
House Democrats have hustled through President Obama's agenda all year, only to see it stall in the Senate. They say they're done with that and now it's the Senate's turn.
From spending bills and tough votes on major legislation such as climate change and health care, the House Democratic Caucus has been forced to walk the plank and then wait.
The Hill reported this week that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is assuring members privately that won't be happening in 2010.
"The Speaker has told members in meetings that we've done our jobs," a Democratic leadership aide said. "And that next year the Senate's going to have to prove what it can accomplish before we go sticking our necks out any further."
Though there are always cross-chamber grumbles, the move carries significance in that the agenda is already moving at a snail's pace on the Senate side. If 2009 seemed slow, look out, Democrats say.
It's also a dynamic as the health care bill gets more conservative than what the House passed earlier this year. House Democrats took a tough vote and are unlikely going to see the benefit of the "robust" public option they supported.
Politically members have been frustrated with Pelosi for forcing the votes even when they knew the Senate wouldn't embrace what they had done. In the cases of vulnerable Democrats from redder districts, these aren't votes they wanted to have to talk to their constituents about during breaks.
In addition to their health care bill, the House has passed appropriations bills, energy reform, higher education changes and Wall Street regulations.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) told reporters Thursday the House wants the Senate to start acting since their bills will lapse at the end of this Congressional session (Jan. 2011).
"We think it's time for the Senate to start acting on those," he said.
He said when it comes to immigration - a heated debate in years past that broke down after months of negotiations - that bill will originate in the Senate for sure.
"We recognize that at the end of a two-year period all the bills that have been debated and passed by the House lapse and you have to start over again," he said.
"If they have ability to deal with what we've already given them and immigration reform we stand ready to work with them. There's no point sending another bill over there until they've completed action on the House bills that have already been delivered," he said.
Viva!America!
December 18, 2009 12:07 PM
Very true and very encouraging. Now please stick to it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
December 18, 2009 12:07 PM
Nancy is correct in that the senate needs to act on the house's bills. She has done a great job in getting tough bills thru and meeting the agenda of Obama. now the real question is will she rewarded and thanked by Obama or will he compromise her?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsfox
December 18, 2009 12:13 PM
And the Blue Dogs say: "Thank God! At last we can really sit on our hands and do nothing."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
marklouis
December 18, 2009 12:15 PM
But, the House did not pass a robust public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IDB
December 18, 2009 12:16 PM
Hooray for Senate filibuster.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Morbo
December 18, 2009 12:47 PM in reply to IDB
Hooray for 120 more dead American citizens today!
Hooray for you showing yourself as being a heartless fucking asshole!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IDB
December 18, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to Morbo
Hooray for sarcasm on the internetz.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Morbo
December 18, 2009 2:55 PM in reply to IDB
Sorry, but hurray for not understanding that sarcasm doesn't work on the Internet when aping rightwing ideas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
December 18, 2009 12:22 PM
Good luck with that.
The Senate is so dysfunctional, you're lucky to get it to vote on simply keeping the government running or the military funded.
Much less take a hard vote of a bill worth a damn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
December 18, 2009 12:32 PM
I'm glad the House took action. God bless them.
I for one will send the DCCC contributions next year. The DSCC not so much. I quit sending the DNC monthly contributions when they threw Dr Dean out. I'm glad I did.
These DLC Dems are not what I support.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
December 18, 2009 2:44 PM in reply to Scott in PacNW
Just a thought, but, shouldn't the reaction be the opposite? I know, I know... reward the performers. But, part of the issue is that we don't have enough of a majority/liberal-enough senate to push things through. Maybe not money to the DSCC, but certainly some money targeted at the right races, for example: Sestak, who is more liberal than Specter, and in the latest polls appears to have a good shot at beating Specter - and a better chance of beating the Republican).
On the other hand, there is still a case to be made for making donations to the DSCC: There are a number of Republican-held seats up for grabs in 2010 which could be vulnerable due to retirement, and/or the changing political demographics of certain states... states which have become much more liberal and Dem-leaning over several election cycles. I believe there are more Republican Senators up for reelection than Democratic Senators, and from what I've read, most of the D-held seats are NOT vulnerable, while many of the R seats ARE vulnerable. Imagine how things would be if the D's held a solid 62-64 seat majority in the Senate (not counting Lieberjerk)? Is it possible? The more money the DSCC has to play with, the more they can go on the offensive. So, I wouldn't rule out sending money to them at this stage. It is the early money that opens up such possibilities. Think on it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
December 20, 2009 4:38 PM in reply to DaddyD
Point taken. Schumer has done a whale of a job at the DSCC the last two cycles.
But he won't try to oust people like Blanche and Ben. Never. And I just won't contribute -- even indirectly -- to the captive senators who are responsible for this non-reform reform.
So I agree that giving to individual candidates is a better fit for me & my meager contributions. :-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 18, 2009 12:54 PM
Adding a little subtle pressure to the kill the filibuster campaign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ben Judea
December 18, 2009 1:48 PM
I got an Idea...Lets take the list of Gop senators that voted against the Franken Rape bill and tie them to the Health care obstruction. Run a few ads in their home state. The ads should sound like this..."Your senator voted against rape protection bill. Now now he wants to take away your choice in health care, Call him demand public option now."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 18, 2009 1:56 PM
This worries me. Do I take this as an indication the House will not be interested in moving forward on the already-stalled lgbt Employment Nondiscrimination Act unless the Senate cleans up its act?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?