Pelosi Says Federal Health Care Bills Are Dead
Jan. 21, 2010 – Two days after Republican Scott Brown upset early favorite and Democratic Party candidate Martha Coakley for the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat held for decades by the late Edward Kennedy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi essentially told reporters the health care bills approved by the House and Senate are dead.
With Brown’s victory, Senate Republicans now have the critical 41st vote necessary to prevent Democrats from blocking filibuster attempts on highly controversial health care reform measures. Some Congressional Democrats suggested the House simply could vote to approve the Senate version with no amendments and send it to President Barack Obama for signing.
But Pelosi today told a group of reporters that she does not have the votes necessary to approve the Senate’s version of national health care reform, which does not restrict federal funding of abortions to the same extent as the measure approved in the House. The President previously wanted to have health care reform legislation signed into law before his Jan. 27 State of the Union Address. Brown’s victory means Obama won’t have a bill to sign.
Part of Brown’s successful platform is a campaign promise to vote against current health care reform measures, which propelled the Republican upstart to victory in a state traditionally leaning toward Democrats. But while Brown’s win means Senate Democrats no longer have free reign to impose their will on the upper chamber of Congress, internal opposition from other Democrats is stopping Pelosi from imposing her will in the House of Representatives.
“I know leadership has flowed with the idea over the weekend that let’s just take the Senate bill and just vote on it in the House floor. I bet it wouldn’t get a hundred votes,” Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) told the Fox Business Network yesterday. Stupak heads a coalition of moderate House Democrats opposed to federal funding of abortions, which the Senate version would allow.
“Members are very upset about the Senate bill … especially when it looked like states were paid off for that 60th vote,” Stupak explained. “Have we relegated the legislative body to who can get the best deal? People should have been able to put their vote up based on policy, not on what did I get for my state. And that really soured the American people and House members. We’re not willing to take that Senate bill – that Nebraska’s guy’s special deal or Louisiana or Florida or whatever.”
Another option Democrats have considered is to create a compromise measure requiring only a simple majority of 51 votes for approval in the Senate. But without 60 votes to stop a likely Republican filibuster, Senate Democrats most likely would not be able to call for a vote to approve or disapprove a potential compromise measure.
Health Care Legislation Stalls as Brown Wins U.S. Senate Seat
Jan. 20, 2010 – Republican Scott Brown upset Democratic candidate and Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley to fill the U.S. Senate seat left vacant upon Ted Kennedy’s recent demise casts doubt on the ability of Congressional Democrats to pass hotly contested health care reform measures.
Brown’s clear victory over early favorite Coakley means Senate Democrats no longer have the 60 votes necessary to prevent a Republican filibuster. Democrats now have 57 seats in the U.S. Senate to 41 seats for Republicans. Two Senate seats are held by independents who have chosen to caucus with Democrats.
Both chambers of Congress have approved widely varying versions of national health care reform, but without a clear 60-seat majority in the Senate, getting a bill finalized for President Barack Obama to sign before delivering his Jan. 27 State of the Union Address has become doubtful. Some Congressional Democrats have suggested they simply would approve the Senate’s health care package without amending it, but several prominent Democrats have said that won’t happen.
“I know leadership has flowed with the idea over the weekend that let’s just take the Senate bill and just vote on it in the House floor. I bet it wouldn’t get a hundred votes,” Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) told the Fox Business Network today. Stupak heads a coalition of moderate House Democrats opposed to federal funding of abortions, which the Senate version would allow.
“Members are very upset about the Senate bill … especially when it looked like states were paid off for that 60th vote,” Stupak explained. “Have we relegated the legislative body to who can get the best deal? People should have been able to put their vote up based on policy, not on what did I get for my state. And that really soured the American people and House members. We’re not willing to take that Senate bill – that Nebraska’s guy’s special deal or Louisiana or Florida or whatever.”
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer earlier told reporters he hoped Coakley would win but suggested the best move if Brown won would be for House Democrats to simply approve the Senate version of health care reform. And CNN has reported the White House and Democrat strategists are trying to lay the groundwork for having the Senate measure passed without amendment.
Another option is for Democrats to employ a Parliamentary sleight-of-hand and craft a compromise measure requiring only a simple majority of 51 votes for approval in the Senate. But without 60 votes to stop a likely Republican filibuster, Senate Democrats would not be able to call for a vote to approve or disapprove a potential compromise measure.
But with strong internal opposition in addition to opposition from newly empowered Senate Republicans, several leading Democrats have said current efforts likely will be scrapped. Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts has said a victory by Brown would “kill” the health care bills. And Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia) yesterday issued a statement saying: “I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”
Coakley already has conceded the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts. Now it remains to be seen how President Obama and Congressional leaders react to the largest setback to their domestic agenda.
Democrats Exempt Unions from Benefits Tax; Senate Race Might Kill Bill
Jan. 15, 2010 – Democrats have cut yet another political deal to move forward with health care reform efforts by exempting union members from paying a 40 percent tax on so-called “Cadillac” health insurance benefits, but a pending U.S. Senate special election might kill all efforts.
The exemption was agreed to as Congressional leaders met with union officials and others behind closed doors during a 15-hour negotiations session in the White House on Wednesday. Union officials had threatened to withhold support of Democratic efforts to reform the United States’ $2.5 trillion-a-year health care system if they levied a 40 percent excise tax on generous group health care benefits.
Labor unions opposed the measure, saying their members accept lower pay in exchange for better benefits packages. The proposed 40 percent excise tax essentially is a tax on middle class families, and union members would have paid an estimated $60 billion over the duration of the tax.
But Congressional Democrats meeting with union representatives behind closed doors agreed to exempt union members from paying the so-called “Cadillac tax” on costly health care benefits until 2018. The deal means union members would be spared paying the estimated $60 billion in taxes while other working families would have to pay up to $90 billion in additional taxes simply for not being members of a union subject to collective bargaining agreements.
Lawmakers also agreed to exempt the dental and vision plans for collective bargaining units from the 40 percent excise tax, which would be levied on health insurance benefits totaling at least $8,900 annually for individuals and $24,000 annually for families. The annual benefits threshold will be even higher for health insurance plans with higher percentages of older workers and women, according to new reports.
Among union leaders participating in the secret discussions were Service Employees Union chief, Andy Stern, and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Union officials representing teachers, food and commercial workers, electricians and government workers also participated in the marathon, private negotiations.
President Obama claims the excise tax would decrease health care costs by forcing health insurance companies to offer more affordable group health insurance plans to prevent paying the 40 percent excise tax. Congressional Democrats are trying to iron out differences between health reform measures approved separately in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. A compromise measure might be ready before the President delivers his annual State of the Union Address in late January or early February.
But even if Senate and House Democrats manage to craft a compromise measure, Tuesday’s special election to replace the Massachusetts Senate seat formerly occupied by the late Edward Kennedy might nix all agreements. Recent polling shows Republican Scott Brown has taken a slight lead over Democrat Martha Coakley.
If Brown wins, Democrats no longer would have the necessary support to defeat a Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) said a win for Brown would “kill the health bill,” and President Obama has gone to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley during the final days before the special election.