WASHINGTON — House Democratic leaders Tuesday fought off criticism of what they see

as a palatable strategy for passing health care legislation, while Republicans insisted on

calling it an unpalatable "Slaughter Solution."

A complex maneuver, designed to free House members from having to vote directly on the

controversial Senate version of the bill to overhaul the health care system, the Slaughter

Solution got its name because Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-Fairport, is chairwoman of the

committee that would have to approve the process.

"The Slaughter Solution may sound like highly complicated and arcane parliamentary

procedure, but its objective is very simple: an end run around the democratic process," said

Rep. David T. Dreier of California, ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee that is

headed by Slaughter.

Slaughter seemed nonplussed that her last name was being used to try to tar the Democrats

as they close in on their singular goal: health care reform.

"I don't even mind that it's called the Slaughter Solution," she said. "I'm happy to have

the solution."

Pushed primarily by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who has not yet committed to

using it, the proposed procedure calls on the House to pass a rule governing debate on a

series of fixes to the Senate-passed health care bill — while simultaneously "deeming"

the Senate bill passed.

By combining the two votes, Democratic leaders would avoid forcing their members to take a

stand-alone vote on the Senate measure, which includes an unpopular giveaway dubbed "the

Cornhusker Kickback" that bought the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.

The House fixes would eliminate that benefit to Nebraska, which would have forced the

federal government to pay for new Medicaid enrollees in that state forever. In addition, the

health care fixes reduce a tax on high-end health insurance plans that proved unpopular with

unions and liberal Democrats.

Combining a vote on a procedural rule with a key piece of legislation is not common. But

both parties have used the process, which dates from 1933 and which has been used to pass

important legislation raising the federal debt ceiling, restricting immigration and creating a

line-item veto that was later ruled unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, Democrats found themselves defending against a Republican fusillade.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, said the effort to avoid a direct House

vote on the Senate health bill was "the ultimate in Washington power grabs, a legislative ploy

that lets Democrats defy the will of the American people."

Meanwhile, right-wing blogs were filled with talk that Slaughter was committing treason,

the Wall Street Journal editorial page weighed in against what it called "Slaughter House

Rules," and conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said: "The House Democrats are ripping up

the Constitution."

All of which, Democrats said, is ridiculous. "The idea that this is some wild-eyed radical,

odd thing which would bring me up on treason charges is so absurd," Slaughter said. "And the

people who are saying it absolutely know that."

Meanwhile, Pelosi told reporters: "I didn't hear any of that ferocity when the Republicans

used this, perhaps hundreds of times."

While former federal judge Michael W. McConnell also questioned the maneuver's

constitutionality in the Journal, Slaughter said the precedent for the procedure was

well-established, and the House parliamentarian had ruled that it was fully constitutional.

On a practical level, Democrats said the Slaughter Solution may be the only way to attract

enough liberal votes for the House to pass health care.

"There are a lot of members who don't want to have to vote for the Senate bill," said Rep.

Lynn C. Woolsey, D-Calif.

Slaughter agreed, adding: "We do not want to be associated with the Cornhusker Kickback and

all this other junk that's been put in there."

A careerlong advocate of health care reform, Slaughter stressed that what's important is

the substance of the combined legislation, which would bring insurance to 31 million more

Americans while barring insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing

conditions.

"The government has no intent of running this thing," she said. "It's all going to be

private insurance companies."

The proposal is likely to cost upward of $1 trillion, which is one big reason that

Republicans such as Rep. Chris Lee of Clarence oppose it. "This has the potential for the

government taking over health care," he said. "If we are considering this, we ought to have

up-or-down votes."

Instead, Democrats said they were likely to follow the Slaughter Solution, a term

apparently coined a week ago by Dave Schnittger, a blogger on Boehner's Web site.

Schnittger dubbed the Slaughter Solution "a twisted scheme by which Democratic leaders plan

to bend the rules to ram President Obama's massive health care legislation through Congress."

Limbaugh said on his show Tuesday that voting for the Slaughter Solution would be political

suicide for Democrats in November's elections.

In that vein, the Slaughter Solution's formal name is a "self-executing rule."