Despite Progressive Objections House Committee Still On Track To Pass Bill
Of the 53 progressives who have signed a letter saying they won't abide by the compromises Democratic leaders offered to Blue Dogs, none sit on the House Energy and Commerce Committee--the panel where health care legislation originally stalled, necessitating the concessions in the first place.
That leaves the legislation in decent shape to pass out of the committee in time for August recess. But this throws the bill's prospects on the floor into some doubt. If the compromises Blue Dogs fought for--particularly a public option that isn't tied to Medicare--are included in the legislation, and progressives stick to their pledge, then the bill won't have enough votes to pass. But if the public option were to be restrengthened, it could alienate enough Blue Dogs to similarly imperil the legislation.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
So, now that we're back on track to have 5 bills total. 3 House/2 Senate bills, is that right?
How will the Senate decide on say their two bills. I'm honestly not familiar with the process when to committees draft two bills and how the two bills are turned into one bill. Or are the two bills left in their entirety and voted on separately?
July 30, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are all sorts of ways to proceed once the committees have acted (or been discharged!). Usta be that one bill would be brought to the floor and then others would be voted on as amendments in the nature of substitutes. Likewise narrow floor amendments can be voted on. All of this is by simple majority vote once unanimous consent limiting debate clears the way for floor action
The House is much more straigtforward. All these details worked out usually before Floor consideration ..that can also happen in the Senate..by unanimous consent...so theoretically
Clear as mud right?
Point is....getting the committees to act is pivotal here. Once the House and senate have acted the conference committee can basically do whatever it wants in reconciling the conflicts including introducing new provisions
July 30, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with this conclusion is that it doesn't take into account the overlapping caucus members. There are a number of Blue Dogs who have stated that they won't vote for a bill without a strong public option. Most notably members of the Hispanic Caucus who are also Blue Dogs.
There are some other cross-pollinators as well. So, the lack of a cohesive Progressive Caucus is of more concern than the threats of basically 8-10 Blue Dogs, because that's what is really what we are talking about.
July 30, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said...the Progressive Caucus wonders why it is so ineffectual
Obama needs to clear at least the House bill out of committee..that will mean 4 of 5(?) committees have done their jobs.
He then needs to get these numbnuts out of town and tell the American people specifically which bills meet the goals he laid out and they support and why
July 30, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sound likes an opportunity for the President to offer leadership.
July 30, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said in previous thread, he sure is generous with his political capital...a subprime loan to Congreff
July 30, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to just see the process keep moving. Could the bill get out of Energy and Commerce in questionable state, and be patched to some sort of progressive-blue dog compromise by an amendment before the floor vote?
July 30, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi was on tv at her press conference today and said the Blue Dog language about not paying Medicare rates but having Sebelis negotiate terms is the same language in Kennedy's HELP bill. I wouldn't get all wound up about it.
July 30, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly - when in the hell did getting health reform at all suddenly pivot on Medicare payment rates?
July 30, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be easier to peel of enough Blue Dogs to get the bill through once it gets to the floor. The Blue Dog caucus isn't monolithic.
At least 6 of their caucus has signed the letter demanding a robust public option (Joe Baca (CA-43), Leonard Boswell (IA-3), Jim Costa (CA-20), Jane Harman (CA-36), Mike Michaud (ME-2), Adam Schiff (CA-29}).
My guess is that there are others who could be brought aboard or arm twisted to get to 218.
July 30, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I called some of these folks today. (Joe Baca (CA-43), Jim Costa (CA-20), and Adam Schiff (CA-29}
people all said they're they're still studying the bill. Then I specifically asked if they support a public option and they wouldn't say.
Jane Harman's (CA-36) person said she is a strong supporter off a public option.
July 30, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jane Harman's (CA-36) person said she is a strong supporter "of" a public option.
BTW a wingnut at Smart Girl (wingnuts calling against reform) says Bingamon D-NM is a strong supporter of a public option.
July 30, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink