President Obama sets March 18th goal for House to pass Senate health bill

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:33


President Obama is asking the House to pass the Senate health reform bill by March 18th:

The White House hopes to win House approval of the Senate's healthcare bill by March Madness.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday the White House hopes to see the House approve the healthcare bill by March 18, the first day of the NCAA college basketball tournament and just before President Barack Obama leaves the country on an international trip.

In order for this deadline to be met, the House Rules committee would have to pass the Senate health reform bill on March 17th.  The House would then debate and vote on the bill the next day, which President Obama could then sign before leaving the country.

Greg Sargent is reporting that Speaker Pelosi's office is refusing to endorse this timetable.  Still, at least expect an attempt to be made to meet it.  If the House does not pass the Senate health reform bill before President Obama leaves the country, the entire process falls apart and is delayed by at least another two weeks.  Since that might be the death of the entire process, the House now has a two week deadline to find the votes to pass the bill.

After the House passes the Senate health reform bill, the next step would be to pass the "fix" to that bill in reconciliation.  The Senate would then take up that bill, pass it, and President Obama would sign it just before Latin Easter (which this year is on Sunday, April 4th).

David Waldman is correct that the Senate could act first.  However, the orders have been given now, and it won't happen.  The House will pass the Senate bill, and then pass the fix, before the Senate acts.  Or, at least, they will attempt to pass the Senate bill and the fix.

The vote count is not a rosy one right now.  The 431 current members of the House voted 217-214 in favor of the health reform bill in November.  Here are the key switches, and wavering Representatives, so far:

That's a pretty tight squeeze. The House leadership will need virtually all of the wavering "no" votes from November listed above to vote yes this time around.  And the only way to appeal to that group is through the reconciliation fix bill, since the Senate bill must be passed as is in order for President Obama to sign it into law.
Chris Bowers :: President Obama sets March 18th goal for House to pass Senate health bill

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

President Obama sets March 18th goal for House to pass Senate health bill | 25 comments
Isn't the effect of Stupak a little unclear? (0.00 / 0)
My impression is that several memebers feel that Stupak lied to them about the effects of his amendment (in that many felt it was just the Hyde language, and not an extension of anti-abortion language), and that the distribution of people who are now yes/no due to his amendment is really murky.
Could be (0.00 / 0)
That wouldn't surprise me, but I haven't heard anything about that. Link?
[ Parent ]
Looking (0.00 / 0)
Here is one showing Stupak implying that the amendment is just Hyde.  
[ Parent ]
And here is (0.00 / 0)
a a Paul Rosenberg interview more directly saying what I said, and which must be what I recalled.  
[ Parent ]
that's not really what I meant (0.00 / 0)
I know its a hoax. But is there anything in the public record about these Dems saying they feel bamboolzed?
[ Parent ]
From the Paul Rosenberg interview: (0.00 / 0)

Open Left: So do you believe that that confusion is what accounts for the margin that he was able to win on?

Congresswoman DeGette: Absolutely. Absolutely.  No question about it,  Because I had quite a few people say to me 'This is just Hyde.'  And I was running around... Most people found out about this on Saturday morning, when they got there, because the decision was made late Friday night, and I was literally running around, trying to tell people what it did.
At the same time, a lot of people were being pressured by their bishops, which, you know, that's a whole different thing.  So they thought, 'Well if this is just Hyde, then no big deal.'  But I had several people after that vote say to me... people who voted for Stupak, they said, 'This needs to be fixed by the conference.'


[ Parent ]
I would not count on him at all, but... (4.00 / 1)
But I think John Adler (D-NJ3) should be in your list as wavering. (He was a no last year.) Now, he's going to Fox News and the Wall Street Journal to say he's undecided, so that's not the most promising "tea leaf," but the fact is he says he is undecided.  

sources at:

http://www.bluejersey.com/diar...



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

How can the Senate be trusted? (4.00 / 5)
Once the Senate bill has been passed by the House and signed into law, there is no incentive for the reconciliation bill at all. I don't see any reconciliation bill being passed if this procedure is followed.
It's not quite that climactic (4.00 / 1)
((Since that might be the death of the entire process, the House now has a two week deadline to find the votes to pass the bill.))

If they don't find the votes in that time frame, the whole thing "doesn't fall apart."  I mean, how many times have we heard various prognosticators claim that this reform effort claim that this or that "deadline" is "it."  They are all artificial.

It wuld be very difficult for the lawmakers to go home... (0.00 / 0)
....on break and deal with  the friggin' teabaggers again and then come back and try to pass a bill one more time.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Why? (4.00 / 1)
If it is true that a majority of their constituents support a stronger reform bill - why should they run scared from the tea partiers?  


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
'Cos congreessfolk are stupid... (0.00 / 0)
Seriously dumb... They think the teabaggers will actually vote for them if they capitulate to their demands.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
They'll be fine on break, so long as they don't (0.00 / 0)
hold any stupid health care town halls, like they did last August recess.  I'm still waiting for some DNC/Capitol Hill/WhiteHouseidiot(s) to get fired over that bit of stupifying, political strategery.  Worst political tactic in 15 years.
[ Parent ]
Your volunteer army is awaiting your orders.. (4.00 / 1)

Chris, the Senate Recon whip count has work well (I count 50 votes incl the 4 maybes). When do we start the House count. Being part of this, I was amazed at the positive response of Senate staff to the our Inquiries. And the closer to November we get, I  bet that reception from Congressional staff gets even warmer.  
Why is Obama signing the Senate bill before Fix? (4.00 / 1)
Chris, according to what you wrote in another thread:

"In bullet point form:

   * By March 19th: The House passes the Senate health reform bill
   * By March 20th: President Obama signs the Senate health reform bill into law
   * By March 21st: House passes reconciliation bill to "fix" the Senate bill, and send it to the Senate
   * By March 23rd: Senate takes up reconciliation bill."

Why is the schedule for Obama to sign the Senate bill into law before the fix is passed? At a minimum, if I were Pelosi, I would demand that the fix be passed first and make Obama promise not to sign the Senate bill before the fix is passed, or, at a minimum, is given a shot and fails. Is there some reason for this I don't understand? Is there some reason the netroots is not up in arms about this schedule?  This seems like a setup to get the Senate bill through intact. Obama signs the Senate bill, and then Kent Conrad pulls some BS.

Obama can't wait forever (0.00 / 0)
A bill becomes law if unsigned by the president after ten days unless Congress adjourns before the ten days are up (the so-called pocket veto).

I also don't think Congress can pass the Senate bill and hold onto it until the fix is passed because that would effectively give someone like the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader veto power.

As I said elsewhere:

Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution says:

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

Arguably, that is a mandate that anything that passes the House and Senate must be presented to the POTUS.  I suppose it depends on the meaning of the word "shall".  I think it is a reasonable reading of the text by any school of interpretation that Congress must present legislation that has passed to the President.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Fair Enough (0.00 / 0)
but the provision you're pointing two doesn't specify a timetable, and the ten-day deadline given elsewhere would seem to be meetable: we're only talking three days between when Obama signs and when reconciliation goes before the Senate. Obviously, the Repubs intend to tie up reconciliation as much as they can, but the consensus seems to be that that is not much, and, in any case, if it gets close to the ten-day threshold, Obama could sign then and have a visible reason for doing so.  
[ Parent ]
There is nothing to "fix," unless (0.00 / 0)
a bill has been enacted.
[ Parent ]
My impression is that (0.00 / 0)
the actual point of reconciliation is to present a single bill to the President rather than two different versions, which will generally conflict is some details. The caveats regarding budget impact are to circumvent filibusters, but some reconciliation, at some vote threshold, would be necessary in any case, unless I'm missing something. Having the House pass the Senate version verbatim will make this superfluous, but that's not the normal situation.  
[ Parent ]
But that doesn't contradict this timeline: (0.00 / 0)
Day 1: House passes Senate bill

Day 5: House passes reconciliation bill.

Day 8:  Senate Passes reconciliation bill

Day 9:  Obama Signs Senate bill

Day 10: Obama signs reconciliation bill

[ Parent ]
Unrealistic (0.00 / 0)
I would think it would take several weeks to draft and debate over such bill and then find the votes in both the House and the Senate.
[ Parent ]
Stupak said the Hyde amendment does not apply to the Senate bill.. (0.00 / 0)
According to him only certain types of bills are covered under Hyde. And that's now his problem with accepting the Senate bill.  
Last night on Hardball he clarified - he would accept just the Hyde language, possibly in the form of a rider attached to the reconciliation bill. OK!?
Not one member of congress or in the net roots, whether pro-life or pro-choice, should disagree with that idea.
Bam - Stupak's done.

Now add the PO and every Democrat should be ecstatic, now and in November.

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

Well... (0.00 / 0)
I'd like to see at least some push-back by pro-choicers (for example arguments against the Hyde Amendment).  If it's a necessary evil to pass something like "this bill is subject to the Hyde Amendment", then we should begrudgingly and unhappily agree to it.  Otherwise, to hell with it.
[ Parent ]
I get the sense (0.00 / 0)
That Stupak would legitimately like to see some sort of HCR pass, but that he will stick to his principles on abortion.  I think it was a mistake to offer the Capps amendment as a compromise, since that mandated that the health care exchange include a plan that covers abortion and made Capps seem like a fake compromise whose goal was to backdoor in expanded abortion services.  I think that encouraged Stupak to dig in his heels against people who he thought were bad faith negotiators.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Stupak is acting in bad faith. His name will be turned into a sick joke. (0.00 / 0)
The Hyde amendment takes care of all Stupak's legal arguments, and his contention that money is fungible is insupportable. If his "money is fungible" argument is taken as valid, then the U.S. Government will have to stop supporting many other programs, and cease paying many other federal employees and contractors, on the chance that they too might indirectly enable a woman to exercise her constitutional rights.

Also:

In an interview today, Stupak said abortion isn't the only issue that will keep him from voting for the Senate bill if Speaker Nancy Pelosi brings it to the House floor. "It'd be very hard to vote for this bill even if they fixed the abortion language," he said. Asked whether there was any way he would vote for the current package, he had one word: "Nope."

Stupak came out and said he's willing to take the hit and kill the bill. I say let him. He'll backpedal faster than Nelson did on the Cornhusker Kickback.

[ Parent ]
President Obama sets March 18th goal for House to pass Senate health bill | 25 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox