Stupak Opposes Senate Abortion Compromise

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Stupak Aims To Sink Unacceptable Abortion Compromise


An aide to Rep. Bart Stupak (D. Mich.) coordinated opposition to the Senate health bill’s abortion compromise this morning with the Republican Senate leadership according to a chain of frantic emails obtained this morning by POLITICO.

Stupak, in an interview with POLITICO, called the Senate’s bill’s abortion position "unacceptable" – but disavowed his staffer’s collaboration with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“I never talked to McConnell about the health care bill,” said Stupak, adding that that “I did not authorize the email [which] “was sent without my knowledge.”

Stupak said that he has discussed the Senate’s abortion position with conservative Democratic senators Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Robert Casey (Penn.). His opposition to the senate's language, in spite of those conversations and intense pressure from the White House, could augur a challenge to the compromise in the House when the two versions of the bill are reconciled.

The Senate language represented “a dramatic shift in federal policy,” said Stupak, adding that he remained hopeful that the differences could be resolved in conference. Nelson, though, said earlier Saturday that his support for the legislation was contingent on the abortion compromise remaining in it.

The emails suggest a previously unseen degree of coordination between the offices of Stupak and McConnell.

Stupak is the leader of a group of pro-life Democrats who say they’ll oppose the sweeping legislation if it uses government money to pay for abortion, while McConnell is firmly committed to killing the legislation. The fact that their offices have made common cause against the Senates health care compromise will likely further infuriate Stupak’s Democratic colleagues in the House, and demonstrates his willingness to stop any bill that doesn’t pass his test.

“Guys - when will we see your letters of opposition to the managers amendment?? We need them ASAP!” wrote Erika Smith, the Stupak aide, at 9:23 this morning, less than an hour after the amendment had become available.

The email’s recipients included key staffers for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life, the Family Research Council, as well as Autumn Fredericks Christensen, aide to top pro-life Republican Joe Pitts, and Lanier Swann, a McConnell aide.

A minute after Smith sent out her plea, Lanier reiterated it to the list.

“Nelson is telling people in the building he will vote yes. If there was any time to weigh in against this deal —- THIS IS IT,” Swann wrote at 9:24 a.m.

An official at the National Right to Life Committee, Douglas Johnson, released a statement Saturday afternoon calling the Senate compromise “light years” away from Stupak's amendment.

“The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems,” he said.

The manager’s amendment, which emerged after hours of negotiations between Nelson and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, stops short of the total ban on health insurance plans that participate in a new exchange system offering abortion coverage. Instead, it includes a provision that allows states to prohibit abortion coverage in the exchanges.

The amendment also requires that health plans that provide abortion services separate, for accounting purposes, private premiums and federal funds, and ensure that the federal funds don't pay for abortion services, a maneuver derided in the past by anti-abortion groups as a shell game.

The compromise paved the way for a Senate vote on President Obama's top priority, but the frantic emails this morning suggest the House may remain an obstacle.

Stupak said that he was in Northern Michigan, without internet access, with the emails were sent from his office to McConnell’s. Swann “should have let me make up my own mind,” said Stupak.

A spokesman for McConnell declined to comment about the staffers’ exchange.



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, MSNBC, Google Maps

House Rejects Expanded Mortgage Help In Wall Street Reform Bill

House kills Bankruptcy Mortgage relief in Wall Street bill


The House has rejected an effort to expand a Wall Street regulation bill with mortgage relief that would let debt-ridden homeowners reduce their payments in bankruptcy court. The vote was 241-188 to reject.

The provision would have revived a previous bill that passed the House but later failed in the Senate.

Democrats hoped that by inserting the provision in the regulatory legislation they would have had another opportunity to make it law. Aiding homeowners through bankruptcy had been a key feature of President Barack Obama's foreclosure fighting proposal, but the president did not push for it.

Banks and credit unions have lobbied against the bankruptcy measure. They say it would force a flood of bankruptcy filings and ultimately drive up mortgage rates.




House approves Financial Reform bill



A little over a year after Congress bailed out the financial system, the House on Friday passed a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s financial architecture and the rules that govern it, seeking to prevent a repeat of last year’s meltdown.

Friday’s 223-to-202 vote was a major victory for the Obama administration, which has made Wall Street reform a policy and political imperative, second only to health care on its agenda. But like so much of the White House’s other legislative agenda, this too, was a partisan win, as not a single Republican voted for the bill.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) aggressively made the case for Republicans to oppose the bill, and in the end all of them did. In addition, 27 Democrats voted no. ]

The massive plan touches nearly every corner of the financial universe, from the now-opaque and largely unregulated derivatives market to consumer products like credit cards to credit rating agencies to executive compensation. It also creates a new consumer financial watchdog agency.

“The crisis from which we are still recovering was born not only of failure on Wall Street, but also in Washington,” President Barack Obama said in a statement. “We have a responsibility to learn from it, and to put in place reforms that will promote sound investment, encourage real competition and innovation, and prevent such a crisis from ever happening again.”

The legislation sends a clear message to Wall Street that “the party is over. Never again will the reckless behavior [of] a few threaten the fiscal stability of our people,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at a news conference after the final vote. The legislation, she continued, would “inject transparency and accountability into our financial system.”

The action now moves to the Senate, where the final outlines of the financial reform package remain murky. Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) introduced draft bill Nov. 10, but has since gone back to the drawing board, with key members on his committee now working in two-person bipartisan groups to tackle the thorniest issues.

Obama and congressional Democrats have put considerable emphasis on the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The provision was the object of some of the most intense lobbying of the entire package up until the very end. Hated by the financial industry and big business, the CFPA became the cause célèbre of liberals and consumer advocates.

Rep. Walt Minnick, a Blue Dog Democrat from deep-red Idaho, offered an amendment that would have stripped the new standalone watchdog out of the legislation and replace it with a council of existing regulators to deal with consumer protection laws. Democratic leadership tried to keep the amendment off the House floor. But Blue Dogs and the moderates that make up the pro-business New Democrat Coalition threatened to oppose the rule governing the bill unless that and other amendments were ruled in order.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Financial Services Roundtable and other industry groups lobbied members to support Minnick’s amendment; the Chamber – which has run a multimillion-dollar campaign against the CFPA — made it a key vote.

Democratic leadership whipped members against it, and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) took to the floor to speak against the measure, a sign of leadership’s concern that Minnick could win.

“Very frankly my friends, when you wring your hands about the cost of this referee called the consumer financial protection agency… pales into insignificance in the $1.5 trillion dollars that we have borrowed to get this country out of the deep, deep, deep hole caused by the failure to regulate properly,” Hoyer said, addressing statements from Minnick and his supporters that creating a new stand-alone agency would cost $4.6 billion – a figure Hoyer disputed.

"And it wasn’t the rich guys on Wall Street that paid that price, it was every one of our taxpayers that paid that price. So when you talk about cost, the cost of doing nothing, the cost of not having a referee on the field, skews the game so badly that the little guys, the guys who sent us here, the guys who asked us to protect them from those over which they have now power to protect, they said protect us. And that’s what this debate is about.”

In the end, Minnick’s amendment was defeated, 223 to 208, with 33 Democrats supporting it and eight Democrats not voting.

CFPA’s opponents still embraced the close vote as a sign of progress, and certainly the fate of the provision is cloudy when it comes to the more conservative Senate.

“More than 200 members supporting the Minnick amendment represents a significant victory for real consumer protection reform. It demonstrates that there is support for an alternative to new government bureaucracy, and gives us fresh momentum for an open and deliberative debate in the Senate about more effective approaches to both protect consumers and improve access to credit for our nation’s small businesses,” said Ryan McKee, senior director of the Chamber’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness.

House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who crafted much of the legislation with the Treasury and shepherded it through the House, described the package as the most significant increase of financial regulation since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. He said it was needed to deal with “the catastrophe inflicted on this country by a lack of sensible financial regulation” a year ago.

“The free market – particularly when it is in an innovative phase – works best with a clearly defined set of rules. And that’s what we’ve done,” Frank said. The legislation would “give full [rein] to the creativity of the financial community and their ability to play their role but it will limit the kind of abuses we’ve had.”

Republicans tried to send the entire bill back to committee as well as kill the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which the Obama administration just announced that it is extending through October 2010.

The motion was defeated, 232 to190.

“Today, House Democrats voted to continue TARP and go right on spending taxpayer dollars with reckless abandon,” charged House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

To many experts, the real meat of the package is the so-called dissolution authority it would grant federal regulators to put failing massive financial institutions to death without the need of taxpayer bailouts.

Administration officials have said that the absence of such authority is what forced them to seek taxpayer money to deal with firms such as Lehman Brothers or the Federal Reserve’s emergency lending powers to rescue mega-insurer AIG.

Under the bill, the fund would collect $150 billion from the largest financial institutions to pay for the cost of winding down one of their own should another crisis strike. Critics charge that taxpayers will still be on the hook since the fund may not cover the cost of another meltdown.

“There is no bailout fund,” Frank said during debate Thursday, taking on Republican charges that the bill amounts to a perpetual bailout fund. “The bailouts of AIG and Bear Stearns, not possible, illegal under this bill. If a company fails, it will be put to death. Yes, we have death panels, but they got the death panels in the wrong bill. The death panels are in this bill. We will spend money to get rid of them in ways that will minimize damage, money that will come from the financial community.”

The legislation also created a systemic risk council of existing regulators to act as the ranger atop the fire tower, keeping its eye on the entire forest rather than the individual tress as existing prudential regulators do.

The legislation also included a controversial – but wildly popular among members of Congress – measure from libertarian favorite Ron Paul (R-Texas) to greatly expand the Government Accountability Office’s power to audit the Federal Reserve.


Sources: Politico, My Fox33.com

Health Care Reform Bill Advances To The Senate

With victory in House, Health Care Reform moves to Senate


The House of Representatives passed a sweeping health care bill Saturday night with a tight vote of 220-215, making it the biggest expansion of health care coverage since Medicare was created more than 40 years ago.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act, or H.R. 3962, restricts insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition or charging higher premiums based on gender or medical history. It also provides federal subsidies to those who cannot afford it and guarantees coverage for 96 percent of Americans, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

However, turning the bill into law remains uncertain.

The bill barely squeaked by in the Democrat-controlled House, with just one Republican voting for it -- first-time lawmaker Joseph Cao who holds a seat in predominantly Democratic New Orleans.

One hundred and seventy-six Republicans opposed it, as did 39 Democrats.

The Senate must now pass its own version of the health care legislation.

Senate lawmakers are also having a hard time winning over Republicans and conservative Democrats. It is unclear when the Senate will vote on its version.

Even if it passes, lawmakers in the House and Senate will have to reconcile their respective versions into one document and vote again.

President Obama said he was "absolutely confident" the Senate will follow suit in passing its version of the bill.

"I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year," he said.

With eight seconds left in the voting period, Democrats began counting down, erupting in roars when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared, "The bill is passed."

Democrat Sheila Jackson-Lee from Texas waved a copy of the bill while her colleagues pumped their fists.

"Democrats voted for the bill and a Republican voted for the bill. That equals bipartisan," Pelosi said later.

Republican lawmakers stood silently across the floor, some with their arms folded across their chest.

"Well, it was about what I thought it would be," said House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio as he quickly exited.

Later, he issued a statement where he said the $1.2 trillion legislation would add to the country's "skyrocketing" debt. Democrats have said the bill will cut the deficit by $104 billion over 10 years.

"I came here to renew the American Dream, so my kids and their kids have the same opportunities I had," Boehner said. "I came here to fight big-government monstrosities like this bill that dim the light of freedom and diminish opportunity for future generations."

Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, released an equally tersely-worded statement.

"Nancy Pelosi and her liberal lieutenants made a lot of promises today to get the votes they desperately needed," he said. "Make no mistake -- the Democrat leadership's assurances were based on political expediency, not principle. Anyone receiving a promise from Pelosi is guaranteed to be disappointed in the end when their votes are no longer needed."

Earlier in the day, Obama met behind closed doors with Democrats to shore up support for the bill, calling it a chance of a generation.

In the run-up to the vote, Republicans and conservative Democrats joined forces to pass an amendment to the bill to prohibit federal funds for abortion services.

Its consideration was considered a big win for them and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which used its power, especially with conservative Democrats in swing congressional districts, to help force other Democratic leaders to permit a vote that most of them oppose.

The prohibition, introduced by Democratic members, including Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger.

The GOP accounted for 174 of the votes in favor of the amendment, with one Republican voting "present."

On the Democrat's side, 64 voted for the measure, and 194 voted against.

A second amendment, introduced by Boehner, would have substituted several sections of the health care bill dealing with insurance. Legislators voted against the amendment 258-176.

Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, the longest-serving member of the House, presided over the debate. Since joining the House in 1955 to replace his father, Dingell, 83, has introduced his father's health insurance bill every year since.

"The nation will be grateful to us all," he said, urging the House to pass the bill.

It did, after a lengthy contentious session. Later, the Democrats made it clear they are braced for a fight if one awaits them in the Senate.

"Today, Congressional Democrats put opponents of reform on notice: the status quo is unsustainable and inaction is not an option," said Tim Kaine, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. "This vote doesn't mark the end of this process -- we still have a ways to go -- but it is a critical milestone on the road to passing health insurance reform.

"The American people want reform -- they need reform -- and Democrats will not rest until we pass comprehensive health reform legislation."


Sources: CNN, Gov Track

Pelosi Allows Up-Down Vote On Amendment To Block Health Care Bill Abortion Funding...Wise Choice

Does Pelosi have enough votes? Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., and Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., join msnbc’s Chris Matthews to discuss the impending House vote on health care legislation

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Up-or-down vote on an amendment to block abortion funding approved


House Democratic leaders will allow an up-or-down vote on an amendment blocking any money in its healthcare overhaul from funding abortions, risking the votes of members who support abortion rights.

Anti-abortion Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) had told a bleary-eyed Rules committee panel that a deal struck earlier in the day to move forward on the issue was off.

“There was some compromise language from different proposals that we thought would be satisfactory, our understanding was that we had an agreement. Two hours later it was not an agreement,” Stupak said as the clock neared 1 a.m. Saturday.

Stupak, flanked by a bipartisan coterie of abortion opponents, argued for consideration of their amendment that explicitiy prohibits federal funding of abortions under the Democrats' healthcare bill before the Speaker's select committee.

Liberals on the committee threatened to vote against the final healthcare bill if it included Stupak’s language, warning that it would be a return to the days of back-alley abortions.

“I forsee a return to the dark ages,” said Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.). “I’m 73, I’ve seen these dark things, they use these coat hangers and die.”

Committee Vice-Chairman Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) presided over the panel while Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) hunkered down with Democratic leadership.

The three women committee members refrained from voting on the rule that was approved 6-4.

Slaughter, Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) and Chellie Pingree (Maine) were not present for the debate on Stupak's amendment.

“I used to think that life was black or white, but the older I get the most gray it becomes,” liberal Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) told the panelists.

“I find this amendment very, very uncomfortable.”

Freshman Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Pa.) responded that their amendment would not change the law on abortion.

“This doesn’t change the law at all, it’s not outlawing abortion today; a majority of abortions are paid for with cash,” she said.

But abortion-rights advocates, including the Speaker and a majority of the Democratic caucus, support a provision in the healthcare bill that would subsidize abortions for poor women who can’t afford them.

The agreement was quickly condemned by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which called the amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) a "de facto abortion ban."

"A vote for Rep. Stupak’s amendment is a vote to weaken women’s access to comprehensive reproductive care and to take away private benefits that women currently have," said Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards.

On Friday, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said passing Stupak's legislation could jeopardize passage of the bill, because abortion-rights supporters were likely to vote against a bill that includes it.


Sources: The Hill, NY Times, MSNBC, USA Today