Connect with us

Congress

Obamacare subsidy negotiations are heating up. But trust is breaking down.

Published

on

A deal to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies is looking more uncertain as Senate Republicans push to make headway Friday on ending the longest-ever government shutdown.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has promised Democrats a floor vote to prevent the enhanced subsidies from expiring at the end of the year. But Senate Democrats are splintered over how much stock to put into Thune’s commitment, given the South Dakota Republican has also said he cannot guarantee an outcome of any such vote.

Some lawmakers argue they should hold out for a concrete deal on an extension before voting to reopen the government. Others believe they could make real progress on a bipartisan framework after the government reopens, building on negotiations this fall.

Democrats are now wrestling with their options as Thune plans to force a vote Friday afternoon that would tee up consideration of a new government funding package to allow federal operations to resume. This vote is likely to fail but it presents an opportunity for some Democrats to break rank as the shutdown pain grows more severe.

At stake is a policy that Democrats argue will help millions of Americans who are set to get hit by skyrocketing premiums in 2026. It’s also putting to the test Democrats’ trust that a massively complex and politically loaded issue can be solved through old-fashioned bipartisan negotiations, with many Democrats skeptical that Republicans will ever follow through on the issue once the shutdown ends.

“This is the old days of making sure you write it into black letter law. That’s what we do when we write bills. We haven’t seen that yet,” Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), whose panel has jurisdiction over the ACA premium tax credits, told reporters Thursday.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has also been urging his colleagues to not vote to reopen the government without clear signs the subsidies would be extended, arguing that the party’s victories in elections across the country earlier this week sent a signal that voters want Democrats to keep up the fight.

“I have obviously expressed my reservations about agreeing to only a vote without a certainty of outcome,” said Murphy in an interview Thursday. “I don’t think that we should proceed without knowing that these health care premiums are not going to go up by 200 percent.”

“We’ve been talking all day today inside the caucus about what a path forward is, whether it’s negotiations that some of our colleagues have been having, or is it a different path?” Murphy added.

Those negotiations are largely being spearheaded by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Angus King (I-Maine) and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), opposite rank-and-file Senate Republicans. According to two people granted anonymity to share details of ongoing conversations, Senate Democratic negotiators have been exchanging details of proposals and white papers with their Republican counterparts.

One person pointed to these discussions as evidence of “willingness from Senate Republicans to come to the table if the government is reopened,” though the other person noted that the exchange of white paper is not necessarily a strong signal of progress being made.

A third person added that this paper-trading was paused a couple weeks ago, anyway, when Republican leaders made it known they wouldn’t seriously negotiate the terms of a framework until after the government reopens.

“We’ve made it very clear that you open up government, and then we can work on a solution that will actually stand the test of time — including one that our president could perhaps consider supporting and convincing the House to support but nothing is going to happen until we open up government,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.).

Internal differences on the policy are not Democrats’ only problem. Even if Democrats get a vote on an extension of the Obamacare subsidies in the Senate, House Speaker Mike Johnson won’t commit to putting such a bill on the House floor, saying Thursday morning that he’s not “promising anybody anything.” Johnson is facing heavy resistance from his right flank on the issue, with members of the House Freedom Caucus promising to revolt if the subsidies are extended.

Democrats also have to figure out which modifications to the credits they are willing to accept. Some proposals pushed by Republicans, like those that would put an income cap on the credits, appear palatable, while other ideas like restricting the subsidies from plans that cover abortion promise to be non-starters.

“I would call that exceedingly frustrating. There’s several unanswered questions, and that’s one of them,” said Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), when asked about Johnson’s refusal to commit to a vote, in an interview Thursday. “I understand the position that the speaker’s in politically, but that’s why President [Donald] Trump could get all this done. Because he could, if he got involved and pushed a negotiation, he could give Speaker Johnson the cover he needs to give it a vote in the House.”

The White House has, however, given congressional Republicans little to work with. Trump has so far been silent on the issue publicly, while people inside his administration are reportedly divided on whether to let the subsidies expire or extend them for the purposes of political preservation in next year’s midterms.

Besides exhorting Trump to get involved, some freshmen senators who won their seats after serving in the House are hoping that their relationships with their old GOP colleagues could spur momentum for a bipartisan proposal. Democratic Sens. Andy Kim of New Jersey and Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware invited GOP Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey to huddle Friday morning to see if they can find a way forward.

One possible idea being broached by some Senate Democrats includes having House counterparts pursue a discharge petition, a procedural maneuver allowing rank-and-file members to force a vote on legislation without the blessing of leadership. In this case, though, it’s not clear whether enough Republicans would sign onto a bill to extend the subsidies to clear the necessary 218-signature threshold to get the measure onto the floor.

“A number of us that have come out of the House recently and have relationships in the House want to have a dialogue with our House Republican counterparts to see whether there’s a way to work forward to extend the Affordable Care tax credits and find our way out of this both health crisis and government shutdown,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), one of the first-term lawmakers engaged in talks.

As for Johnson refusing to commit to a vote, Schiff said, “He’ll do whatever Donald Trump tells him to do.”

Jordain Carney and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Congress

House Democrats once again left complaining about a Senate spending deal

Published

on

For the third time in less than a year, a spending deal brokered in the Senate has House Democrats feeling left out — and grumbling about their counterparts across the Capitol.

This time, the agreement between President Donald Trump and Senate Democratic leaders would spare the vast majority of federal agencies from an extended shutdown — funding most of them through the end of the fiscal year in September while punting Homeland Security funding only through Feb. 13.

But to Democrats up in arms over Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda, that’s still 10 days of DHS funding too many — assuming the deal passes the House as planned Tuesday — leaving them to vent once again about the other chamber.

“There are some Senate Democrats who always signal nervousness and are so reluctant to be strong,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). “We end up having to answer for what they won’t do, and it can be very frustrating.”

“We are far closer to the people,” said Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), adding that it’s “critically important that House members be brought in” during negotiations over immigration enforcement constraints considering ICE, Border Patrol and other agencies are deployed in their districts.

The interchamber tensions between Democrats are becoming a regular feature of funding fights in the second Trump term. Lawmakers, strategists and voters alike exploded in anger last March when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and a handful of colleagues allowed a spending package to move forward amid the Elon Musk-led DOGE assault on federal agencies. In November, tempers again flared when a handful of Senate Democrats joined with Republicans to end a record 43-day shutdown.

This time, the situation is more nuanced. At stake is $1.2 trillion in full-year funding that was negotiated on a bipartisan basis; Democrats generally support the vast majority of the agreement. But the inclusion of the DHS money has been a sore spot — especially after the killing last month of two U.S. citizens by federal agents in Minneapolis.

A version of the DHS bill passed in the House before the Jan. 24 killing of Alex Pretti garnered only seven Democratic votes. Senate Democrats immediately declared a no-go on full-year funding for the department after the incident, and Schumer and Trump negotiated a two-week punt to allow for further talks.

Fewer than half of Senate Democratic Caucus members ultimately ended up voting for the deal, however, and support among House Democrats is considerably more scant.

Asked if House Democrats were sufficiently read in on the Trump-Schumer deal, Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar said “no” but added, “I don’t think that that’s surprising.”

“But I think the split among senators was kind of surprising,” the California lawmaker added. “And so … we’ll see what happens.”

The spending package is headed to the floor Tuesday, where it remains an open question if House Republicans will be able to unite on a key test vote. Late last week — facing dissension in his own ranks over having to pass a bill with only temporary DHS funding — Speaker Mike Johnson entertained using a bipartisan fast-track process.

But members of Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ leadership circle were caught unaware — with some downright livid — at Johnson’s confidence that he could pass the bill under that process — which would require a two-thirds-majority vote, meaning at least 70 Democrats would be needed to get it across the line.

Such a move generally requires tacit agreement from minority party leaders to supply the votes. But Republicans at that point hadn’t asked their Democratic counterparts for a more formal private count of how many Democrats might support the measure, according to three people granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

Jeffries told Johnson just hours later on a private call that Democratic leadership would not commit to delivering the required votes for a fast-track vote, forcing Johnson to gather GOP votes to jump through a procedural hurdle first. Johnson has since accused Democrats of “playing games” with the shutdown-ending package.

Those interparty antics have helped deflect attention from internal Democratic tensions over the Senate-brokered funding deal, with Jeffries playing down any such rift Monday.

“I speak regularly with Leader Schumer, and I speak regularly with Mike Johnson,” he said when asked if House Democrats were properly consulted in the funding package negotiations. “There’s no daylight between House and Senate Democrats on accomplishing the objective, which is dramatic reform of ICE.”

Jeffries opposed the prior package, with full-year DHS funding, but would not say Monday how he intended to vote on the revised bill with the short-term stopgap.

Schumer, for his part, said he spoke with Jeffries during the negotiations that erupted in the Senate following Pretti’s killing. He said after the Senate vote Friday night that Jeffries had agreed on limiting DHS funding to Feb. 13.

“This bill was negotiated by … [Senate Majority LeaderJohn] Thune and me,” Schumer said. “But I’ve talked to Hakeem Jeffries. For instance, we talked about how long a [stopgap] should be, because we wanted to limit it greatly.”

Asked about Schumer’s comment Monday, Jeffries said, “I think what we made clear to the Senate is that the original three-month proposal was completely and totally unacceptable.”

Behind the scenes, Schumer told the White House and congressional Republicans last week that they would need to talk to Jeffries because the bill was going back to the House, according to a person granted anonymity to disclose a private conversation.

If Republicans can get the bill over the procedural hurdle Tuesday, more Democrats are expected to support it than the seven who backed the previous version. But the party remained sharply divided Monday.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Appropriations Committee Democrat, said Monday she would support the bill on the floor, while another panel leader, Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern of the Rules Committee, said he would oppose it.

“I will not vote for business as usual while masked agents break into people’s homes without a judicial warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment,” McGovern said.

Others declined to forecast their plans, including members of the Democratic leadership team. Rep. Ted Lieu of California, the caucus vice chair, said he planned to attend Tuesday morning’s caucus meeting before deciding.

Several Democrats said they do not expect party leaders to formally whip votes for or against the funding package, with some acknowledging that it would not be an easy decision for members who support the vast majority of the funding bill and also don’t want to see noncontroversial DHS agencies such as FEMA and TSA shut down.

And blaming the Senate for having to take a tough note, one Democrat noted, is hardly new.

“I’ve been here long enough that people always complain about the other chamber, so that’s always an easy out,” Aguilar said.

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Congress

House Republicans eye next week for housing bill vote

Published

on

House leadership is eyeing the week of Feb. 9 for a vote on a bipartisan housing package, according to four people with direct knowledge of the planning.

Senior lawmakers have also been mulling whether to consider the widely supported bill under suspension of House rules, which would expedite passage of the legislation, said three of the people who were granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

However, plans for the bill are not locked in and could be subject to change as the House deals with a partial government shutdown.

The Housing in the 21st Century Act, which overwhelmingly advanced through the House Financial Services Committee in December, is part of a push by Congress to pass legislation that could address a growing housing affordability crisis. The bill includes 25 provisions that aim to increase the housing supply, modernize local development and rural housing programs, expand manufactured and affordable housing, protect borrowers and those utilizing federal housing programs, and enhance oversight of housing providers.

House Financial Services Chair French Hill (R-Ark.) said Friday that he’s pushing for the Housing for the 21st Century Act to receive a floor vote expeditiously.

”I hope that that bill can come to the House floor in just a few days. I really am pushing for that, I think it’s the right decision,” Hill said on Bloomberg Radio.

The Senate’s housing bill, the ROAD to Housing Act, passed the upper chamber as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act but may be put to a separate floor vote. If the House is able to pass its own version by a wide margin before the Senate, it could have additional leverage for negotiations with the upper chamber for a final bill. Hill and other House Republicans have said the Senate bill, which received overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate Banking Committee, has a number of provisions that would not be acceptable among House GOP members.

Continue Reading

Congress

Bill and Hillary Clinton now agree to testify before Congress

Published

on

Bill and Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as part of the panel’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, an Oversight aide said Monday evening.

It’s a remarkable reversal for the former president and secretary of state, who were adamant they would defy committee-issued subpoenas and risk imprisonment by the Trump Justice Department as the House prepared to vote Wednesday to hold them both in contempt of Congress.

After both skipped their scheduled depositions earlier this year, the Oversight Committee voted on a bipartisan basis in January to approve contempt measures for each of them.

Although both have said they had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, they have maintained that the subpoenas were not tied to a legitimate legislative purpose, rendering them invalid. They also complained the GOP-led exercise was designed to embarrass and put them in jail.

It is not immediately clear when they will appear and if the House will continue to pursue the contempt votes.

Continue Reading

Trending