As Nick Baumann points out, Harry Reid probably knows perfectly well by now what procedural steps he needs to take to amended a bill through reconciliation. If Reid wants to wait a little longer, the most likely explanation is that he doesn’t have 50 reconciliation votes yet but he thinks he might have them in a week.
You know what to do. (202) 224-3121.
slag
I’m thinking I might just take a trip down to all three of my reps’ offices this week. Just to say hi. In person.
geg6
Not that I’m not still calling (we saw Specter turn around on reconciliation a bit this week, right?), but I have no faith in Harry Reid’s vaunted vote counting abilities after the Medicare buy-in debacle.
Alice B. Stuck
Harry Reid, even amongst his detractors is regarded as the best on the dem side for knowing procedure and counting votes, whatever else his failings might be. But using reconciliation is not a cut and dried process, and a dedicated opposition has cards to play during the process. And much of what happens depends on the say so of the Parliamentarian, so the process is not entirely under majority control. Though I suspect Bauman is also correct about getting the needed 50, and it will be close, and some palm greasing the last holdouts will also likely be needed. The fact that Reid is moving toward doing it is huge though, and I am guardedly optimistic./
Tim F.
@geg6: Specter has been on the right side of HCR at least since his party switch. Call it sincerity or opportunism, but his vote has backed the good guys far more often than erstwhile heroes like Jim Webb.
Chat Noir
Harry Reid looks almost exactly like my neighbor Norma. The resemblance is remarkable.
Will check in again with my senators, Levin and Stabbenow. I’ve called before but will do so again.
csmith
Just called kay Hagan’s office, and the staff person who answered assured me that she was on board.
Adam Collyer
@Tim F.:
Specter has been a very loyal and reliable vote since his switch. It’s pretty much how I thought it would play out – the switch was a bit of opportunism, but he is certainly more ideologically in line with the center presence of the Democratic Party. He used to give his views lip service, but Pat Toomey scared the heck of him in the GOP primary years ago and his voting record had to reflect that.
Nellcote
The big sticking issue seems to be that reconciliation allows
the goopers to offer an infinite number of amendments (and you know they will). Harry and the dems are waiting for a ruling by the parlamentarian to decide how to proceed.
geg6
@Tim F.:
He was actually pro-HCR before the switch. But was against reconciliation. Now he’s for it. So it pays even to bug those who are on board with HCR if they have some idiotic procedural line they won’t cross.
And now for an OT moment where we can witness what I’ll be like and the activities I hope to be involved in when I reach senior citizenship:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oNWi8fXOfg
I love them.
Chad S
I think they’re trying to convince the parliamentarian to allow them to amend laws that don’t exist yet. There might be a need to do some fancy footwork with the wording of the fix.
Alice B. Stuck
Just called both my Senators here in NM, and same as yesterday, they haven’t made a statement to their staffs one way or the other on their support of using reconciliation. Though both. I would bet good money will. Neither has ever let me down on an important vote, though Udall is new, he is much more liberal, at least publicly, than his bro Mark in CO>
The staffers did sound chirpy and upbeat about the situation though, FWTW.
mcc
@csmith: To be clear, Hagan’s office said she was on board with reconciliation? Interesting.
chris
The president just told the Dem Senators this..Does he read Ballon Juice??
POTUS:
Middle class Americans, Obama said, “are more and more vulnerable, and they have been for the last decade, treading water. And if our response ends up being, you know, because we don’t want to — we don’t want to stir things up here, we’re just going to do the same thing that was being done before, then I don’t know what differentiates us from the other guys. And I don’t know why people would say, boy, we really want to make sure that those Democrats are in Washington fighting for us.”
Darius
Greg Sargent reports:
Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion
Just called Kit Bond and Claire McCaskill’s offices. Bond’s (of course) against it, and McCaskill’s still being coy.
Nellcote
Goopers demanding “transparency” and swift responses to congressional letters is working my last nerve. The Bush Amnesia Syndrome is bizarre.
CalD
There is no amended bill. The reconciliation bill has not been written yet. They’re working on it but it’s not going to happen in a day. Politically there are a lot of egos and ideologies in play in terms of figuring out what can fly in both chambers. Then once that’s done, there are still a lot of hoops to jump through in terms of trimming to fit the arcane constraints of the reconciliation rules. It’s just not a small job and it’s not going to happen in a day.
But with that said. It definitely couldn’t hurt to call your rep/senator/president/Harry Reid or anyone else you can think of and let them know you still care. I doubt that the bad guys ever stop hammering on them so I’m gradually realizing how important it is for them to hear more from our side in general.
Adam Collyer
@Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion:
I’d wager that McCaskill will come down the right way. She has to be coy with the partisan split in Missouri, but from what I remember she’s pretty close with the White House (and was a terrific endorsement/spokesperson for them during the campaign) and she’ll basically do whatever they want her to do on the vast majority of issues.
Also as a side note, someone who we should put on TV constantly to endorse the White House and Democratic priorities – Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Just terrific.
Alice B. Stuck
@chris: Doubt it. Not a single F- bomb in those words.
Rhoda
What pisses me off the most about this: the president is currently on an upswing. Ramussen itself has him at 50% approval, 49% disapproval which means if Sen. Democrats would get their shit together and pass something, anything it’d probably help lift the party too.
A jobs bill, which could have gotten started but Baucus delayed.
A health care bill, which folks won’t committ too despite having already TAKEN a health care vote.
It’s mindboggling. These folks are cowards and deserve to be run out of office if this is the best they can do when their backs are to the wall. I get that a huge part of this is the economy; but democrats could be in a better place if they’d just get their shit together and recognize it’s better to go down fighting than crying.
geg6
@Darius:
That’s what I’ve been waiting for him to do. He doesn’t have to humiliate them publicly, but use his mojo to push them ever so subtly in the right direction. They are sheep and they want to be pushed, I’m convinced. They just don’t want anyone seeing them getting pushed.
Thomas
Just called Maria Cantwell’s office. The person anwering the phone was fairly well informed it seemed, and pleasant. When I asked for Senator Cantwell’s position regarding HCR, she said she supported the current Senate version of the bill and the “concept” of passage through reconciliation, but was unclear about the “legality” of this approach due to budget requirments laid out by the Byrd amendment.
mr. whipple
Ugh, I’m so tired of these timid, foot dragging nitwits.
Toni
@Rhoda: I keep saying the Dems are the President’s own worse enemy. Especially that jobs bill, just vote on the damn thing already. The private sector job losses for January was its lowest in 2yrs which suggest Friday’s numbers would be good, possibly addition of jobs. If that happens and they can vote on that jobs bill next week. That can boost them to financial reform and healthcare.
mr. whipple
OTOH, I’m wondering what the reaction in the online world will be IF they pass anything.
I watched the House HCR vote with so much excitement. To me, it was a huge step and historic, but there seemed to be little enthusiasm that night in blogland. Then when the Senate did their thing, everyone said it was a POS…some even said kill it. Then you had people say, no no, have the House pass the Senate bill and fix it later, like the House bill suddenly was pretty damn good. And how it was important to pass something rather than nothing.
In the meanwhile, you had people who mocked Obama from day 1 for 11-dimensional chess saying they should take a public stance that the senate bill was shit, but then urging it be passed by the House once the senate seat flipped.
So I’m wondering in the end what the reaction will be. My guess is that they’ll largely a collective yawn, with a very good smattering of negativity that the whole thing is a piece of crap, which of course goes against the whole idea of passing something to keep the base energized for 2010.
The whole thing gives me a headache.
suzanne
I’ll go stand in the closet and hit my head with a hammer, uh, I mean, call McCain’s and Kyl’s offices tomorrow.
I just can’t bring myself to do it today.
KCinDC
@Tim F., I expect Specter will continue to follow the Democratic party line to an amazing degree, right up until the May 18 primary. If he beats Sestak, at that point I expect he’ll move so far to the right so quickly that he may have to be treated for whiplash, as he starts worrying about beating Toomey in November. If he wins the general, who knows what he’ll be like after that.
kay
I think I’m going to send faxes to Reid, to switch it up. I can’t call Sherrod Brown anymore.
mr. whipple
@kay:
Sherrod has been awesome.
Houstonian
Phoned Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s office again today (TX-18). Got a new person on the phone who told me, when I asked what the latest was with health care: “it’s coming.”
I asked for clarification and she told me that the Representative was for health care reform. I expressed my desire that she vote for the Senate bill. It’s not perfect but it’s right there and waiting to be passed. They need to get it done. I pointed out how when they passed the laws for Medicare and Social Security, they were anemic, but they’ve been improved over time. She liked the use of the word “anemic” and told me she wrote it down to pass it along to the Representative. So if you hear her say “anemic,” maybe it came from me. LOL.
So we had a good chat and this person made it sound like things are moving along, but I didn’t get any details.
Followed with a phone call to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison’s office. Absolutely reamed her for sponsoring and then un-sponsoring S. 2853, the bill for the bipartisan task force for fiscal action. She was one of the Gang of Seven who vanished, that President Obama mentioned. Asked why she un-sponsored it. Intern told me that the Senator essentially thinks it’s not a task force in good faith and it’ll be just for raising taxes and of course, being a Republican who is running for Governor of TX, she can’t be seen supporting any of that. Ugh.
Then I asked about health care reform. Apparently the interns have been told to tell callers that the Senate bill, and I quote, “cuts Medicare by half a trillion dollars.” WTF? What are they even talking about? The intern then followed up with “The Senator doesn’t support cuts to Medicare.”
So then I pounced and asked if she supported Rep. Ryan’s budget proposal that meant that current seniors’ Medicare wasn’t affected, but younger people like me would get “vouchers” that capped our Medicare dollars at today’s prices, when we all know healthcare costs are going up daily. The intern had no clue what I was talking about, so I told her that she’d end up paying for her parents and grandparents Medicare and then she couldn’t afford healthcare when she got older if this passes. Poor intern was rather without words by this point.
I figure it’s good to phone Republicans so they know they have constituents who don’t agree with them. How will they know we’re here if we don’t let them know.
geg6
@KCinDC:
I don’t disagree with you completely, but I’ve spent the last 30 years watching Snarlin’ Arlen and he’s been on the right side of health care reform no matter which side of the aisle he was sitting. I’ll vote for Sestak in the primary, but I won’t hold my nose when voting for Specter, should I have to, in the general. I mean seriously…can anyone other than Rick Santorum imagine voting for Pat Toomey*?
*Disclaimer: Pat Toomey is a distant cousin of mine. I don’t admit it very often and I’d prefer we keep this on the down low.
kay
@mr. whipple:
He has, but I’m feeling a little stalkerish. As I may have mentioned before, he once wrote me a note after I sent him a sort of despairing email, during the Bush Era.
I was a little embarrassed. The tone of the note was soothing. I may well be on a “list”.
Ratel
I just got off the phone with Sen. Casey’s Office. The Senator has not yet taken a position on using reconciliation and is currently seeking input from his constituents.
mr. whipple
@kay: LOL.
xian
latest rumor is that the Republicans plan to offer infinite amendments to the reconciliation act, in which case we may actually get to see the whole televised-idiocy-ad-infinitum that all the “make them *really* filibuster” kidz have been praying for as they run out of even tendentious objections and just keep blurting out random shit to try to run out the clock till another Democratic senator dies.
Alice B. Stuck
@mr. whipple:
Come here Mr. Whipple, let Alice squeeze you big softy.
FormerSwingVoter
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/white-house-privately-signaling-support-for-house-passing-senate-bill-with-fix-aides-say/
MNGwinn
Assuming they’re planning reconciliation, It seems likely that they wait until the new Mass senator’s seated and they can use it to prove that they can still pass stuff with 59 votes. That seems like a plausible reason for a delay.
Nick
@MNGwinn: Well, even if they started the reconciliation process the day after Brown was elected, it still wouldn’t have hit the floor until after he’s seated. A reconciliation amendment could conceivably take three or four weeks, but it needs to go through the appropriate committees first.
Although I suspect it won’t pass the Senate until after the House passes the bill, so as to not be Constitutionally challenge. I think what will happen is a grand show of legislative drama where the House will pass the Senate bill in the morning, Obama signs it at noon, Senate passes reconciliation fix in the afternoon, House passes reconciliation fix in the evening.
Newscycle win!
gbear
Just called Amy Klobuchar’s and Al Franken’s offices in DC. According to the staffer, Al is very committed to doing whatever it takes to get the bill passed. Klobuchar sounded like she wanted something a bit better than the current Senate bill, but it didn’t sound like she was adamant enough to kill the bill if it wasn’t everything she wanted. I basically stated that they had better do it now or we’d never have the chance again.
A staffer at Rep. Betty McCollum’s office said that Betty is willing to pass the Senate bill if it comes to that.
I am SO glad that we don’t have to listen to the of Norm Coleman’s gutless babbling any more.
BTD
@Nick:
Constitutionally challenged on what basis?
Church Lady
@geg6: I’m sure Mr. Toomey isn’t too anxious to claim you either.
Saxifrage
On hold now for fifteen minutes to Bill Nelson’s (D-FL) office. Do they have someone answering phones after business hours or do they just leave you on hold?
Or are the lines just tied up by Juicers? (I hope so.)
Jay S
As of Feb 2 Jay Inslee WA01 says in an email that the senate bill is going to conference.
Nick
@BTD: Using an amendment to separate legislation to change a law before said law is actually law.
I don’t know if it’s ever been brought up, but I’d rather not take the risk.
The best way around it is to pass the reconciliation fix before the ink dries on the President’s signature.
mcc
@Ratel:
Occasionally we hear back something like this– a note that some congressperson or other is actively looking for constituent feedback. I wonder if there’s something we can do about getting a swarm of constituents in those cases?
BTD
@Nick:
In other words, you know of no basis for a constitutional challenge.
I mean if novelty is your concern, if you can identify anytime the House has ever just passed a bill passed by the Senate – let me know. Indeed, since the House is supposed to originate all revenue raising measures, the more plausible Constitutional challenge is faced by the House passing the Senate bill.
Nick
@BTD: The House passes Senate bills all the time. Civil Rights Act is best example. They did it with a couple of appropriations bills earlier in the decade.
BTD
@Nick:
Nick. you have a cite for that? I think you mean they pass Conference bills.
This is novel – the House passing a Senate bill without a conference. I’ve NEVER seen it.
The Civil Rights Act is an example? Of what? The Civil Rights Act of 1964? 1965? Other civil rights bills?
I think your information is wrong.
House-Senate conferences are the normal mode and frankly, I can not remember a bill that was not conferenced.
Nick
@BTD: No, the Civil Rights Bill in 1964 NEVER went to conference. The House bill went to the Senate, skipped the committee process (because the Judiciary Committee was chaired by James Eastland of Mississippi who would’ve killed it) and went straight to the floor where it was filibustered.
After two months of filibustering, Senate Democrat and Republican leaders introduced a compromise bill that was weaker than the House bill and passed it. The House passed THAT bill without it ever going to conference.
http://www.crmvet.org/tim/timhis64.htm#1964cra64s
Karen
If Brown is to be seated tomorrow doesn’t that cancel the chance for reconciliation?
Alice B. Stuck
@Karen: No. The idea behind reconciliation is that it is a parliamentary maneuver that exists to get around the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, or invoke cloture. Only takes a simple majority, or 51 votes, or 50 with the VP tiebreaker.
TooManyJens
@Jay S: Wait, what? It’s going to *conference*? Where it will then have to go back to the Senate for final approval and get filibustered to death? Is he sure?
Alice B. Stuck
@BTD: They were doing it that way, or without a conference, before Brown got elected. The term “ping ponging” is used to describe it, which in essence is an informal like conference when one party controls everything. That’s what all the late night meetings at the Wh was about, plus meetings in other places where House and Senate dems sit down and work out the differences amongst themselves to get a final version they both can vote on for passage.
Karen
@Alice B. Stuck
Thanks for the clarification.
BTD
@Nick:
Interestingly, revenue was not raised in that bill.
But I stand corrected.
But my point stands.
BTD
@Alice B. Stuck:
Indeed, that required the House pass a new bill, not the Senate bill.
Alice B. Stuck
@BTD: Doesn’t matter, either chamber can pass the others legislation without any intervening procedures. The ONLY requirement is that both chambers must pass identical word for word bills. Conferences, formal or not are just a mechanisms to work out differences between the bills the two bodies produce, which there are almost always differences. It is not required, a conference, and in this special circumstance the House can just take up the Senate version and pass it verbatim. Unless there are other Constitutional questions on changing tax codes, which the House must always initiate. And I don’t know if that will be a problem or not in this case with the House taking up whole the Senate bill.
BTD
@Alice B. Stuck:
Guess what? I agree.
I was answering the specious argument that the Senate can not pass the reconciliation bill before the passage of the Senate bill.
There is no constitutional infirmity. However, there is a more PLAUSIBLE constitutional objection to the Senate initiating a revenue raising measure as the Constitution EXPRESSLY says such measure must originate in the House.
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD:
Yes.
seems plausible to me too. Guess we will find out.
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
Actually, we won’t. No one has standing to challenge it.
Jay S
@TooManyJens:
“Is he sure?” I only have the email but he seems pretty sure.
There are comments in the Where We Stand post where Nancy Pelosi and another rep are using similar language but not the “conference” word.
It may be a misunderstanding or it may be tactics, go to conference and end up voting the senate bill in after impasse.
Or maybe they see something we don’t, or vice versa.
General Winfield Stuck
@BTD: True.
But we’ll find out if John Boehner cries again on the House Floor
BTD
@General Winfield Stuck:
100% certainty.
Angry Space Cadet
Washington–The US capitol building was destroyed today as a result of a kitchen fire. The cause of the fire was a giant “Congratulations on Reforming Health Care” cake that was to be presented to President Obama at the signing ceremony for health care reform legislation last summer. The cake unfortunately was left to bake months after it was supposed to be done, until finally the neglected oven caused a fire. It is believed that as many as 60 Democratic congressmen were lost in the fire.
Kenneth Fair
@Nellcote:
To be clear, the Senate parliamentarian makes a recommendation to the President of the Senate (a.k.a. Joe Biden) as to the proper ruling. Biden has the power to rule the amendments out-of-order, regardless of what the parliamentarian says.
lol
@Jay S:
Sounds like his health care LA hasn’t updated the form letter in a while.