I have seen several reports indicating that Rep. [fill in the blank] is/is not going to support passage of health care reform over the past several days, but I haven’t seen anyone actually aggregate them all in one place. I tried to do just that.
Results below (all are Democrats unless otherwise indicated; click on the “XX” in the vote column for the hyperlink to the story describing the Representative’s vote):
| Representative Name | Original Vote | Now Leaning Yes | Now Leaning No | Now Undecided | Now Definitely Yes | Now Definitely No |
| John Adler (NJ) | No | XX | ||||
| Jason Altmire (PA) | No | XX | ||||
| Brian Baird (WA) | No | XX | ||||
| John Boccieri (OH) | XX | |||||
| Rick Boucher (VA) | No | XX | ||||
| Bart Gordon (TN) | No | XX | ||||
| Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (SD) | No | XX | ||||
| Larry Kissell (NC) | No | XX | ||||
| Suzanne Kosmas (FL) | No | XX | ||||
| Frank Kratovil (MD) | No | XX | ||||
| Dennis Kusinich (OH) | No | XX | ||||
| Michael McMahon (NY) | No | XX | ||||
| Walt Minnick (ID) | No | XX | ||||
| Scott Murphy (NY) | No | XX | ||||
| Glenn Nye (VA) | No | XX | ||||
| John Tanner (TN) | No | XX | ||||
| Michael Arcuri (NY) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Dan Maffei (NY) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Bill Owens (NY) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Dan Lipinski (IL) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Kurt Schraeder (OR) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Shelley Berkley (NV) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Bart Stupak (MI) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Jerry Costello (IL) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Kathy Dahlkemper (PA) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Joe Donnelly (IN) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Steve Driehaus (OH) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Brad Ellsworth (IN) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Marcy Kaptur (OH) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Paul Kanjorski (PA) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Dale Kildee (MI) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Jim Oberstar (MN) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Charlie Wilson (OH) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Solomon Ortiz (TX) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Raul Grijalva (AZ) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Joseph Cao (R-LA) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Steve Kagan (WI) | Yes | XX | ||||
| John Spratt (SC) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Dan Boren (OK) | No | XX | ||||
| Bobby Bright (AL) | No | XX | ||||
| Arthur Davis (AL) | No | XX | ||||
| Collin Peterson (MN) | No | XX | ||||
| Mike Ross (AR) | No | XX | ||||
| Ike Skelton (MO) | No | XX | ||||
| Gene Taylor (MS) | No | XX | ||||
| Jerry McNerney (CA) | Yes | XX | ||||
| Mike McIntyre (NC) | No | XX | ||||
| Chet Edwards (TX) | No | XX | ||||
| Jim Marshall (GA) | No | XX | ||||
| Jim Matheson (UT) | No | XX |
The vote count is obviously very fluid, and some of the individuals listed above have sent mixed signals on their possible vote. Where more than one position has been indicated, I have taken the most recent public position for inclusion in the table above.
Some of the votes above are also speculative. The identity of the “Stupak 12,” for example, has not been officially confirmed, but it is believed to include the individuals listed in the table in bold font (there are actually 14 names for the Stupak 12 listed, due to conflicting reports on the identity of the 12).
In summary, we have the following:
Former “No” Votes Now Voting:
Leaning Yes: 6
Leaning No: 1
Undecided: 5
Definitely Yes: 0
Definitely No: 15
Former “Yes” Votes Now Voting:
Leaning Yes: 0
Leaning No: 9
Undecided: 13
Definitely Yes: 1
Definitely No: 0
216 votes are now required to pass health care reform (Rep. Abercrombie, Rep. Wexler, and Rep. Murtha are not in the House anymore and were all former “yes” votes; Rep. Massa was a former “no” vote who is no longer in the House).
If the vote were held today, based on the table above, the vote would be (assuming all leaning votes are cast in the direction in which they are leaning and all others vote as they voted for the original House bill):
Yes: 201
No: 214
Undecided: 16
Counting all those who are “leaning yes” or “leaning no” as “undecided,” the tally as of now is as follows:
Yes: 196
No: 204
Undecided: 31
Speaker Pelosi has her work cut out for her. Assuming all “leaning” votes are cast in the direction they are leaning, she will need to find 15 more votes to swing this in her favor (if leaning are counted as “undecided,” she will need to find 20 more votes). That said, this is certainly doable. She has 13 “undecided” votes to work with (or 31, depending on how you count it), plus 11 who have not expressed an opinion who previously voted “no” (see note below for the full list). Furthermore, any compromise on abortion could sway several of the “Stupak 12,” and it is even possible they may become convinced the current abortion language is sufficiently strong (see here for a good summary of why). Of the “Stupak 12,” the only Representatives thus far to have stated they will not vote for the bill without an abortion “fix” are Berry, Driehaus, Lipinski and Stupak.
This fight is far from over. Please call your representative today and push them to vote “yes” for health care reform.
NOTE: Several original “no” votes have not expressed an indication on how they will vote this time. Those Representatives are: Barrow (GA), Boyd (FL), Chandler (KY), Childers (MS), Davis (TN), Griffith (AL), Holden (PA), Markley (CO), Melancon (LA), Shuler (NC), and Teague (NM) (11 total).
UPDATE: Dennis Kusinich added to the “no” column., Spratt added to the “undecided” column, and Kagan added to the “leaning no” column.
UPDATE II: Due to a helpful update on www.thehill.com, we have significantly updated the table from the earlier version. Earlier, I had placed all suspected members of the “Stupak 12″ into the “leaning no” category. The Hill has clarified that many of them should instead be listed as “undecided” instead, other than the four listed above who will not support the bill without changes to abortion language.
UPDATE III: Matheson moves to “undecided,” and Marshall moves to “no.”
It started as a spark. A few Democratic Senators circulated a letter calling for passage of a public option through the reconciliation process. Soon after, a few more Senators signed the letter. And a few more after that. Soon, the letter had the signatures of 24 Senators, including 6 Senate committee chairmen and such notables as John Kerry, Pat Leahy, and Chuck Schumer. The spark was threatening to turn into a wildfire.
Senate Majority Leader Reid then punted to the White House, saying (as if he has no control over the process whatsoever) that “if a decision is made to use reconciliation to advance health care,” he would work to get the votes necessary to pass it.
The White House punted right back, claiming that whether the Senate pushes for a public option via reconciliation is “up to those who manage the amendments, and to Leader Reid.”
The only Democrat so far to claim the Senate doesn’t have the votes to pass a public option is Senator Rockefeller, ironically one of the public option’s chief proponents.
So why is it, with 24 Senators expressing support for the public option (they only need 50 to pass it via reconciliation), neither the White House, Harry Reid, nor Senator Rockefeller are willing to push for the public option? Timing.
Continue reading »
Ever since President Obama announced in his State of the Union address that he was interested in receiving good ideas from Republicans on health care reform, Democrats have wondered exactly what he meant. The House and Senate had, of course, already passed comprehensive health care reform bills (and had sought, even if not received, Republican input in both cases). Was the President calling for Congress to scrap those bills and start over? Did he favor passing a modified version of one of the two bills with more Republican ideas incorporated? Something else?
President Obama hinted a bit more about his preferred path forward at a townhall meeting late last week where he said:
The next step is what I announced at the State of the Union, which is to call on our Republican friends to present their ideas. What I’d like to do is have a meeting whereby I’m sitting with the Republicans, sitting with the Democrats, sitting with health-care experts, and let’s just go through these bills — their ideas, our ideas — let’s walk through them in a methodical way so that the American people can see and compare what makes the most sense.
Today, President Obama broke the news in an interview with Katie Couric that the meeting with Republicans actually will take place- on February 25- and will be broadcast on C-Span.
Politically, this feels like a good move for the White House. The televised conference will give President Obama yet another platform to make the case that the bills passed by Congress are overall good bills. Republicans will find it far more difficult to raise clearly false arguments against the health care bill (death panels, government control of patient choices, etc.) with the President in the room ready to rebut their claims. This effectively gives Republicans two courses to follow: 1) raise clearly false claims against the bills anyways (in an attempt to look strong, play to their base, and hope Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders stumble in their rebuttal); or 2) raise only legitimate concerns, negotiate to improve the bills, and try to appear reasonable.
Both paths are perilous for Republicans.
Continue reading »
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told reporters today that the House, Senate and White House had reached a compromise on the differences between the House and Senate bills on January 15, and that the compromise language had been sent to the CBO for scoring. Just days later, however, before the CBO report could be finalized, Massachusetts elected Scott Brown in a special election for the Senate seat vacated by Senator Kennedy’s passing. Brown’s election killed all momentum the bill had behind it and many have since suggested health care reform is now dead.
Speaker Pelosi has been particularly vigilant in keeping the health care debate alive, with surprisingly little cooperation from the White House or her Senate counterparts- much to the chagrin of Democrats everywhere. Greg Sargent reports today, however, that the White House has now privately told Senate Democrats that Obama favors the “sidecar” option. That option would involve passing a reconciliation bill in the House and Senate which amends the Senate health care bill, and then enacting the reconciliation bill and the Senate bill into law. If true, this is the first real sign President Obama was serious when he told a townhall gathering that he “will not walk away from health care reform.” The next step, which must happen quickly, is for Obama himself to tell Senate Democrats to move forward with the sidecar option. Until that happens, progress in the Senate is unlikely.
Using reconciliation to amend the Senate health care bill certainly involves some parliamentary and political hurdles. As CongressMatters has noted, the parliamentary hurdles can be overcome. If Obama continues to advocate for real health care reform (and endorses the sidecar option), the political hurdles can be as well.
As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we’ve proposed. There’s a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Here’s what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.
“Let me know”? Seriously? What have we been doing the last twelve months? We’re going back to the drawing board?
Pass the damn bill.
1. CongressMatters explains how the “sidecar” option can work to pass health care reform.
2. Ezra Klein notes that the devil is in the details of Obama’s proposed spending freeze, but the freeze risks hurting the poor the most.
3. President Obama was selected for jury duty in Chicago. Apparently someone in Chicago didn’t think he might be busy.
4. The students and faculty at Seton Hall University School of Law have done a remarkable job of reconstructing the events that lead to the death of three detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Their full report and findings can be found here.
5. The US law firm of Perkins Coie represented pro bono Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Guantanamo Bay detainee whose case ultimately found its way to the US Supreme Court. The attorneys who worked on the case gave a video presentation of their experiences which can be viewed here.
6. At least one Republican Senator promises to use all procedural mechanisms available to stop the “sidecar” option. Why is it that using reconciliation to amend a bill is deemed “trickery” and “shenanigans” but using the filibuster to stop 59 Senators from passing legislation isn’t?
The Senate health care bill is complicated. Of that, there is no doubt. If you want to understand the Senate bill, you had better be prepared to spend a lot of time and energy reading not just the bill itself, but commentary from intelligent “insiders” who understand the issues better than the average layperson ever will.
That said, there seems to be an inexcusable number of leaders in both political parties who aren’t making much of an effort to understand the bill or the reasons why the bill should or shouldn’t be passed into law.
And how do we know some leaders aren’t putting in the requisite time and effort? Well, by listening to what they have to say about the bill.
Continue reading »
There has been some discussion on Capitol Hill and in the media about whether Congress has the constitutional authority to mandate that Americans purchase health insurance. By way of background, the individual mandate would require every American to purchase health insurance. Those who fail to purchase health insurance would be fined. It appears that the mandate will make its way into the final draft of the Senate bill (and for good reason- see Ezra Klein’s comments on why it needs to be included). Congress will need to articulate in the bill the provision of the Constitution which grants Congress power to impose a mandate.
Congress would almost certainly justify the mandate as within its powers under one of two possible areas: 1) its authority to regulate interstate commerce; or 2) its authority to tax.
The League of Ordinary Gentlemen has a nice post up discussing why the Commerce Clause of the Constitution may provide Congress with sufficient authority to impose a mandate.
The analysis with respect to the Commerce Clause is complicated and, while I agree with the Ordinary Gentlemen that the courts are likely to uphold a mandate as being within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause (if that is how Congress wants to justify the mandate), it may be simpler to impose the mandate pursuant to Congress’ power to tax.
Americans are used to taxes being imposed on certain items they would purchase (cigarettes, gasoline, etc.). People are free not to purchase those products and thereby avoid the tax. A mandate takes the opposite position- that Congress can “tax” you if you fail to purchase something (in this case health insurance). Can they do that?
The short answer is likely yes, although it may depend on how the tax is structured. Congress is, in effect, already taxing Americans for failing to purchase certain items (in a roundabout way). Take the mortgage interest deduction, for example. All wage earning Americans are taxed on their income. Of that group, those who have a mortgage (and who itemize) receive a tax deduction. Those who don’t have a mortgage do not receive the deduction. If they rent, they are out of luck. In essence, they are taxed for failing to purchase a home. Is that qualitatively different than taxing someone for failing to purchase health insurance (which, by the way, has a much stronger economic rationale than the mortgage interest deduction)?
1. Ezra Klein discusses 5 significant cost controls which shouldn’t be forgotten in discussing the merits of the current Senate health care bill.
2. Finally- a step towards an intelligent conversation on health care by those whose positions differ sharply.
3. A powerful story on heroism in Russia by a young lawyer fighting for the truth and for his country.
4. Sarah Palin is being accosted by tomato-throwing bandits, and Paul Krugman has some good advice.
State of Health Care Reform
President Obama is receiving a significant amount of criticism for being too “hands off” in governance. His leadership style with respect to health care in his first year largely involved speaking in generalities on the topic and leaving the details and messy process to Congress for resolution. When the process would start to collapse, he would once again deliver a powerful, albeit unspecific, speech on health care, and urge Congress to get back to work. Time and again they did. In the end, health care reform hasn’t yet passed, but whatever you may think of Obama’s leadership in the first year, he came closer to shepherding comprehensive health care reform to passage than any president who has ever tried.
Now granted, “close” isn’t much consolation in politics, especially to the tens of thousands of people who will die because they do not have health insurance in the United States. So why does “close” matter? Because if we were close to finalizing health care reform two weeks ago, there is no good reason we can’t still be close today- and finished tomorrow. To understand what Obama can do to finalize the bill, we need to first understand who the obstacles are.
The House of Representatives has been particularly responsive to Obama’s calls to action- and not just on health care either. Of course, the House doesn’t have to deal with the filibuster or the nonsensical Senate tradition of the “hold” which permits one single Senator to block debate or passage of a bill indefinitely (or at least until the Majority Leader grows weary of the hold). At every step of the health care reform process last year, the House was ahead of the Senate. The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a draft bill in August while Sen. Baucus’ committee toiled on. The House then passed its full bill in November while the Senate remained stuck in negotiations. The nation’s attention turned to the Senate and, rather than rise to the occasion, the Senate had to deal publicly with the ego of Joe Lieberman, the special interest demands of Senator Nelson and Landrieu, and procedural votes taking place in the late hours of night or in the early morning on Christmas Eve. The public reacted to the messy Senate process about as one would expect- negatively.
Continue reading »