TPMDC
Grijalva: Fix This 'Sow's Ear' Of A Health Care Bill, Or I'm Out
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Share
Send to a friend!
Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) lays it on the line. If Senate health care legislation doesn't move significantly to the left when House and Senate negotiators meet to resolve the differences between their bills, he's a "no."
"The Senate has somehow managed to turn the House's silk purse into a sow's ear," Grijalva says in a statement. "If what the Senate is doing isn't corrected in conference with the House, I will not support the bill. Since the Senate won't use reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes, it doesn't look promising for any real change."
As of last week, there was no word on what, if anything, House progressives are planning to do to force the final package to the left. But I'm looking into it and I'll let you know what I find out.
Comments (22) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
wbgonne
December 15, 2009 2:46 PM
Someone with courage. Quick! Let's destroy him!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 15, 2009 2:49 PM
Okay. But again, you said that before, when the "robust" public option was dropped for a negotiated-rates public option. Do you mean it this time?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
December 15, 2009 2:50 PM
Brian, follow this story line and get some quotes from more house progressives!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
December 15, 2009 2:52 PM
I just don't see it moving that much further to the left. I am sure there will be some progressives who won't vote for it but perhaps there will be some conservative Dems who vote NO initially who will vote yes now that there is not public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 15, 2009 2:53 PM
He's bluffing and everybody knows it. He will not want to be the person who killed health care reform for another 20 years. He'd be out of congress in 2010 and out of his little echo chamber of progressive support and be hated in every room he entered for the rest of his life.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 15, 2009 2:55 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Good work, Walter. You show this uppity nobody who's boss. The insurance companies, that's who.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 15, 2009 2:59 PM in reply to wbgonne
Dog whistling? What did I say that was remotely racist?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 15, 2009 3:10 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
I didn't accuse you of racism nor did I intend to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 15, 2009 3:04 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
A more believable move would be to bring a "motion to recommit with instructions". This doesn't outright kill the bill, but rather amends the conference bill with a particular amendment the motion specifies. Grijalva could, I think, bring up a motion to recommit amending the conference bill to be closer to the House bill in some particular way, and with a 50% vote in the House would pass it. This wouldn't kill the bill, though it would create a problem-- the Senate would then have to vote on the House's amended version of the bill, and that vote would be subject to filibuster.
Whether Grijalva would actually do this, or whether Pelosi would find a way to stop him, would be a different question. (I am unclear on whether the House will have an opportunity to vote on instructions to the conference committee before the committee is finished, although everybody seems to be assuming at this point the conference committee will give the Senate everything they want.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
December 15, 2009 4:05 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
I heard someone say the same thing about Lieberman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 15, 2009 4:14 PM in reply to henk
Why would anyone say that about Lieberman? Lieberman has repeatedly demonstrated that he relishes being hated, and seems to have demonstrated he's not concerned with the question of how to get reelected as a democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DrToast
December 15, 2009 4:37 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Why is he the one who killed it? The vast majority of the caucus and is with him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
December 15, 2009 2:54 PM
Reconciliation isn't going to happen for that means having to start over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 15, 2009 2:55 PM
If Lieberman has shown anything, it is only those who hold out who win anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 15, 2009 2:57 PM in reply to Indie Pro
make'em drop the mandates if there is no PO! or regulation!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 15, 2009 3:00 PM in reply to Indie Pro
But for that to happen, who will fall on his sword? The Insurance Oligarchs will demand a blood payment!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 15, 2009 3:30 PM in reply to Schmed
Dean and Kos are saying kill the senate bill now. Kos is saying or strip the mandate. I haven't read the plumline article yet, but I think Dean is calling for reconciliation and a more manageable bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 15, 2009 3:07 PM
The House's "silk purse"? The one with the Stupak Amendment?
Let's ease up on the bullshit, Congressman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 15, 2009 3:51 PM
Laying it on the line?
This is laying it on the line: I will NOT vote for a bill that does NOT contain a public option.
And then do just that.
I did not read any of that in his statement. None of these people that have been cheered for "having a spine" have stood their ground and yet they continue to get gold stars. And speaking of spines, where's Senator Roland? he also "laid it on the line." Where he be at?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 15, 2009 3:57 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Where he be at?
?
Dec 9
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.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/09/burris-threatens-to-filib_n_385677.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 15, 2009 4:50 PM in reply to Indie Pro
The dates on that article show 9/12 with the first post in the morning and then an update the same day later in the afternoon. I think that Tuesday in the article is last Tuesday. No?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 15, 2009 4:55 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Yes, Last Tuesday night is when he said it, and Wednesday is when the article was submitted. That's my understanding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?