House Moderates Say They Won't Back Budget Vote Until Infrastructure Bill Passes
Source: New York Times
WASHINGTON Nine moderate House Democrats intend to tell Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday that they will not vote for a budget resolution meant to pave the way for the passage of a $3.5 trillion social policy package later this year until a Senate-approved infrastructure bill passes the House and is signed into law. The pledge, in a letter expected to be released on Friday, is a major rift that threatens the carefully choreographed, two-track effort by congressional Democrats and the Biden administration to enact both a trillion-dollar, bipartisan infrastructure deal and an even more ambitious but partisan social policy measure.
The nine House members are more than enough to block consideration of the budget blueprint in a House where Democrats hold a three-seat majority. The Senate passed the infrastructure bill on Tuesday with 69 votes, including 19 Republicans. It then approved, on a party-line vote early Wednesday, a $3.5 trillion budget resolution that, if passed by the House, would allow Democrats in both chambers to assemble the social policy bill this fall without fear of a Republican filibuster in the Senate. To assuage liberal Democrats more interested in the social policy bill, Ms. Pelosi promised that she would not bring the infrastructure bill to a vote in the House until the Senate passed the social policy bill.
That might not happen until well into the fall, if ever, given the 50-to-50 partisan split in the Senate. And moderate House Democrats say delaying a vote on infrastructure runs the risk of unforeseen events derailing it. With the livelihoods of hardworking American families at stake, we simply cant afford months of unnecessary delays and risk squandering this one-in-a-century, bipartisan infrastructure package, reads the letter, which was obtained by The New York Times and has Representative Josh Gottheimer, Democrat of New Jersey, as its lead author. Its time to get shovels in the ground and people to work.
Further complicating the situation, more than half of the nearly 100-strong Congressional Progressive Caucus has taken the opposite position, saying they will not vote for the infrastructure bill until they have a social policy measure funding their priorities: climate change, education, health care, family leave, child care and elder care.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/us/politics/house-democrats-budget-infrastructure.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)BumRushDaShow
(127,302 posts)The moderates need a decent set of "talking points" to have for their swing district constituents.
I posted about that a couple days ago - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2783362
It's the reconciliation bill that will be a problem in the House due to the Problem-Solvers Caucus vs the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
The Manchin/Sinema thing in the Senate is going to be its own side-show, and really, it won't just be them. There are a number of (D) "moderates" in the Senate who will probably start balking, like Chris Coons & compatriot Tom Carper, or Jean Shaheen & compatriot Maggie Hassan.
It will be a slog and we will hear endless nonsense from the media about "the bill", "the bill", "the bill" as if each iteration were the "final one", just lie they did with the ACA.
And don't forget, because the fiscal year DOES end September 30, and although the House sent over a big pile of appropriations bills to fund the government for FY2022 right before they went on break, the Senate has done nothing with those yet.
So someone needs to pass a C.R. to get through some portion of the new FY or there will be a government shutdown come September 30.
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)in their thinking. The 3.5 trillion dollar bill is popular with the American people. IMO if this bill is defeated or gets watered way down it will hurt Democrats in swing districts. JMO.
BumRushDaShow
(127,302 posts)We have to convince them, aside from saying "it's popular with the American people" as an answer, WHAT is in it that will benefit their constituents AND how it will be paid for (the latter probably being their biggest issue with it).
Supposedly the reconciliation reports are to be "revenue neutral" (meaning they are not supposed to be adding on tons of spending without funding that isn't offset). I know there have been calls to move some of the COVID money around and that might end up being done.
But unless they are able to roll in a "revenue" reconciliation into this one (which they can do as that is one of the reconciliation "types" that can be done separately or combined with either or both of the other 2 types - i.e., to go ahead and repeal the tax cuts for the rich nonsense and replace it with something more reasonable to get the funding needed), then something has to change.
Elessar Zappa
(13,650 posts)well still end up with a very significant bill (biggest since at least the 60s, possibly the 30s). It will be a huge achievement for Biden and the Dems.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Walleye
(30,721 posts)gab13by13
(20,864 posts)9 moderate House members are bucking Speaker Pelosi's plans.
BumRushDaShow
(127,302 posts)to work out something with the reconciliation package in the Senate before it gets back to the House. They can't lose more than 7 on either side of the spectrum.
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)these 9 moderates are bucking her plan.
Consider this, I have a month ago, so if the 1 trillion dollar infrastructure bill gets passed but the 3.5 trillion dollar bill does not pass, what will happen? The GQP will declare victory. They will claim they voted for repairing roads and bridges but beat back money for Socialism. I guarantee that is what will happen and those moderate Democrats in swing districts will have just sawed off the branch they are sitting on.
BumRushDaShow
(127,302 posts)By Tony Romm - 09/16/09 05:45 PM EDT
A House Democrat on Wednesday insisted he has the votes to kill the House's healthcare bill unless lawmakers agree to an amendment that would strip all abortion funding from the proposal. At issue for Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who is spearheading the movement, is an amendment attached to HR 3200 introduced months ago by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.).
According to Capps, the amendment prohibits federal funding of abortions, with one exception: "The only funds that may be used to pay for other abortion services are from private funds generated by the policyholders' premiums, whether the policyholder is covered by a private plan or the public option," she told The Hill.
But that effort was not enough for Stupak, the co-chairman of the chamber's Pro-Life Caucus. Speaking with Fox News on Wednesday, the Democrat criticized his House colleagues and the Obama administration for not fully committing to a rule banning abortion funding from healthcare reform. He also reiterated his threat from earlier this month to spike the bill unless lawmakers add the Hyde amendment to it -- a rule that would altogether prohibit federal funding of abortion and include no related provision about funding from premiums.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/59045-stupak-threatens-to-block-house-healthcare-bill
He had 17 Democrats who were ready to torpedo the Patient Protection Act (the reconciliation piece) without Stupak's amendment.
A "compromise" amendment was then added, along with an E.O., and that was finally deemed enough to satisfy the opposition -
In addition, President Barack Obama agreed to issue an executive order intended to ensure no federal funds were used for abortions.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/03/21/595191785/clash-over-abortion-hobbles-a-health-bill-again-here-s-how
This is all part and parcel of the "sausage-making" of critical legislation - particularly the bold and sweeping types.
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)losing his primary and then winning as an Independent. I remember Joe Lieberman killing the public option to Obamacare. That was sausage making too. Why doesn't the GQP ever have to make sausage?
BumRushDaShow
(127,302 posts)It was pompous Max Baucus. HE was the one who actually did the "killing" because it fell under HIS committee (none of Lieberman's Committees had jurisdiction for the PPA-ACA). He just pranced around in the media to "object". And he was joined by Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson as well - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mary-landrieu-opposed-to_n_213211
This go-around, Bernie Sanders is in charge of that Committee (literally like day and night ).
FBaggins
(26,696 posts)Im not sure we can lose more than three.
BumRushDaShow
(127,302 posts)so I don't think the vacancies will factor in to that extreme at the moment. With the 3 vacancies, the break-out is 220 (D) to 212 (R).
There are 2 (D) vacancies - one (OH-11 - Fudge's seat), which won't have its general special election until November 2nd and the other (FL-20 - Hastings' seat) won't happen until January, thanks to jackass DeathSantis pushing it as late as he could). The other seat is an (R) whose special election will be November 2nd.
ETA - there were a couple swing state (R)s who voted for the House's Infrastructure bill (INVEST in America Act - https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021208) so it's possible that a couple (R)s may do the same.
question everything
(47,265 posts)From the story
That sentiment may go beyond the nine. Other more moderate Democrats, who declined to sign, have also said they very much want an immediate vote on the infrastructure bill.
Mike Nelson
(9,903 posts)... we should learn their names:
Carolyn Bourdeaux (GA)
Ed Case (HI)
Jared Golden (ME)
Vincente Gonzalez (TX)
Jim Costa (CA)
Henry Cuellar (TX)
Josh Gottheimer (NJ)
Kurt Schrader (OR)
Filemon Vela (TX)
... Dems want both bills passed. That's what I thought... I don't think it mattered if one passed on Monday and the other on Friday. These Dems must know something I don't understand... it it better to not pass these bills? I'm not seeing that at all... maybe these nine are saving us from doom?
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)BumRushDaShow
(127,302 posts)Just one bill has passed the House - the Infrastructure bill, i.e., H.R. 3684 - the INVEST in America Act. The Senate did their thing to it (where a couple hundred billion was removed but kept the renewals of previous infrastructure program spending that was set to expire September 30, to bring the total up to about $1.2 trillion vs the original $1.5 trillion).
Meanwhile, the House Leadership worked with the Senate Leadership to unveil the "blueprint" for what the Senate would be working on (spearheaded by Bernie Sanders) - https://www.rollcall.com/2021/08/09/democrats-unveil-blueprint-for-3-5t-budget-reconciliation-bill/
This is where Joint negotiations need to happen between chambers to get one bill that can pass the Senate (and it will, by nature of the House being required to "originate" money bills, piggy back on some previously-passed/related House bill), and move back to the House for final passage.
gab13by13
(20,864 posts)but the point still stands that these 9 moderates threw a monkey wrench in Speaker Pelosi's plans. If she caters to the moderates then the progressives will revolt. It is entirely possible that we end up with no bill passed. Spiking the football when at the 50 yard line may not have been a good idea.
I trust in Speaker Pelosi to work this out, however. Those 9 people just made it a lot harder.
ripcord
(5,084 posts)It is getting to the point where democrats expect lawmakers to vote in lockstep as dictated by the Party and anyone who doesn't is a traitor.
BumRushDaShow
(127,302 posts)You should have been here on DU in 2009 and 2010 when the same thing was happening, although this go-around it has been much smoother - even given the fact that we don't have the majorities that we did in Congress like we did back then.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,367 posts)Because Manchin and Sinema can kill it in the Senate before it reaches the house, or ensure it is watered down enough that Manchins coal mine wont lose a penny in profit and the impact on climate change will be minimal.
Pelosi isnt playing, and these 9 moderates should prepare to lose their committee assignments and join the MTG club, as well as face primaries from Dems who will support Bidens agenda.
Sucha NastyWoman
(2,725 posts)He needs a primary opponent
no_hypocrisy
(45,772 posts)He thinks he's Co-Speaker.
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)hmmm
aocommunalpunch
(4,223 posts)So much for perfect being the enemy of the good. Only when it's hippie-punching time.
Demsrule86
(68,348 posts)because of GOP tricks. Thus, they want this bill now and no matter what, we have something important which helps them hold onto their seats. As for punching hippies, power is won at the ballot box.
question everything
(47,265 posts)oldsoftie
(12,410 posts)This is the kind of crap that posses people off. You HAVE a much needed bill waiting on a House vote to go to the President, who also wants it
Quit screwing around with OTHER bills and VOTE.
BumRushDaShow
(127,302 posts)that if they go ahead and pass the Senate's infrastructure bill now, then they are afraid the Senate won't complete the other piece (which would basically be the "fix" for the infrastructure bill's funding plus include the "Human Infrastructure" part onto it via reconciliation), and would instead move on to something else.
So conceivably what they can do is have the Senate finish the reconciliation package and at least schedule a vote on it BEFORE the end of the FY (and that would probably include a vote-a-thon of amendments), and then have the House pass the infrastructure bill to finish that off.
But assuming the reconciliation did pass the Senate by then, it still won't be able to be voted on by the House until after FY2021 is done (would have to wait for final House passage in FY2022 which starts October 1st).
Fiendish Thingy
(15,367 posts)If that happens, your scenario wouldnt be possible, because the house wouldnt even be able to draft their version of the bill and add amendments.
BumRushDaShow
(127,302 posts)I.e., I posted this -
I posted about that a couple days ago - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2783362
The Senate's Infrastructure bill passing in the House is not the problem - that is a done deal and may even be signed by or on Labor Day as a nice touch.
It's the reconciliation bill that will be a problem in the House due to the Problem-Solvers Caucus vs the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
The Manchin/Sinema thing in the Senate is going to be its own side-show, and really, it won't just be them. There are a number of (D) "moderates" in the Senate who will probably start balking, like Chris Coons & compatriot Tom Carper, or Jean Shaheen & compatriot Maggie Hassan.
It will be a slog and we will hear endless nonsense from the media about "the bill", "the bill", "the bill" as if each iteration were the "final one", just lie they did with the ACA.
And don't forget, because the fiscal year DOES end September 30, and although the House sent over a big pile of appropriations bills to fund the government for FY2022 right before they went on break, the Senate has done nothing with those yet.
So someone needs to pass a C.R. to get through some portion of the new FY or there will be a government shutdown come September 30.
The above was in response to a different post in another OP earlier in the week.
They want a seat at the table and want to be "in the room where it happens".
It's sausage-making time and this guy is going to be controlling the ebb and flow just like Baucus did 10 years ago.
ETA - what also happens in these scenarios is that once the Senate does its vote-a-thon (with some behind-the-scenes consultation with the House) is have the Rules Committee in the House pass a Rule where they can't add amendments and/or if something came to them that was really really missing something both chambers wanted, they could include the Senate bill in toto, and then append it with the House amendment, and then pass that "as a substitute" and send it back to the Senate to pass (which it would if they had agreed they forgot something or was agreeable to the House amendment).
Otherwise, the bill goes over from the Senate with a Rule for an up or down vote only (with the corresponding debate periods still allowed).
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,029 posts)BumRushDaShow
(127,302 posts)And many of the seats lost in 2020 were swing "moderates", with the seats going back to (R).
Most legislation requires "negotiations". Probably 90+% of it never makes the news. It's only when you have these large "policy" or "financial" packages, and/or when the government is about to shut down because there were no appropriations bills passed, where the "average person" suddenly hears about what they are doing above the usual "noise" of Congressional operations.
What is "broken" is the media characterization of much of these types of negotiations and also the fault of those who seek out the media to "game the system" to promote the arguments for "their side" (which is common).
You see it with Unions "negotiating contracts in the media", prompting the management in the industries or governments that rank and file employees work in, to respond in kind.
greenjar_01
(6,477 posts)Oh, New York Times. You never change.
BumRushDaShow
(127,302 posts)"Human Infrastructure".
I agree 1000% with the need for it and does go part and parcel with what is needed to fix what was broken since Raygun and what was trashed by TFG the past 4 years, resulting in an avoidable toll from a nasty pandemic, with over 600,000 deaths here in the U.S., coupled with a severe recession.
This package is basically the WPA and New Deal on steroids!
yaesu
(8,020 posts)Demsrule86
(68,348 posts)They need the bipartisan bill at least to pass for 22. I dont blame them. Reconciliation can't happen until the fall. My guess is it will pass but, the amount will be less.
yaesu
(8,020 posts)Calista241
(5,584 posts)Pelosi wants a bill passed, and the progressives have stated they won't support it unless both bills pass. That's how she came up with the both at once strategy. Biden would sign anything that came to his desk, especially the bill that has passed the Senate.
60 days is a long time in Washington, and some crazy shit happens there. And I can easily see the reconciliation bill being haggled downwards until someone finds it unacceptable.
Several Dems have already started throwing around the 'inflation' word (and the Repubs haven't even gotten started on their marketing campaigns yet), and there's at least one, and probably 2 more inflation reports that will come out before there's any vote on legislation. If those reports are anything like the report that came out this week, there won't be a reconciliation bill, and there might not be the bi-partisan bill.
Someone in power will decide that it's too risky to wait, and we may see a truly bi-partisan bill pass the House, where the Repubs serve up enough vote to ensure passage while portions of both parties vote against it (in exchange for not supporting the reconciliation bill of course).
I don't think there's any chance the bipartisan bill just sits in limbo for 60 days and still passes. The progressives, at that point, will have to decide if they want to shoot down a bill that can pass, just for spite because their preferred bill didn't pass.
yaesu
(8,020 posts)I understand their concerns, I just heard a live call in With very progressive Rep Ro Khanna and he was not at all happy with these Dems so figured he should know.
Calista241
(5,584 posts)kinda tells me the reconciliation bill isn't going to happen. Reconciliation bills usually have to be put together at the last minute and passed before people really think about them, and before the opposition can gear up to fight it.
60 days is a long time, and there's going to be some crazy shit in there that people are going to find out about and have to defend. If there's anything questionable like some of the crap in the green new deal proposals, the bill is going to sink.
Especially if there's any economic pressure from inflation.
Deminpenn
(15,246 posts)The 3.5T bill hasn't even been written yet. That's what the House is returning to do on Aug 23rd. I'm sure the "centrists" will have input.
BumRushDaShow
(127,302 posts)Dartunorro Clark and Haley Talbot
Tue, August 10, 2021, 7:29 PM
House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday that the House could cut its recess short and return in about two weeks to take up the sweeping $550 billion infrastructure bill that passed the Senate. "For your scheduling purposes, assuming that the Senate does, in fact, complete work on a budget resolution, the House will return to session on the evening of August 23 to consider that budget resolution and will remain in session until our business for the week is concluded," Hoyer, of Maryland, the House majority leader, said in a statement to colleagues.
House members had been scheduled to return Sept. 20. After clearing several procedural hurdles, the Senate infrastructure package passed 69-30 on Tuesday, with 19 Republicans joining all Democratic-voting senators. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has signaled that the bill will not get a House vote until the Senate passes a separate multitrillion-dollar package of safety net measures.
"The House will continue to work with the Senate to ensure that our priorities For The People are included in the final infrastructure and reconciliation packages, in a way that is resilient and will Build Back Better," she said in a statement.
However, Democrats have a slim majority in the House, and Pelosi may face resistance from progressive members, who want both measures to pass in tandem with a number of Democratic priorities included, and moderate members of the caucus concerned about the price tag of the budget reconciliation package.
https://www.yahoo.com/now/house-expected-return-early-august-232911768.html
And I also know that since bill #2 a reconciliation bill, it can't be passed (in full) until AFTER September 30.
Bernie Sanders is spearheading as a lead (like Max Baucus did the PPA-ACA a decade ago) in the Senate, as the relevant Committees in both chambers work out the details and try to come up with a SINGLE bill (most likely in the end, via a "Joint Conference" ) that both will eventually vote on (Senate first, using some previously-passed House bill as a vehicle, and then the House 2nd).
The Senate did agree on proceeding with a "framework" for it, so what has to happen now is filling in all the details.