Among those Democrats projected to vote NO on final passage, five voted YES on the procedural vote: Jason Altmire, Marion Berry, Larry Kissell, Collin Peterson, and Harry Teague.
Among the four Democrats that the Times listed as undecided, Jerry Costello voted YES, but Rick Boucher, Dan Lipinski and Lincoln Davis (whom other sources regard as a solid no) voted NO. Bobby Rush, who was technically undecided as of this morning but was not listed by the Times that way, voted YES.
Harry Mitchell, projected to vote yes on final package, voted NO on the rules bill.
That projects to 218-220.
Update 2: Pelosi says Senate bill vote after 10 pm. Reconciliation after 11 pm. All times eastern.
Update: At least three Dems who have announced they will oppose the bill--Tanner, Teague, Altmire--voted for the rule. Final vote on Senate bill will get 221 or fewer supporters.
The House just passed the rules of debate on the reconciliation bill, 224-206, with one member not voting. The final vote will be very similar. A couple of Dems might drop off in the belief that it will somehow help them win re-election.
Stupak bloc down to 6? Both Roll Call and The Hill are reporting the Stupak bloc is down to only six members. Their sources are Bart Stupak and Marcy Kaptur.
If true--and that is a big if-then it is fantastic news. In such a scenario, David Dayen posits that the leadership would only need one more "no to yes" vote to secure passage (although, now with Zach Space, two more "no to yes" votes would be needed).
However, until the four to six members who have supposedly left the group actually make some public statements in support of passage, I will remain wary.
From the House Democratic Caucus meeting, this from House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-CT). He says "shortly after 2, we will have an hour of debate on the rule." This is the rule to allow reconcilation to get to the floor.
They would then vote on the rule, sans deem and pass. He then says there will then be "two hours of debate on the bill."
The third vote, on the Senate bill, will take place sometime later in the day. If it succeeds, President Obama will sign it into law that night.
With Syracuse playing Gonzaga at 12:10, tomorrow should be a nice calm, relaxing day.
Tea partiers on Capitol Hill getting really ugly As covered in Quick Hits (see here and here), things are getting really ugly on Capitol Hill. The bigotry is laid bare once again. Conservatives sure are good at helping you choose sides.
There have been no new vote announcements in over an hour. At this point, anyone making an announcement will probably wait until tomorrow morning (such as Solomon Ortiz, a key "Stupak curious" member who will hold a press conference tomorrow morning). There appears to have been a Friday afternoon rush to make the news while people were still paying attention.
Eight or nine of "yes to no" votes are Stupak bloc: Cao, Carney, Costello, Donnelly, Driehaus, Lipinski, Rahall, and Stupak. Lynch might even be in that group, too. Additionally, Berry, Dahlkemper, Kaptur and Ortiz are still "Stupak curious," potential members of the bloc.
At the same time, there are still enough undecided votes to pass the bill without the Stupak bloc. Further, some members of the Stupak bloc might be wavering, such as Rahall, Costello and Cao. Yet further, I agree with Nate Silver that "there's perhaps also a half-Stupak (face-saving BS to get 2-3 votes)." We don't have to break the whole Stupak bloc, just two or three of them. And it is possible that can be done with bullshit rather than caving.
One idea is that anyone who is a "no" on this bill, and who voted against the Stupak amendment, should receive the most pressure. This means Adler, Arcuri, Boucher, Herseth Sandlin, Kissell, Kratovil, McMahon, and Minnick. These eight could put an end to Stupak's influence, once and for all, but they choose not to do so.
Kosmas, one of 39 Democrats to oppose a similar bill in November, said in an exclusive interview with the Orlando Sentinel that she decided to change her mind because the latest version addressed some of her previous concerns about its effect on small businesses and the federal deficit.
"I'm going to vote for healthcare reform," she said. "I know this is not a perfect bill. But in the scheme of things, it provides the best options and the best opportunities for my constituents."
This is now seven confirmed "no to yes" votes, against ten solid-seeming "yes to no votes." If the leadership can actually pick up just two more "no to yes," and hold down the rest of the no's, then they could pass the bill 216-215.
The results in a net of three votes for "Yes to No." That means the leadership needs to pick up two more "no" votes from November to pass the bill
With the exception of Arcuri, and possible exception of Lynch, everyone in the "yes to no" group is in the Stupak bloc. Really, this is a fight to find enough "no to yes" votes to overcome the Stuapk bloc.
The best remaining "no to yes" possibilities who did not vote for the Stupak amendment are Baird, Kosmas, and Scott Murphy. The leadership needs two of those three, plus not to lose any "Stupak curious" members (Berry, Cuellar, Dahlkemper, Ellsworth, and Kaptur), or any other "yes" votes (like DeFazio and Rush) to pull this off. Or, they need to start breaking some of the harder "no" votes, or more dedicated Stuapk bloc members.
Really feels like threading a needle. At this point, it is safe to predict that there will be less than 220 votes for the bill, even if it passes.
This morning, during an appearance on Good Morning America, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) reaffirmed that he might vote for the Senate health care bill if Democrats pass the Stupak abortion amendment as a separate measure. Stupak said that Democrats have shown a "renewed" interest in tying his amendment to the Senate bill
ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked about Bart Stupak's suggestion that there could be another bill to address abortion funding and she said, "I haven't heard any of that."
"If you don't want federal funding for abortion... and you want to have a health care bill," she said. "This is it."
Leaving the he said / she said aside for the moment, Stupak still appears to hold the balance on the bill. He may not have a dozen members anymore, but the vote is so close he doesn't need that many anymore to sink the bill.
What this means is that, at least based on public whip counts, there isn't a clear path to passage at this point without either getting the Stupak group to cave, or caving to the Stupak group. And it isn't even clear if Democrats could make a deal with Stupak if they wanted to, given both opposition in the Senate, the threat of losing new "no to yes" votes such as Betsy Markey, and the rules on reconciliation generally.
I don't have any particularly deep insight into this, or any clever solutions. It is just worth noting that the Stupak situation is far from settled at this point.
Representative John Boccieri just announced at a press conference that he will vote "yes" on the health reform bill. This is significant, because Boccieri voted "no" back in November.
He becomes the fourth confirmed "no to yes" vote. However, there are still eight "yes to no" votes, meaning the leadership still needs at least another three Representatives who voted "no" in November. Here is the running tally:
The results in a net of five votes for "Yes to No." That means the leadership needs to pick up four more "no" votes from November to pass the bill
Hopefully, that simplifies things, and makes it easier to understand the run of play. Then again, some of these supposedly "hard yes" and "hard no" votes have flipped before, so even this count is prone to confusion.
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) is a firm "no" on health care reform -- in large measure because he opposes the idea of any kind of excise tax on Cadillac plans, even one that's delayed for years and years.
That puts the vote count at 204 in favor, and 211 opposed, with leaners. Pretty dicey on passage, to say the least, especially when you look at the 16 undecided, non-leaning votes in the count:
Additionally, I now expect Stephen Lynch to receive loads of concessions on future legislation. By voting against this bill, be becomes more powerful in future negotiations, right? So, let's track his rise to power after this vote.
1. CBO score still not out, deadline tonight. In order to pass the bill by the Easter recess, and avoid any further delays that could sink the bill, the Senate needs to take up the bill next week.
In order for the Senate to take up the reconciliation bill next week, President Obama has to sign the Senate bill into law before he leaves the country for a five day trip on Sunday.
In order for President Obama to sign the bill into law before he leaves the country, the House needs to pass the bill by Saturday night.
And, in order for the House to pass the bill by Saturday night, the CBO needs to release its score of the bill tonight, 72 hours before the House votes.
However, its Wednesday, and there is still no score. While one is expected tonight, the holdup is a pretty serious one. As Jonathan Cohn explains, the reconciliation bill might not reduce the deficit during the second decade after its enactment, which is required in order to pass the bill through reconciliation.
Hard to imagine that this is something which can be fixed in a single day, and without a public option.
2. Two "lean yes" votes move to undecided Reps Marcy Kaptur and Jason Altmire had been in the "lean yes" category of David Dayen's whip count. They don't sound like "lean yes" votes today, though.
Just now, Representative Dennis Kucinich announced he would vote yes on the Senate health bill and the reconciliation fix to that bill. Greg Sargent:
"In the past week it's become clear that the vote on the final bill will be very close," Kucinich, who voted No last time because of the lack of the public option, said at a presser moments ago, adding that he would have to vote "not on the bill as I would like to see it, but as it is."
"However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi" and others, Kucinich said, "I've decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation."
"I left it with a real sense of compassion for our president and what he's going through," he said. "We have to be compassionate towards those who are called upon to make decisions for this nation. It's not an easy burden that he's taken up.
Kucinich said Obama didn't make any promises to take up the public option later.
"What he committed to was to continue to work with me on the broad concerns that I have," he said. "He didn't make any specific commitment."
Donna Brazile flags an interesting quote from Kucinich:
"I have taken a detour in supporting this bill, but I know the destination."
Representative Dennis Kucinich is holding a press conference tomorrow at 10 a.m., eastern, to announce his vote on the health reform package. On Countdown tonight, Howard Fineman reported that Kucinich is now a "yes."
There is no guarantee this is true. But, if true, there are many implications:
Only eight away from passage. Given the three other Democrats who came out in support of the bill today (Maffei, Doyle and Kirkpatrick), the "yes" and "lean yes" totals on the package would rise to 208, only eight away from passage.
Kucinich told Obama that he wants a full ERISA waver and a public option in exchange for his vote. And if he actually gets an ERISA waver, it will be the biggest victory of the entire health care debate. As Jon Walker says, "ERISA is the 900 pound Gorilla that has fucked up America's health care system something good."
I definitely don't agree that it would be the biggest victory in the debate. After all, this is just the possibility of state single payer, not actual single-payer (and no, Pennsylvania is not close to enacting single-payer). By contrast, Bernie Sanders has scored public primary care for 22 million people. But, it would still would become another way that progressives strengthened the bill.
Does Kucinich bring anyone with him? While Kucinich is the last House Progressive holding out on the bill, and thus can't bring anymore votes with him, it is worth asking whether his support brings along any progressive activists. If Kucinich won at least one of his demands, such as the ERISA waiver, will any of the not insignificant amount of progressive activists supporting Kucinich come along with him? Or, will those activists reject Kucinich, too, because he didn't win all of his demands? (or many his demands were never enough in the first place for some).
This is certainly the most interesting vote update of the day. I wasn't going to watch before, but now Kucinich's press conference has become a must-see.
Representative Ann Kirkpatrick, who had been one of the key undecided votes, said she would vote for the health reform bills today: The Hill got her statement:
"In my first year in Congress, I have always put the needs of my district first -- that's why I stood up to the President and congressional leadership and opposed the auto and bank government bailouts, the cap-and-trade bill and billions in deficit spending. I am doing so again by voting for this reform package. Health insurance reform is critical to ending denials of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, making sure our children can get the care they need and protecting our seniors from unaffordable prescription drug costs. I will be working to improve the bill moving forward, including addressing the potential costs for AHCCCS and eliminating politics-as-usual special deals like the Cornhusker Kickback."
The most difficult potential votes remaining are the following thirteen:
John Barrow (GA-12)
Chris Carney (PA-10)
Travis Childers (MS-01)
Jerry Costello (IL-12)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Lincoln Davis (TN-04)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Jim Matheson (UT-02)
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
Zack Space (OH-18)
Harry Teague (NM-02)
Unless it can scrounge up votes form the "hard no's" and "lean no's," the leadership will need the support of seven of these thirteen to pass the bill. It isn't going to be easy:
A very conservative group. The mean Progressive Punch score for these members on crucial votes in 2009-2010 is only 38.1%, and the median is only 34.3%. Only three of these thirteen had scores over 40%, and only two had scores over 50%. No one had a score over 60%.
These thirteen members vote more like Republicans than like Democrats.
It's a good thing that Stupak amendment can't be changed in reconciliation. Given the Representatives who are still on the fence, it is pretty easy to see the House leadership just cutting a deal on Stupak to pass the bill.
New to Congress 8 of the 13 were first elected in 2004 or later. Two were first elected in 2004 (Barrow and Cuellar). Three were first elected in 2006 (Carney, Ellsworth, Space). Three were first elected in 2008 (Childers, Kirkpatrick and Teague).
While that doesn't seem like money very well spent by the DCCC, it should also be a strong point of leverage. Any groups who helped them get elected can really put the hammer down this time.
Majority voted for the health reform bill in November. 8 of the 13 voted for the health reform bill back in November. Only Barrow, Childers, Davis, Matheson and Teague did not.
This is a pretty right-wing group, but securing a majority of them it possible. The key is probably for groups that supported them in 2008, including the White House, to throw the hammer down and make this vote a pre-condition for support in 2010. They vote more like Republicans than like Democrats, but only have the benefit of being in Congress due to support from Democratic and progressive groups.