National Update
There's a lot happening in Washington these days, especially off the Floors of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. Behind the scenes, lawmakers are working on food safety legislation, climate change, and yes, health care. As you know, it's my policy not to spend much time focusing on the details of committee work and the daily negotiations that occur in the U.S. Capitol complex because I'd do nothing but write National Legislative Updates if I did. So for now, be aware that there are a lot of issues that are in various stages of legislative development on Capitol. We're following them all as closely as possible, and as always, we're advocating for the unique needs of North Carolina's farm families. With that introduction, there are two main issues to talk about this week: 1) congressional work regarding two "jobs bills" and 2) a brief word about the uncertain nature of health care reform.
House & Senate Continue Work on Jobs Bills; Move Them Closer to Final Passage
One of the most confusing things about tracking federal legislation is keeping up with bills that are given generic titles. The two "jobs bills" we're about to discuss are a prime example of this problem. Although both measures have formal titles, the Democratic leadership in the Senate has labeled both of them "jobs bills" in an effort to keep things simple. The trouble is the bills contain very different provisions and cost significantly different amounts of money. Here's my best effort to describe the status of each bill as of this afternoon.
Let's start with H.R. 2847, which we'll call "Jobs Bill 1" for purposes of this update. This measure has been a regular discussion point of our National Legislative Updates for a few weeks running. It's a relatively "small" bill (the Senate version would cost $15 billion while the recently adopted House version would cost just over $17 billion) that provides for several small business expensing provisions and temporary funding for highway/transportation funding. The Senate took up the bill last week and passed it by a 70-28 vote. In accord with congressional procedures, Jobs Bill 1 then came over to the House for consideration. However, there was a snag in the process because several influential Democrats had concerns about the bill's formula for distributing transportation funds. They, of course, successfully pushed for changes to the bill, but that means that the House version and the Senate version do not match up. As a result, the two chambers must resolve their differences through a conference committee or the Senate must accept the House changes. According to what I've read, the Senate is going to simply accept the House changes to the bill and move it to the President's desk for a signature. But first, as you might imagine, the Senate must invoke cloture before it can move to a final vote. All of that is supposed to happen by Tuesday.
We turn now to H.R. 4213, the American Workers, State and Business Relief Act of 2010, or for simplicity's sake, "Jobs Bill 2." This measure is considerably larger than Jobs Bill 1 and is based on the version of the bill as it passed the House on December 9, 2009. Jobs Bill 2 contains a number of agriculture related provisions (which we'll discuss in more detail next week as a final Senate vote approaches) including an ad hoc agriculture disaster relief package, an extension of the biodiesel tax incentive and other agriculture related tax extenders. Because of these agriculture related provisions, Farm Bureau supports the bill. The Senate spent most of the week debating and rejecting various amendments to the bill. Debate is expected to resume on Monday with votes scheduled for Tuesday. If the bill passes the Senate, it will likely be sent to a House-Senate conference committee for final negotiations.
Obama Asks Congress for "Up-or-down" Vote on Health Care by Easter
On Wednesday, President Obama held a press conference at the White House where he said he wanted the House and Senate to take an "up-or-down" vote on health care reform before Congress skips town for the Easter recess. By "up-or-down" vote, the President was referring to Congress' budget reconciliation process under which legislation addressing budgetary issues may receive special treatment. Specifically, a reconciliation bill is not subject to the Senate's filibuster rules. Thus, a reconciliation bill only needs 51 votes for final passage. (Technically, most bills only need a majority vote to pass the Senate, but let's not go there today.) As you will recall, the Democrats control 59 seats in the Senate and the GOP hold 41. If every member voted according to their party affiliation, the Democrats would not be able to pass the health care bill they approved on Christmas Eve 2009.
In sum, the Democrats are using a procedural mechanism to ensure passage of their health care bill – to a point. The reconciliation process carries with it several limitations. Among them is the requirement that a bill relate to only budget issues to be eligible for protection from the 60 vote filibuster threshold. Provisions unrelated to the budget are not protected. This means that if the Democratic leaders want to use the reconciliation process, they can only get a part of what they want. However, they are developing plans to move the other parts of the bill in small pieces. It's a risky strategy because those provisions will be subject to the Senate's filibuster rule, but in the minds of the congressional Democrats they have to try something. We'll see if they're successful as the next few weeks unfold.