By Britt

Sep 17, 2009 3:00pm

Grassley, Frustrated with WH, Says Baucus Bill Not Bipartisan

ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf reports:
Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said today that while Chairman Max Baucus' has bipartisan elements in it, it is not a bipartisan bill. "This bill, except for five or six or seven or eight or nine or 10 — I don't know how many — things that weren't resolved has been put together with some Republican input. But to say that this is a bipartisan bill would be as intellectually dishonest as the Secretary of HHS saying on television recently that because Republicans had 86 amendments put on the HELP bill that it was a bipartisan bill." Grassley was clearly frustrated with the White House and Senate Democrats for wanting Baucus, D-Mont., to move forward with the bill without full buy-in from Republicans. "We're kind of pre-empted from doing it right by being pushed or shoved aside by the leadership and by the White House because they want to move on," Grassley said. "Particularly in light of the fact that so much of this bill doesn't go into effect until 2013. So what's another two or three weeks, if it could be done in another two or three weeks and end up with a bill that could have broad bipartisan support. " And he said the White House caused strains in the negotiations this summer by saying Grassley, R-Iowa, was not negotiating in good faith. "We've had 31 meetings of these group of six. We've had nine walk-throughs. I've had 156 meetings in my office dealing with health care, either with constituents or with other members. . . . And then to be accused of being political in the month of August when [I] didn't say anything different in Iowa than what I've been saying in Washington. That's not a very good environment to carry on a conversation," he said. Grassley danced around the fundraising letter his campaign sent to supporters in August that said he was working to defeat "Obamacare." Today, Grassley said "Obamacare" was meant in that letter to represent the "public option." Several Democrats expressed optimism about the Baucus Bill. Said Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.: "It looked good." Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., praised it as a measure that would bring "a lot of very positive transformation in the way we deliver health care." "Are there some pieces in it that I disagree with? Yes. And we're going to try to work on those," Kerry said. "I think that people ought to feel positive about what's going on here. We're going to get a bill done, one way or the other. We will make changes in it." Kerry said one of his amendments would change the formula by which insurance companies are taxed for offering the high-cost insurance plans that many believe drive up the cost of care. Many such plans are used by union members and Kerry said its important not ton pin health reform on "the workin' guy." Other amendments, he said, would tackle the affordability of insurance for the middle class. Others said it needed more work. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said, "I think it needs more than just a few tweaks."

User Comments

As long as a Democrat is writing the bill Grassley will object. That is the game Republicans are playing….they want to do nothing and just give lip service to Health Care…

Posted by: indy_voter | September 17, 2009, 3:11 pm 3:11 pm

Too Late Grassley you have been caught you have one goal and one goal only to KILL The bill

Posted by: Angie in PA | September 17, 2009, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm

how many months have we wasted on this? while rome is burning? public doesnt want this so lets move on and serve the business of the people.

Posted by: catman | September 17, 2009, 3:59 pm 3:59 pm

What? Kill a bill that 85% of Americans don’t want. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Posted by: Jeff | September 17, 2009, 4:17 pm 4:17 pm

About time this ridiculous charade ended with Grassley. He openly admitted he would never vote for reform if it did not get “significant” GOP support, no matter what he personally thought of the bill.
Somebody is scared of the Beck goons…

Posted by: matt | September 17, 2009, 4:26 pm 4:26 pm

I can’t figure the republicans out. Some of their ideas are accepted & they say it isn’t bypartisan.
I still say if they have constructive thoughts, let’s hear them. If they want to talk about death panels, etc. that is not constructive.
I’m afraid that the GOP may want the entire bill to be their way ….. hard to say I suppose (I’m giving them a small benefit of the doubt but after August & rudeness in congress I don’t have too many good thoughts about the GOP).
I suppose waiting a few (2-3) more weeks would be OK, but I tend to feel the GOP would use the time like they used the month of August. So maybe best thing is to get the bill in place & then make revisions or refinements.

Posted by: Linda | September 17, 2009, 4:53 pm 4:53 pm

Yes, wasn’t that the plan to begin with…it was to distribute all the wealth of the rich..and you know, Hollywood people have all their lawyers so they don’t get hitched (pay high taxes) so who is left, we, the middle class…so then we barely make it…Well, we can think who??? You guess!!! Tax increase by our lovely government. Thanks a lot.

Posted by: jcjude | September 17, 2009, 7:38 pm 7:38 pm

This is an emotional issue for many Americans. Obama’s health-care promises are being exposed by the details of the actual legislation, and we WILL see costs rise.

Posted by: Constant Gina | September 17, 2009, 11:47 pm 11:47 pm

Is Health Care Reform Constitutional?
The administration seems to be operating under a distorted version of the Commerce Clause that has been grossly misinterpreted over the years as allowing the feds to regulate and control just about everything. In United States vs. Lopez in 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress can only regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core. One does not go to a doctor to engage in commercial activity. The Supreme Court has specifically rejected the idea that Congress can regulate noneconomic activities simply because through a chain of collective events they might have some impact down the road.

Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | September 18, 2009, 8:56 am 8:56 am

The Administration is operating under the assumption that the Legislature of the United States of America is responsible for the drafting of laws, which then are to be submitted to the Office of The President (The Executive) for Approval. Such approved law/s are then to be enacted to govern the nation, to which the government is ultimately responsible.

Posted by: bobj72 | September 18, 2009, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm

What? Kill a bill that 85% of Americans don’t want. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Posted by: Acai | November 11, 2009, 9:06 am 9:06 am

Well, Obama’s health-care promises are being exposed by the details of the actual legislation, and we WILL see costs rise.

Posted by: Resveratrol | November 11, 2009, 9:07 am 9:07 am

I suppose waiting a few (2-3) more weeks would be OK, but I tend to feel the GOP would use the time like they used the month of August. So maybe best thing is to get the bill in place & then make revisions or refinements.

Posted by: Colon Cleanse | November 11, 2009, 9:08 am 9:08 am

I still say if they have constructive thoughts, let’s hear them. If they want to talk about death panels, etc. that is not constructive.

Posted by: Extenze | November 11, 2009, 9:10 am 9:10 am

I’m afraid that the GOP may want the entire bill to be their way ….. hard to say I suppose (I’m giving them a small benefit of the doubt but after August & rudeness in congress I don’t have too many good thoughts about the GOP).

Posted by: Teeth Whitening | November 11, 2009, 9:10 am 9:10 am

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.