of Reid's healthcare bill, it's right there -- -here's the cut&paste:

Page 2045

SEC. 9017. EXCISE TAX ON ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES.

(a) IN GENERAL.-Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:

''CHAPTER 49-ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES ''Sec. 5000B. Imposition of tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures.

''SEC. 5000B. IMPOSITION OF TAX ON ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES.

''(a) IN GENERAL.-There is hereby imposed on any cosmetic surgery and medical procedure a tax equal to 5 percent of the amount paid for such procedure (determined without regard to this section), whether paid by insurance or otherwise.

''(b) COSMETIC SURGERY AND MEDICAL PROCEDURE.-For purposes of this section, the term 'cosmetic surgery and medical procedure' means any cosmetic surgery (as defined in section 213(d)(9)(B)) or other similar procedure which-

''(1) is performed by a licensed medical professional, and

''(2) is not necessary to ameliorate a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or disfiguring disease.

''(c) PAYMENT OF TAX.-

''(1) IN GENERAL.-The tax imposed by this section shall be paid by the individual on whom the procedure is performed.

''(2) COLLECTION.-Every person receiving a payment for procedures on which a tax is imposed under subsection (a) shall collect the amount of the

tax from the individual on whom the procedure is performed and remit such tax quarterly to the Secretary at such time and in such manner as provided

by the Secretary.

''(3) SECONDARY LIABILITY.-Where any tax imposed by subsection (a) is not paid at the time payments for cosmetic surgery and medical procedures are made, then to the extent that such tax is not collected, such tax shall be paid by the person who performs the procedure.''.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.-The table of chapters for subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by this Act, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 48 the following new item:

''CHAPTER 49-ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES''.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made by this section shall apply to procedures performed on or after January 1, 2010.

Yikes.

Definitely getting creative in paying for this bill.

Key House Republicans are determined to keep suspected terrorists currently housed at Guantanamo Bay from coming to the United States for trial and incarceration.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) introduced Wednesday what's called a "discharge petition." It would force the House to consider a bill that would prevent President Obama from closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and require detainees to be tried in a military tribunal instead of at a civilian trial with a judge in the United States.

The issue intensified in recent days after the Obama Administration announced it would transfer al Qaida leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators to New York for a trial. Mohammad claims to be the mastermind behind September 11th.

"This is one of the most-dangerous decisions any president has made," said Rep. Pete King (R-NY), the leading Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee.

King represents a district on Long Island outside New York City. He says he lost 150 friends on 9-11.

"It will be like reopening old wounds," King added.

The discharge petition currently has the signatures of 170 House members. All co-signers are Republicans. At least 218 signatures are necessary to force the House to consider Hoekstra's legislation. But it's an outside shot as discharge petitions are rarely successful.

One of Mr. Obama's first acts in office was the announcement that he would shutter Gitmo and transfer the detainees elsewhere. Hoekstra accused President Obama of "holding out a pot of gold" to American communities in an effort to lure them into housing prisoners currently detained at Guantanamo Bay. Hoekstra lamented how the White House has shopped around the opportunity to lock up detainees to various communities around the United States.

"One day they're supposed to go to Colorado. Then one day, Standish, MI. Then South Carolina. Then Illinois," Hoekstra said, reading off a laundry list of various locales reported to be under consideration to take the prisoners.

Attorney General Eric Holder Wednesday defended the decision to try the suspects in federal court while testifying before a Senate panel. Holder told senators that New York is the place "most likely to obtain justice for the American people."

"I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial and no one else needs to be afraid either," said Holder.

Some lawmakers like Pete King worried about bringing the suspected terrorists to the U.S. could create legal opportunities for the detainees.

"The minute they set foot on U.S. soil, they get Constitutional rights," King said. The Republican lawmakers also pointed out that the government was trying other suspects at Gitmo and wondered why all suspects weren't being tried there.

An assemblage of reporters followed the leader and fired questions at the Maryland Democrat as he strode toward his office. What were they going to do about abortion? Did they have the votes? Would they wait to vote next week?

Hoyer didn’t have the answers to most of those questions. And when he reached the staircase landing, I asked him something he didn’t have an immediate answer to either.

“Mr. Leader,” I began, “Will the House hold a moment of silence to honor those killed today at Fort Hood?”

I figured Hoyer was the appropriate person to ask about this. After all, the Majority Leader controls the House floor schedule.

A quizzical look consumed Hoyer’s face. He stopped in his tracks and put his palm on my shoulder.

“The what?” he asked, nearly squinting at me.

“The shooting at Fort Hood,” I repeated.

Then his longtime aide Stacey Farnen Bernards jumped in.

“You haven’t been briefed, sir. It happened during the meeting,” Bernards said.

Hoyer and the other leaders were burrowed so deeply in their health care strategy session inside Pelosi’s alcove that they hadn’t seen the news in hours.

I told Hoyer that about a dozen people had been killed. Apparently by someone in the service. The Majority Leader’s head tilted to the side as though trying to grasp what I was telling him.

“That’s terrible,” Hoyer said. “By someone on the base?”

“Will you have a moment of silence?” I asked again.

“I would imagine we would,” Hoyer replied, still digesting what I told him. The leader then turned and walked down the hall. Hoyer’s gait was markedly slower than when he charged out of Pelosi’s office a few moments earlier.

And sure enough, about an hour later, Pelosi interrupted a series of votes to note the tragedy on the House floor.

“Members and those in the gallery will please rise and observe a moment of silence in memory of the victims of violence at Fort Hood,” the Speaker commanded, presiding over the House chamber from the rostrum.

Democrats and Republicans alike then stood to bow their heads in prayer and meditation.

The usually-rambunctious chamber fell quiet. And 25 seconds later, Pelosi gently tapped the gavel, marking the end of the tribute.

Those 25 seconds of silence could mark the last time Congressional Democrats and Republicans agree on anything about Fort Hood.

While Congress was out of session last week, Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT) scheduled a hearing for this Thursday. Lieberman’s accused the alleged perpetrator Nidal Malik Hasan of home-grown terrorism.

Meantime, some Republicans were quick to call for a Congressional inquiry. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, declared that the Obama Administration did not cough up information about Hasan and his possible links to terrorism.

"The horrific shootings at Fort Hood are a tragic reminder of the potential deadly consequences of the threat posed by homegrown jihadism,” Hoekstra said in a statement. “Congress has an obligation to review how federal agencies are handling and disseminating information related to the threat.”

But Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) pushed for a more deliberate approach on Fort Hood.

“It would be inappropriate and premature to jump to conclusions on this matter,” Reyes said.

And then Reyes took a not-so-veiled swipe at Hoekstra.

“I am disappointed that some have rushed to the news media with unfounded information in order to gain headlines,” Reyes said. “I hope that my colleagues will refrain from speculation, pray for those who were affected by this tragic incident, and let investigators do their work.”

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) also cautioned against haste in his news release.

“Right now, we need to avoid jumping to any conclusions and give the Army and the FBI a chance to do their jobs,” Skelton said, citing his experience as a local prosecutor.

But the time for press releases was over when Congress reconvened this week.

First, the Senate Armed Services Committee promptly postponed a meeting on Fort Hood because leading officials from the Army weren’t available. Then came a closed door briefing for lawmakers Tuesday given by Defense and Justice Department officials. And then the White House requested a slow-down from Congressional inquiries into the shootings.

“I don’t see any partisan flavor to this other than if somebody tries to make it a partisan flavor,” Steny Hoyer told reporters late Tuesday morning.

But some lawmakers were already drizzling partisan flavor all over any effort to find out the truth about Fort Hood.

“We’ve come to the conclusion that this represents a systemic breakdown,” said Hoekstra Tuesday afternoon at a press conference packed with Republicans. “Congress needs to move forward to make sure we do our work to get to the right conclusions.”

“First of all, we don’t have all the facts,” countered Reyes an hour later during a scrum with reporters in the Speaker’s Lobby near the House floor.

“Tools and methods that have been used in previous months and years by the intelligence community are no longer at their disposal (to investigate Fort Hood),” said Intelligence Committee member Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI).

“I don't know of any tools that have been curtailed or limited,” countered Reyes. “This may be just again a political smokescreen thrown out there.”

“The families of the dead and the wounded deserve to know the truth. But all Americans deserve to know their government is taking the appropriate steps,” said Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX).

“What the Republicans are doing is irresponsible,” said Reyes. “I don’t think that talking about this case to the media is responsible. I think it is irresponsible to speculate.”

So, no one really knows what happened at Fort Hood. There is wild conjecture about whether Hasan acted alone, had links to al-Qaida, is part of a broad, still-unfolding conspiracy or is just someone who finally snapped.

Meantime, the charges and countercharges between Democrats and Republicans are in full volley. The probe isn’t even launched and it’s already bleeding partisanship. And the GOP is quick to remind people that key aspects of the Patriot Act expire in six weeks.

Which could mean the only time Democrats and Republicans can agree on Fort Hood was for 25 seconds during a moment of silence on the House floor.

-         Chad Pergram covers Congress for FOX News. He’s won an Edward R. Murrow Award and the Joan Barone Award for his reporting on Capitol Hill.

-         The Speaker’s Lobby refers to a long, ornate hallway that runs behind the dais in the House chamber. Lawmakers, aides and journalists often confer there during votes.

He has been going back and forth with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for some time now, massaging the numbers and policy to get a bill and total price tag that his Caucus can swallow.

He will need every one of his 60 Democrats to vote to move forward to debate on the bill.  A handful are still holding out, because no one has seen any details. Reid is keeping all of that close to the vest, but most believe Reid will be able to open formal debate.

The major questions remain unanswered, as yet:

What kind of public option will be in the bill?  It's almost impossible to see how anything could be in the bill but a triggered government insurance plan. But it's unclear if the more liberal members could stomach this.  The plan, authored by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-ME, would trigger a public plan almost at the same time current reforms kick in -- IF the reform efforts don't bring costs down.  Reid would have a sales job to get it by a dug-in group who want a robust public option and want it right out of the gate.

Will Reid increase subsidies for the poor and lower middle class?

Will there be more options available to more people?

Abortion seems all but certain to be the Hyde amendment language already approved by the Senate Finance Committee.  Conservative, pro-life Dems like Ben Nelson, D-NE, seem ok with language that clearly fences off all federal funds from being used to fund abortion.   Nelson clearly would like the more restrictive language approved in the House, but he seems to know that won't fly with the vast majority of the Senate Dem Caucus.

Lots more questions remain unanswered.

Possibly Wednesday we see a Reid bill and a special Caucus of Dems to go over the bill.   Unclear if the CBO score would be made public.

That sets up a key test vote to start debate Saturday.  Several key senators have said they feel like Saturday is a near certainty.

After that, they all leave for the weeklong Thanksgiving recess.

In the original Star Wars, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Luke Skywalker are in search of a freighter pilot to get off the planet. They travel to Mos Eisley spaceport. Kenobi knows that the best pilots carouse in the town’s cantinas and taverns.

But before they go into Mos Eisley, Kenobi counsels young Skywalker to watch his step.

“You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy,” Kenobi warns.

Perhaps it’s little wonder then that the American public doesn’t hold the same contempt for Capitol Hill as Kenobi has for Mos Eisley.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III threw the book at former Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) late Friday afternoon. A federal jury convicted Jefferson in August of accepting nearly $500,000 in bribes and attempting to extort more to help broker business deals in Africa. And at federal court in Alexandria, VA, Ellis handed Jefferson the longest sentence ever meted out to a current or former Member of Congress: 13 years behind bars.

“Public corruption is a cancer on the body politic,” Ellis lectured Jefferson from the bench as the former Congressman stood before him. “Public corruption is a cancer that needs to be surgically removed.”

Over the past few years, a host of federal judges have “surgically removed” other former lawmakers convicted of corruption. 

Former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) got eight years for taking bribes. A judge sentenced former Rep. Jim Traficant (D-OH) to seven years for bribery, racketeering and tax evasion. And a federal judge gave former Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) a two-and-a-half year sentence for conspiracy and filing false financial disclosure forms in connection with the Jack Abramoff case. The government released Ney after 17 months in jail.

But the public’s taken note of more than just lawmakers who served time.

There’s the conviction and exoneration of former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK). Federal probes involving Reps. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Don Young (R-AK) and former Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA). The unresolved indictment on a state charge of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX). Potential ethical lapses involving Sens. John Ensign (R-NV) and David Vitter (R-LA). And Ethics Committee inquiries into the conduct of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Laura Richardson (D-CA).

With Jefferson’s fate in his hands, Ellis seemed noticeably disturbed at the “hive of scum and villainy” that sometimes doubles as Capitol Hill.

“All of the cases are sad with all of these Congressmen. I recall being particularly stung by Cunningham’s conviction,” Ellis opined.
Ellis and Cunningham were both naval aviators. Ellis said they even flew the same aircraft and noted that Cunningham “distinguished himself more that I did” as a pilot, becoming a Vietnam War flying ace.

Ellis lamented the scourge of corruption and allegations of wrongdoing that has settled in the halls of Congress.

“There must be some sort of a greed virus that attacks those in power,” Ellis said. “No one is immune from that greed.”

To prosecutors, the Jefferson case was special. The government asked Ellis to lock up the 62-year-old Jefferson for 27 to 33 years.

“His activity represented the most extensive and persuasive pattern of corruption in the history of Congress,” said prosecutor Mark Lytle. “The government found he conducted his Congressional office like a criminal enterprise.”

Jefferson’s defense attorney Robert Trout told the court that his client expected a “stern” sentence. He fretted that if the government succeeded in trumping Cunningham’s sentence, Jefferson’s decree would be “the longest sentence ever imposed on a Member of Congress. And the Department of Justice would tout it as such.”

Jefferson was born in poor, rural Louisiana. But he made it to Harvard Law School. And Trout appealed to Ellis to consider this.

“From his starting point, what he has accomplished is nothing short of extraordinary, considering the starting point,” Trout told Ellis.

But Ellis was having none of it.

“It’s clear you’ve lived an extraordinary life. It makes this event all the sadder for me,” Ellis told Jefferson. “You are a person of gifts. These gifts have been squandered.”

Jefferson’s case came to light when the feds unearthed more than $90,000 in his freezer during a 2006 raid on his New Orleans home. The cash was stowed in boxes of Pillsbury pie crust and Boca Burgers.

The government nailed Jefferson on 11 of 16 counts. And at the sentencing, Trout argued that his client “was acquitted of the offense that got all of the national attention and was the source of late-night jokes."

The FBI’s investigation of Jefferson even ignited a minor Constitutional crisis. On Memorial Day weekend, 2006, the feds secured a warrant and searched Jefferson’s Congressional office in the Rayburn House Office Building. Never before had one branch of the government raided the offices of another. Then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) demanded that the FBI return documents seized in the raid. Hastert argued the search broached a firewall separating the branches of government. Former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) even called a hearing on the matter.

But all of that made little difference Friday. Jefferson was a convicted felon. And Ellis was poised to deliver the former Congressman’s punishment.

Before the hearing started, Jacques Chevalier, formerly of Natchitoches, LA, stood outside the courthouse to wish Jefferson well.

“I think this is a black man being discredited because he’s black,” Chevalier said. He worried about the length of Jefferson’s sentence compared to other politicians.

“They get off with a pat on the gluteus maximus,” Chevalier protested.

Neither Jefferson nor Trout spoke to the press before or after the hearing. But Jefferson’s pastor, Bishop Paul Morton did talk to reporters after arriving at the courthouse in a chaffeurerd Lincoln Town Car. Morton is the head of the Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship which often holds large services in the Louisiana Superdome.

“I just told (Jefferson) that right overpowers might,” Morton said before entering the courthouse. In the courtroom, Morton took a seat next to Jefferson’s five adult daughters and wife Andrea.

Shortly before handing down his sentence, Judge Ellis declared a short recess. Reporters and court officials milled about. Jefferson went out into the hallway to confer with one of his daughters. And about halfway through the recess, Morton donned his coat and met Jefferson by the elevators. They spoke for a moment. And then Morton left without shaking Jefferson’s hand. Well before Ellis imposed the former Congressman’s sentence.

The conviction remains on appeal, But if you’re Jefferson, perhaps you know it’s bad when even your pastor slips out early.

But with the Congressman facing 13 years behind bars, perhaps there will be enough time for ministerial visits in prison.

-         Chad Pergram covers Congress for FOX News. He’s won an Edward R. Murrow Award and the Joan Barone Award for his reporting on Capitol Hill.

-         The Speaker’s Lobby refers to a long, ornate hallway located just behind the dais in the House chamber. Lawmakers, aides and journalists often confer there during votes.

As spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), journalists peppered Elshami with questions about if there was a deal on abortion.

“Go upstairs to the Rules Committee,” directed Elshami.

What? They announcing an agreement there? Some of the reporters didn’t even know the Rules panel was still meeting at this late hour.

“All I can tell you is go up to the Rules Committee,” implored Elshami.

And with that, most of the reporters abandoned their long stakeout in front of the Speaker’s Office. They hustled up to the third floor of the Capitol, some taking two stairs at a time, to reach the bandbox that doubles as the Rules Committee’s hearing room.

And in the front row of the hearing room sat Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), one of the biggest abortion foes in Congress.

The Rules Committee is the most-powerful panel no one outside the Beltway has ever heard of. It’s the gateway to the House floor. Almost every piece of legislation must first layover at the Rules Committee to receive a ‘rule.’ The ‘rule’ is the blueprint for how the House will handle a given issue on the floor. How much debate time is permitted. What amendments are in order. And the deck is always stacked in favor of the majority party.

But the full House can sideline a bill by not okaying a rule to govern debate. That means the measure never makes it to the House floor.

That was the conundrum on health care for the House Democratic leadership.

Abortion bedeviled the health care reform bill for months. Stupak and other pro-life Democrats threatened to defeat the measure unless the legislation specifically prohibited women from using federal dollars to pay for abortions and preserved private health care plans that did not allow abortions.

Since summer, Stupak suggested he might try blow up the “rule” on the health care bill unless he got his way. And defeating the “rule” would keep the overall health legislation off the floor.

The Rules Committee entertained nearly interminable testimony about the health care bill since 2 pm on Friday. Most lawmakers and aides were exasperated at the process. Especially as it bled so late into the night.

The press corps that loped upstairs for the big announcement in the Rules Committee slid into chairs at the back of the cramped hearing room. I entered through a back door and secured a chair close to Stupak on the side. The clock pushed midnight. And no sooner had I sat down did I receive separate emails from senior House leadership staffers informing me there was an “agreement” on abortion. Such a deal could help secure the necessary votes for the rule and propel the actual bill onto the floor.

Stupak and a handful of other pro-life lawmakers began their testimony before the Rules Committee at 12:01 am Saturday. The reporters leaned forward, eager to hear Stupak announce the compact crafted with the leadership.

“Through these last weeks, we’ve looked to resolve the issue. We looked to have an agreement tonight,” Stupak said. “But it fell apart.”

Fell apart? What? They said there was a deal? Surely they wouldn’t want us at the Rules Committee to hear about their failure.

So for the next 45 minutes, Stupak, Reps. Joseph Pitts (R-PA), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) and others appealed to the Rules Committee to let the House debate their abortion amendment.

That prospect seemed impossible . After all, Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) said earlier that the only amendment anyone could offer would be the Republican alternative health care bill.

“We’re not playing any favorites,” Slaughter said.

Stupak and his colleagues abandoned the witness table around 12:40 am. The few reporters still lingering buttonholed the Congressman in the hallway. A former Michigan state trooper, Stupak appeared drained. He hadn’t set foot in Washington all week. His mother-in-law passed away unexpectedly during surgery a few days before. Stupak returned to Washington late Friday went straight to the Rules Committee. He hadn’t even swung by his Congressional office yet.

“I have not had a deal with the speaker,” Stupak told the throng. “I have not received any assurances by the speaker that (my anti-abortion amendment) would be made in order.”

Everyone scratched their heads. How could there be a deal then?

“We’ve had so many agreements. I don’t believe anything unless it’s on paper,” Stupak said. “Let’s see what (the rule) says.”

Stupak left. And around 1:30 am Saturday, with only a handful of lawmakers and reporters on hand, the House Rules Committee approved a rule that sure enough guaranteed consideration of two amendments: the Republican alternative health plan and Stupak’s.

There, in the dead of night, with almost no one watching or there to document it, something unthinkable happened. Nancy Pelosi stared at a stinging defeat on the health care effort. Such a loss could carry even greater political consequences for President Obama. Pelosi is known for her ability to cajole and persuade House Democrats. However, tonight, Pelosi failed to bridge the abortion impasse.

Pelosi’s critics often deride her as ruthless and uncompromising. But she’s also pragmatic. And Pelosi knew she had to take dire action that even threatened to alienate an entirely different wing of her caucus.

Assuring a woman’s right to choose has been a plank in the Democrats’ national platform for years. And with the health care bill swinging in the balance, the first female Speaker of the House gave the Rules Committee her blessing to make Stupak’s amendment in order.

It was a last-ditch effort to salvage the bill.

Pelosi’s maneuver infuriated pro-choice Democratic women like Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), one of the speaker’s chief vote counters, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT). For days, DeLauro was nearly reticent every time she exited the health care negotiations in the Speaker’s office. Lawmakers who don’t want to answer reporter’s questions directly are said to perform a “tap dance.” As reporters pursued DeLauro across the Capitol’s Statuary Hall, the Connecticut Democrat shuffle-ball-changed her way through an actual tap dance to avoid answering the scribes queries. And when DeLauro left Pelosi’s quarters late Friday night, she didn’t say a peep.

Of course, little did anyone know of the bomb Pelosi detonated inside her office on abortion.

Saturday morning came with the House buzzing about the Stupak amendment. The Democratic leadership ordered a series of votes on non-controversial issues shortly after the House gaveled into session. These votes are known as “bed checks.” It forces members to go to the floor so the whip teams can take “attendance” and assess if they have the votes on crucial votes coming later in the day.

Two storylines emerged during these votes. First, Pelosi’s strategy with Stupak showed it could pay off. A number of reluctant, pro-life Democrats said they could now vote for the bill. But only if the House approved the Stupak amendment first, latching the anti-abortion language to the rest of the package. So, the real test could be on the Stupak vote. And in the wee hours of Saturday morning, Stupak said “if my amendment is made in order I believe it will pass.”

But by fixing the abortion problem, Democrats may have created another one.

Which is the second storyline.

Republicans were vitriolic in their criticism of the health care bill. But many GOPers appreciated how the Stupak amendment would permanently outlaw federal dollars from paying for abortions. Since 1977, Congress has reauthorized the ban annually. Republicans had a choice to make. They could vote for the Stupak amendment and stick with their party’s anti-abortion policy. Or vote against Stupak and sink the entire health care bill for Pelosi and Mr. Obama.

Rumors spread through the Capitol that Republicans might not vote against the Stupak amendment, but instead vote “present.” That way, Republicans didn’t vote against their consciences on abortion. But they would manage to kill the bill.

It didn’t happen that way.

Anti-abortion organizations phoned Republican leaders to warn them they’d watch pro-life lawmakers to see how they’d vote on the Stupak amendment. And instructions came from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that lawmakers shouldn’t try to capitalize on the Stupak amendment for political gain.

Pro-life politicians often speak about the “sanctity of life.” And when it came time to vote Saturday night, anti-abortion groups made it clear that the “sanctity of Stupak” outweighed Republican desires to defeat the health care bill.

“Of all the votes they (anti-abortion groups) decide to score and they pick this one?” fumed one Republican lawmaker about the missed opportunity to defeat the legislation. “We could have killed this bill.”

However, House Republican Conference Vice Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) disagreed with that assessment at a post-witching hour press conference Sunday morning.

“We weren’t confident that we could have brought down the bill,” McMorris Rodgers said.

And two of McMorris Rodgers’ colleagues signaled that it was paramount for pro-life Republicans to vote in favor of the Stupak amendment, despite their objections to the overall health care bill.

“Life is not something you play politics with,” said Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA). “We would have lost all of our credibility.”

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) echoed Pitts.

“We have never used the right to life issue as a ploy or a means to get something else,” Smith said.

And they didn’t.

Legendary House Speaker Henry Clay once quipped that “compromise is negotiated hurt.”

Republicans and Democrats alike were hurt in this battle. But at the end of the day, it was clear that one party compromised. And one party did not.

- Chad Pergram covers Congress for FOX News. He’s won an Edward R. Murrow Award and the Joan Barone Award for his reporting on Capitol Hill.

- The Speaker’s Lobby refers to a long, ornate hallway that runs behind the dais in the House chamber. Lawmakers, aides and journalists often confer there during votes.

It was clear that Clinton still has the power to mezmerize Dems.  Sen. Ben Cardin, D-MD, emerged positively bubbling over with effusive praise of the former president.

A number of participants afterward said Clinton urged them to complete a bill ASAP, because if they do not they will become defined by the defeat.

The former president, a student of politics, told his fellow Dems that 'not getting it done is not a good political option' -- and that if they do get it done, 'The public will see the sky didn't fall down.'  Cardin said the later was a "near quote."

It seems almost impossible for Congress to get a bill to President Obama's desk this year. Members will be off for the rest of the week in observance of Veteran's Day.  The Senate's number 2 Dem, Dick Durbin of Illinois, told reporters, "Our goal is to make sure it is out of the Senate this year...I wish we could complete it this year. But if we don't, we will get it done."

 Clinton, for his part, emerged and said he told Dems, "This is an economic imperative," remembering the days just after he left office when there was a surplus.

"I just urged them to resolve their differences and pass a bill," Clinton told reporters.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, said Clinton told Dems they should get healthcare done and immediately follow that with work on jobs and the ballooning budget deficit, both topics of highest interest to voters at the polls Nov. 3.

Cardin said Clinton told the gathering that energy is where the job growth is.

Nearly all 60 Dems attended Tuesday's policy lunch in the Mansfield Room on the 2nd floor of the U.S. Capitol. Clinton was invited by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

Perhaps it’s fitting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) co-hosted a luncheon at the Capitol this week to honor Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.

Bartholomew leads the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church split from the Roman Catholic Church during The Great Schism of 1054. It’s one of the greatest divides in religious history.

House Democrats want to debate and pass their massive health care reform bill this weekend. And the rifts between House Democrats are so deep that this could be called The Great Schism of 2009.

Republicans spent most of Thursday excoriating the health care bill on the West Front of the Capitol. At least they were discussing health care policy. That’s because Democrats were talking about everything but health care in an effort to lug the behemoth legislation across the finish line. The off-stage discussions focused on the fissures that plague both political parties: abortion and immigration. And that’s to say nothing of a little-known issue involving something called “black liquor.”

Let’s start with abortion.

More than 190 House Democrats are members of the “pro-choice” caucus. However, there are just enough conservative Democrats who oppose abortion to blow up the bill on the floor.

“We knew there would be a flashpoint,” said Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), who tried to bridge an impasse between pro-life and pro-choice Democrats. “(Abortion) would become a major detraction. We don’t want this bill clouded.”

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is one of the chief architects of the bill. He insists that the legislation does not allow anyone to use federal dollars to pay for abortions. But many anti-abortion Democrats demanded even stronger language in exchange for their support on the bill. Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) propounded an idea that explicitly outlaws tax dollars from paying for abortions. Ellsworth also asked for guarantees that abortion opponents always have access to a pro-life health insurance plan. Ellsworth’s proposal also makes permanent the “Hyde Amendment.” The Hyde Amendment is a measure that bans the federal funding of abortions. But Congress must reauthorize it every year. Ellsworth wants the Hyde Amendment extended to the life of the health care bill.

But despite his quest, many pro-life groups lobbed epithets at Ellsworth and accused him of selling out just to help pass the health care bill.

“I know what’s in my heart. I know what’s in my head,” Ellsworth said. “And I think the Guy upstairs knows where I am.”

Then there was immigration.

Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) huddled at the White House mid-week to voice their concerns that the bill could have pernicious effects on illegal immigrants.

Again, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman argued that the package had firewalls to ensure that undocumented persons would have no access to subsidies to purchase health insurance. But Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) argued that illegal immigrants would still fall in the crosshairs. Gutierrez said that some low-income, undocumented workers would be in a bind. That’s because they would be unable to purchase health coverage and be ineligible for government assistance. So Gutierrez suggested that many illegal immigrants would wind up precisely where they go now for medical care: the emergency room.

“It costs the American taxpayers money!” thundered Gutierrez about his prediction. “What other knife do you want me to plunge into my heart?”

In the end, the CHC stood down after pleading with Democratic leaders to not tighten up provisions against illegal immigrants. CHC members were fine with refusing subsidies for coverage. But they breathed a temporary sigh of relief that the legislation would not deny undocumented persons access to the health care program even if they paid their own way.

“I think we’re all there,” said former CHC Chairman Joe Baca (D-CA). “We’ve come to a common ground.”

And then there was “black liquor.”
This is not a reference to Johnnie Walker scotch. Nor “Jagermeister,” as a colleague suggested.

At 10:28 pm on Tuesday night, House Democrats unveiled a 42-page “manager’s amendment.” That’s the final alteration lawmakers make to a bill before bringing it to the floor. Lawmakers devoted seven pages of the manager’s amendment to something called “Second Generation Biofuel Producer Credit.” Which involves “black liquor.”

Black liquor is a byproduct produced in making paper. Some paper plants use it as an alternative fuel.

The manager’s amendment strikes a biofuel tax credit used by pulp and paper firms. The government saves $24 billion by eliminating the credit. That’s desperately needed revenue to help offset the cost of the health plan.

Meantime, those involved in agriculture asked why the manager’s amendment went into exhaustive detail defining “qualified feedstock.”

For the record, the manager’s amendment designates “qualified feedstock” as “any lignocellulosic or hemicelluosic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis or any cultivated algae, cyanobacteria or lemna.”

All spelled out in a health care bill.

Meantime, there was grousing from Republicans that they didn’t know what was in the bill.

No Republican lawmakers were expected to vote for the package. But Republicans carped that there wasn’t enough time to read through the bill. Even though Democrats met a demand to unveil the 1,990-page legislation last week. That was ahead of a voluntary commitment Democrats made to present the legislation at least 72 hours before a debate.

In fact, it could be argued that lawmakers even got a “73^rd” hour to leaf through the legislation, since Democrats dropped the bill before clocks reverted to Standard Time after a summer of Daylight Saving Time last weekend.

Republicans contend the bill is “government-mandated health care.” Of course, some could say that “falling back” is part of a government-mandated time.

Congress passed the Standard Time Act in 1918. The law first established Daylight Saving Time. I’m told that in 1918 everyone was informed that they could choose the time they wanted it to be. But detractors remained unmoved. They warned that passing the Standard Time Act would put the U.S. on a “Canadian-style” time system controlled by the government.

On Friday afternoon, the Democratic leadership fished around for votes. Moderate Rep. John Tanner (D-TN) declared he would vote no. And Reps. John Adler (D-NJ) and Michael McMahon (D-NY) jumped ship as well. Both are first-term lawmakers who represent districts which swung from Republican to Democratic in 2008.

But it was elections that helped House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-NY) pocket a couple of new votes. On Tuesday, voters elected two Democrats to the House in special elections: Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) and Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY). Garamendi and Pelosi have known each other for decades. And in one of his first acts in Congress, Garamendi told reporters that he learned long ago never to count Pelosi out.

Garamendi said years ago Pelosi’s family was driving to a picnic at Garamendi’s home when their car missed a curve and flipped over. No one was hurt.

“She brushed her kids off, called for a new car and arrived about 45 minutes late,” Garamendi said. “This is one determined woman.”

And House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-CT) was resolute that Pelosi would secure the votes.

“I feel very confident that we’re there and tomorrow evening, we’ll be celebrating a great victory,” said Larson.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) serves as special assistant to Pelosi. And he wasn’t as sure as Larson.

“We’re in shooting distance,” Van Hollen declared.

I pressed Van Hollen about whether Democrats were ready to bring the bill to the floor and try to gin up the necessary support during the vote.

“You don’t want to roll the dice on that,” Van Hollen said. “This is too important.”

As Friday afternoon dissolved into evening, the House Rules Committee met in a seemingly-interminable session.

The Rules panel serves as a gateway to the House floor. Almost every piece of legislation must first get a “rule” from the committee. The rule establishes parameters for how the House will handle a measure on the floor. If you don’t get a rule, you can’t debate the bill.

Members of the Rules Committee peppered the Democratic authors of the bill with questions in the cramped hearing room. Hours of this interrogation exasperated House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA).

“We’re thinking of renaming this committee Guantanamo,” Miller sighed at the five hour mark in the meeting.

“It’s worse than Guantanamo,” blurted Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA).

- Chad Pergram covers Congress for FOX News. He’s won an Edward R. Murrow Award and the Joan Barone Award for his reporting on Capitol Hill.

- The Speaker’s Lobby refers to a long, ornate hallway that runs behind the House chamber. Lawmakers, aides and journalists often confer there during votes.