Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Sunday that the House must move on a package of fixes to the health care bill before the Senate can act.
House and Senate Democratic leaders have been arguing for weeks over which chamber should jump first: House leaders say their members don't trust that the Senate will follow. Senate leaders argue that for technical, legislative reasons, the House must pass something before the Senate can act.
More...
February 28, 2010
February 27, 2010
Emanuel, Pelosi Meet In Capitol To Chart Health Care Course
Rahm Emanuel ventured to the Capitol Friday evening to hash out health care strategy with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a White House aide confirmed.
The meeting comes as Democrats are searching for a way to get to the health care finish line, though neither chamber wants to move first. Senate leaders want the House to pass the Senate bill first, after which the Senate would use reconciliation to fix the legislation to the liking of the Senate. House leaders contend that the votes aren't there for the Senate bill if the upper chamber doesn't move. The House, after two centuries of watching the Senate lag behind, doesn't trust that it'll act.
More...
The meeting comes as Democrats are searching for a way to get to the health care finish line, though neither chamber wants to move first. Senate leaders want the House to pass the Senate bill first, after which the Senate would use reconciliation to fix the legislation to the liking of the Senate. House leaders contend that the votes aren't there for the Senate bill if the upper chamber doesn't move. The House, after two centuries of watching the Senate lag behind, doesn't trust that it'll act.
More...
February 4, 2010
We Need 402,000 Jobs A Month. Does The Senate Get It?
Today, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled plans for a series of job-related bills, but details remained sketchy apparently because negotiations are still ongoing to secure enough Republican support to avoid filibuster. Unsurprisingly, weaker tax cut proposals are more likely to get bipartisan support than robust public investment proposals.
So far, Senate leaders are not saying how big their proposals will be, nor how much jobs they are expected to create.
More...
So far, Senate leaders are not saying how big their proposals will be, nor how much jobs they are expected to create.
More...
January 20, 2010
January 12, 2010
Nine-Million-Member Union Coalition Calls For Defeat Of Cadillac Tax
A coalition of federal and postal employees, numbering nearly nine million members, sent a letter to congressional leaders on Tuesday insisting that the final health care bill not include an excise tax on high-end insurance plans.
Sixteen unions penned the letter amidst increasingly tense negotiations between House and Senate leaders over how to structure the pay-for provision in the final health care bill. The Senate favors the tax, citing its benefits in reeling in health care costs. Approximately 190 House Democrats have signaled that they will oppose it out of concerns that it will unfairly hit working-class families.
More...
Sixteen unions penned the letter amidst increasingly tense negotiations between House and Senate leaders over how to structure the pay-for provision in the final health care bill. The Senate favors the tax, citing its benefits in reeling in health care costs. Approximately 190 House Democrats have signaled that they will oppose it out of concerns that it will unfairly hit working-class families.
More...
January 4, 2010
Dems Will Bypass Conference Committee To Get Health Care Passed
Both chambers of Congress will skip a formal "conference committee" and instead negotiate informally on their respective health care bills, confirm Congressional aides and sources outside of government.
In what one health care reform activist calls a "quasi ping-pong" strategy, House and Senate leaders will each have a set of negotiators bounce variations of health care legislation back and forth until the disagreements between the two chambers are hammered out.
"Absent a stunning turn of events, it's true," said one Senate aide. "All of the motions that we need to go into conference with the House are amendable and debatable."
The basis for negotiations will be the Senate bill (which lacks a public option for insurance coverage and contains a tax on expensive health care plans), to which the House can add amendments.
"It doesn't preclude us from making major changes," explained one House Democratic aide. "We would basically be voting on the 'amendment'. But the amendment wouldn't be a two-page bill. It could be the entire bill itself." The House will hold a caucus meeting this week (with out-of-town members calling in over the phone) to begin discussing priorities for these negotiations.
The decision to skip formal conference negotiations -- which was first reported by The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn -- is not, it should be noted, the rarest of parliamentary maneuvers. Hill aides say it often happens with major or contentious pieces of legislation (though not apparently in this current Congress). "This is what we normally do," said one Hill aide, "it is pretty standard."
The goal, in the end, is to expedite the congressional process by keeping it removed from Republican procedural shenanigans. By skipping a formal conference committee, for example, Democrats can avoid dealing with motions to recommit on contentious issues (whether they be Medicare cuts, late-life consultation, abortion or anything else). This, in turn, provides a narrower window for the GOP to turn the bill into a series of wedge issues and means that there is less of a potential for moderate and conservative Democrats to grow skittish about supporting the legislation.
There are ample opportunities for Republican leadership to draw out the legislative process if it goes to conference committee. The Congressional Research Service, in a report published in April 2003, identified three steps that the Congress has to take simply to send a bill to conference.
- First, the Senate and House must agree to disagree. They must reach the stage of disagreement, which marks the point at which each house has disagreed formally to the legislative proposal of the other.
- Second, the two houses must agree that they want to create a conference committee in order to resolve the legislative disagreement that they have just acknowledged formally. The Senate takes this second step either by requesting a conference with the House or by agreeing to a request for a conference that the House already has made.
- Third, each house must appoint its members of the conference committee. The Speaker appoints House conferees. The Senate can elect its conferees, although it almost always authorizes its presiding officer to appoint the conferees. The Senate must take formal action on the floor to grant this authority to the presiding officer before he or she can appoint the Senate's conferees.
"These steps rarely are contentious but they have the potential to become time-consuming," the report read. "Singly or collectively, however, the four actions can require considerable time to complete if Senators choose to exercise their rights to debate one or more of them at length. At the extreme, Senators can engage in one or several filibusters that can delay or even stall further action on a bill that a majority of the Senate wishes to send to conference."
One the conference is set up, but before the presiding office announces the conferees, there is even more opportunity for Republicans to delay. In the Senate, CRS notes, "there is no limit on the number of motions to instruct that Senators can make. Any motion to instruct, and the instructions in the motion, must be read before the Senate begins to debate it, unless the Senate agrees by unanimous consent to dispense with the reading."
Once that is concluded, yet another layer of byzantine hurdles must be overcome. "After the Senate disposes of a motion to instruct--either by voting for or against it, or by voting to table it--another such motion is in order. Only when no Senator seeks recognition to offer another motion to instruct does the presiding officer proceed to appoint the Senate's conferees."
Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
In what one health care reform activist calls a "quasi ping-pong" strategy, House and Senate leaders will each have a set of negotiators bounce variations of health care legislation back and forth until the disagreements between the two chambers are hammered out.
"Absent a stunning turn of events, it's true," said one Senate aide. "All of the motions that we need to go into conference with the House are amendable and debatable."
The basis for negotiations will be the Senate bill (which lacks a public option for insurance coverage and contains a tax on expensive health care plans), to which the House can add amendments.
"It doesn't preclude us from making major changes," explained one House Democratic aide. "We would basically be voting on the 'amendment'. But the amendment wouldn't be a two-page bill. It could be the entire bill itself." The House will hold a caucus meeting this week (with out-of-town members calling in over the phone) to begin discussing priorities for these negotiations.
The decision to skip formal conference negotiations -- which was first reported by The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn -- is not, it should be noted, the rarest of parliamentary maneuvers. Hill aides say it often happens with major or contentious pieces of legislation (though not apparently in this current Congress). "This is what we normally do," said one Hill aide, "it is pretty standard."
The goal, in the end, is to expedite the congressional process by keeping it removed from Republican procedural shenanigans. By skipping a formal conference committee, for example, Democrats can avoid dealing with motions to recommit on contentious issues (whether they be Medicare cuts, late-life consultation, abortion or anything else). This, in turn, provides a narrower window for the GOP to turn the bill into a series of wedge issues and means that there is less of a potential for moderate and conservative Democrats to grow skittish about supporting the legislation.
There are ample opportunities for Republican leadership to draw out the legislative process if it goes to conference committee. The Congressional Research Service, in a report published in April 2003, identified three steps that the Congress has to take simply to send a bill to conference.
- First, the Senate and House must agree to disagree. They must reach the stage of disagreement, which marks the point at which each house has disagreed formally to the legislative proposal of the other.
- Second, the two houses must agree that they want to create a conference committee in order to resolve the legislative disagreement that they have just acknowledged formally. The Senate takes this second step either by requesting a conference with the House or by agreeing to a request for a conference that the House already has made.
- Third, each house must appoint its members of the conference committee. The Speaker appoints House conferees. The Senate can elect its conferees, although it almost always authorizes its presiding officer to appoint the conferees. The Senate must take formal action on the floor to grant this authority to the presiding officer before he or she can appoint the Senate's conferees.
"These steps rarely are contentious but they have the potential to become time-consuming," the report read. "Singly or collectively, however, the four actions can require considerable time to complete if Senators choose to exercise their rights to debate one or more of them at length. At the extreme, Senators can engage in one or several filibusters that can delay or even stall further action on a bill that a majority of the Senate wishes to send to conference."
One the conference is set up, but before the presiding office announces the conferees, there is even more opportunity for Republicans to delay. In the Senate, CRS notes, "there is no limit on the number of motions to instruct that Senators can make. Any motion to instruct, and the instructions in the motion, must be read before the Senate begins to debate it, unless the Senate agrees by unanimous consent to dispense with the reading."
Once that is concluded, yet another layer of byzantine hurdles must be overcome. "After the Senate disposes of a motion to instruct--either by voting for or against it, or by voting to table it--another such motion is in order. Only when no Senator seeks recognition to offer another motion to instruct does the presiding officer proceed to appoint the Senate's conferees."
Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
December 18, 2009
Trumka: Senate Bill As Is Will Die In The House
The head of the most powerful union group in the country said on Thursday that the Senate version of the health care bill will not survive a vote in the House without substantial changes.
Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, told the Huffington Post that both he and his members are "extremely disappointed" with the compromises conservative Democrats extracted from Senate leaders. Rather than formally opposing the bill, he expressed confidence that it will change before passage
"If the Senate bill in its current form went to the House it would go down," he declared.
"I can tell you this," he added. "The plan as it currently is would not get much support from the American worker unless it is improved.
"So that is another line they are going to have to deal with. Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi I think will adequately represent everybody involved. And I think that is a better model for a bill."
In separate statements on Thursday, both Trumka and SEIU President Andy Stern expressed similar concerns with the Senate bill: That without a public option for insurance, and with a provision that taxes high-end health care plans that cover many union members, the bill doesn't create enough competition and lacks an equitable source of revenue.
There is a growing private consensus among union officials that they will have to give up hopes of expanded government-run insurance (if they haven't already) in exchange for replacing the Senate's revenue provisions with the one adopted by the House -- which relies on increasing taxes on the wealthy.
"A progressive tax structure is very, very important," said Trumka. "But so is a public option. And I'm not willing to negotiate right now and jettison any one of those because I think they are both important items.
"I'm not willing to declare [the public option] dead," he added.
Asked about the seeming willingness of progressive Democratic Senators Russ Feingold (Wisc.), Tom Harkin (Iowa) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio) to do just that, Trumka replied: "So what? So what?.... What are they saying in the House? Nancy Pelosi isn't saying this is dead, that's dead? Everything is dead? Has the House said that? No. There are two chambers involved here.... What I'm saying is we are not ready to stop fighting and we are going to improve this bill because it is inadequate as presently constituted."
Trumka repeatedly stressed that the union community is unwilling to take the consider the Senate bill a done deal. He noted that, as a union leader in the coal mines, he once got President George H.W. Bush to sign into law a health care package for his members. He also referenced his beloved Pittsburgh Steelers and Franco Harris's "Immaculate Reception" as a means of underscoring that the unexpected, last minute victory isn't necessarily impossible.
Notably, he refused to cast blame for the fate of the Senate bill either on the Democratic leadership (the White House included) or those conservative Democrats who demanded that the public plan be dropped. It was the Republican Party, unwilling to negotiate from the start, that roused his ire.
As for the obstinacy of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), "I'm not even going to go there," Trumka said. "Seriously. I'm not going to go there. If you had 10 Republicans who were willing to be legislators, would [Lieberman or Ben Nelson] matter? So you want to point the finger. You point the finger at 40 senators who have said no to everything and offered nothing in its place."
Trumka did, however, suggest that while Democrats aren't fully responsible for the quality of the Senate bill, they could and will bear the brunt of the blame -- and electoral consequences -- should the legislation pass.
"If you tax the benefits of workers so that they have less health care," Trumka said, "I mean I would expect them to consider that when voting."
Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, told the Huffington Post that both he and his members are "extremely disappointed" with the compromises conservative Democrats extracted from Senate leaders. Rather than formally opposing the bill, he expressed confidence that it will change before passage
"If the Senate bill in its current form went to the House it would go down," he declared.
"I can tell you this," he added. "The plan as it currently is would not get much support from the American worker unless it is improved.
"So that is another line they are going to have to deal with. Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi I think will adequately represent everybody involved. And I think that is a better model for a bill."
In separate statements on Thursday, both Trumka and SEIU President Andy Stern expressed similar concerns with the Senate bill: That without a public option for insurance, and with a provision that taxes high-end health care plans that cover many union members, the bill doesn't create enough competition and lacks an equitable source of revenue.
There is a growing private consensus among union officials that they will have to give up hopes of expanded government-run insurance (if they haven't already) in exchange for replacing the Senate's revenue provisions with the one adopted by the House -- which relies on increasing taxes on the wealthy.
"A progressive tax structure is very, very important," said Trumka. "But so is a public option. And I'm not willing to negotiate right now and jettison any one of those because I think they are both important items.
"I'm not willing to declare [the public option] dead," he added.
Asked about the seeming willingness of progressive Democratic Senators Russ Feingold (Wisc.), Tom Harkin (Iowa) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio) to do just that, Trumka replied: "So what? So what?.... What are they saying in the House? Nancy Pelosi isn't saying this is dead, that's dead? Everything is dead? Has the House said that? No. There are two chambers involved here.... What I'm saying is we are not ready to stop fighting and we are going to improve this bill because it is inadequate as presently constituted."
Trumka repeatedly stressed that the union community is unwilling to take the consider the Senate bill a done deal. He noted that, as a union leader in the coal mines, he once got President George H.W. Bush to sign into law a health care package for his members. He also referenced his beloved Pittsburgh Steelers and Franco Harris's "Immaculate Reception" as a means of underscoring that the unexpected, last minute victory isn't necessarily impossible.
Notably, he refused to cast blame for the fate of the Senate bill either on the Democratic leadership (the White House included) or those conservative Democrats who demanded that the public plan be dropped. It was the Republican Party, unwilling to negotiate from the start, that roused his ire.
As for the obstinacy of Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), "I'm not even going to go there," Trumka said. "Seriously. I'm not going to go there. If you had 10 Republicans who were willing to be legislators, would [Lieberman or Ben Nelson] matter? So you want to point the finger. You point the finger at 40 senators who have said no to everything and offered nothing in its place."
Trumka did, however, suggest that while Democrats aren't fully responsible for the quality of the Senate bill, they could and will bear the brunt of the blame -- and electoral consequences -- should the legislation pass.
"If you tax the benefits of workers so that they have less health care," Trumka said, "I mean I would expect them to consider that when voting."
December 16, 2009
Expanded Health Care Coverage? Rumors Are Greatly Exaggerated, Unless Paying Fines Is Now ‘Health Care’
Well, for my next trick, I was going to demonstrate that the contention that the watered-down Senate health care compromise will nevertheless lead to a virtuous expansion of care for some 30 million Americans was pure bunkum... but I see that over at The Plum Line, Greg Sargent has already plucked that bunny carcass from the hat:
The assertion -- a reference to the individual mandate -- has been picked up widely and uncritically in the media. But it's now coming under fire from liberals who have all but given up on the bill. Democracy for America, the reconstituted political operation of Howard "kill the bill" Dean that's run by his brother, Jim Dean, just blasted an email to its list hitting the claim:
"Senate leaders are all over Washington claiming they finally have a healthcare reform bill they can pass, as long as they remove the public option. After all, they say that even without a public option, the bill still "covers" 30 million more Americans.
What they are actually talking about is something called the "individual mandate." That's a section of the law that requires every single American buy health insurance or break the law and face penalties and fines. So, the bill doesn't actually "cover" 30 million more Americans -- instead it makes them criminals if they don't buy insurance from the same companies that got us into this mess."
The White House is fully on board with selling this nonsense as some sort of impossible-to-pass-up opportunity for America. But for millions of Americans this "opportunity" will amount to nothing more than the opportunity to pay a significant fine for not signing up with a private insurance company.
Of course, if the Senate can come up with some way of paying a fine that also, say, heals the sick with magic, then this would truly be an awesome accomplishment. But since that's not the case, we're forced to embrace the stupidity of the federal government raising revenue off a policy that's not even serving people.
Digby pretty much nails this, dead to the door:
Nobody's "getting covered" here. After all, people are already "free" to buy private insurance and one must assume they have reasons for not doing it already. Whether those reasons are good or bad won't make a difference when they are suddenly forced to write big checks to Aetna or Blue Cross that they previously had decided they couldn't or didn't want to write. Indeed, it actually looks like the worst caricature of liberals: taking people's money against their will, saying it's for their own good.
Also, I am reliably informed that we are in the midst of some kind of massive unemployment crisis -- precisely the sort of thing that may very well inhibit the ability of people to purchase health insurance OR pay the resulting fines. And, of course, if Americans continue to lose their jobs and the health benefits that go along with them... well, that 30 million figure is going to look less and less significant, isn't it?
MORE:
Liberals Take Aim At Core Obama Health Care Talking Point [The Plum Line]
The Best We Can Do [Digby]
[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]
The assertion -- a reference to the individual mandate -- has been picked up widely and uncritically in the media. But it's now coming under fire from liberals who have all but given up on the bill. Democracy for America, the reconstituted political operation of Howard "kill the bill" Dean that's run by his brother, Jim Dean, just blasted an email to its list hitting the claim:
"Senate leaders are all over Washington claiming they finally have a healthcare reform bill they can pass, as long as they remove the public option. After all, they say that even without a public option, the bill still "covers" 30 million more Americans.
What they are actually talking about is something called the "individual mandate." That's a section of the law that requires every single American buy health insurance or break the law and face penalties and fines. So, the bill doesn't actually "cover" 30 million more Americans -- instead it makes them criminals if they don't buy insurance from the same companies that got us into this mess."
The White House is fully on board with selling this nonsense as some sort of impossible-to-pass-up opportunity for America. But for millions of Americans this "opportunity" will amount to nothing more than the opportunity to pay a significant fine for not signing up with a private insurance company.
Of course, if the Senate can come up with some way of paying a fine that also, say, heals the sick with magic, then this would truly be an awesome accomplishment. But since that's not the case, we're forced to embrace the stupidity of the federal government raising revenue off a policy that's not even serving people.
Digby pretty much nails this, dead to the door:
Nobody's "getting covered" here. After all, people are already "free" to buy private insurance and one must assume they have reasons for not doing it already. Whether those reasons are good or bad won't make a difference when they are suddenly forced to write big checks to Aetna or Blue Cross that they previously had decided they couldn't or didn't want to write. Indeed, it actually looks like the worst caricature of liberals: taking people's money against their will, saying it's for their own good.
Also, I am reliably informed that we are in the midst of some kind of massive unemployment crisis -- precisely the sort of thing that may very well inhibit the ability of people to purchase health insurance OR pay the resulting fines. And, of course, if Americans continue to lose their jobs and the health benefits that go along with them... well, that 30 million figure is going to look less and less significant, isn't it?
MORE:
Liberals Take Aim At Core Obama Health Care Talking Point [The Plum Line]
The Best We Can Do [Digby]
[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]
December 9, 2009
Burris Threatens To Filibuster Health Care Without Public Option
Nearing a tenuous agreement on health care reform that is likely to hobble or abandon the public option, Senate leaders now face another filibuster threat -- this one from the left.
Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), who has said for months that he would vote against any bill without a public option, went a step further on Tuesday night, vowing to support a filibuster of the final bill delivered from conference with the House should it lack a public plan.
"If we have to get 60 and it comes back and it does not have a public option in it, I will not vote for it. It will still take 60 votes to pass it," Burris said at a rally for public option supporters across the street from the Capitol. As he was speaking, the so-called "gang of 10" was meeting to cut a deal -- and the public option.
"If we don't pass a meaningful health care reform bill in this session, we are all going to hang separately," Burris said. "I've listened to my constituents."
Senate leadership has taken the threats of Burris, and fellow public-option advocates Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), less seriously than those of conservative Democrats and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who reiterated Wednesday that he will filibuster any bill with a public option in it.
They will, however, likely need the votes of every last public-option supporter to defeat a filibuster of the final bill. Burris, who like Sanders originally supported a single-payer system, said he is done compromising on the public plan.
"Understand that I have drawn a line in the sand," he said. "I'm not much of a dealmaker in this regard."
Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!
Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), who has said for months that he would vote against any bill without a public option, went a step further on Tuesday night, vowing to support a filibuster of the final bill delivered from conference with the House should it lack a public plan.
"If we have to get 60 and it comes back and it does not have a public option in it, I will not vote for it. It will still take 60 votes to pass it," Burris said at a rally for public option supporters across the street from the Capitol. As he was speaking, the so-called "gang of 10" was meeting to cut a deal -- and the public option.
"If we don't pass a meaningful health care reform bill in this session, we are all going to hang separately," Burris said. "I've listened to my constituents."
Senate leadership has taken the threats of Burris, and fellow public-option advocates Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), less seriously than those of conservative Democrats and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who reiterated Wednesday that he will filibuster any bill with a public option in it.
They will, however, likely need the votes of every last public-option supporter to defeat a filibuster of the final bill. Burris, who like Sanders originally supported a single-payer system, said he is done compromising on the public plan.
"Understand that I have drawn a line in the sand," he said. "I'm not much of a dealmaker in this regard."
Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!