Jim Jordan: Boehner Will Need Dems To Pass Funding Deal

This story has been updated.

WASHINGTON -- A deal has been reached to keep the federal government running, but not all House Republicans are pleased that Speaker John Boehner compromised with Democrats on social issues that have long been sticking points for the GOP during the budget negotiations.

Boehner angered some members of his own conference by dropping riders that would have rolled back taxpayer subsidies for Planned Parenthood and the implementation of President Barack Obama's signature health care law, among other programs. Rep. Jim Jordan, who leads the conservative Republican Study Committee, told The Huffington Post that he does not think Boehner, a fellow Ohioan, will be able to pass the funding deal through the House without votes from Democrats.

Boehner would need 218 Republican votes to pass the House majority threshold, which he said earlier this week was his goal. But given the concessions in the final deal, that may be impossible.

"218 Republicans? I don't think so," Jordan said.

A number of members of the Republican Study Committee have said they will not support a bill that does not include certain policy riders, notably those that defund Planned Parenthood and health care reform. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who introduced the Planned Parenthood amendment, has said he will vote down any deal that omits it, while Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has compiled a list of fellow GOP members who would only approve a bill that stripped funds from the sweeping health care law passed last year.

In exchange for taking those policy riders off the table -- which the White House and Senate Democrats said was non-negotiable -- Boehner won promises to hold up-or-down Senate votes on a few key initiatives that Democratic leaders had previously kept from the floor, Planned Parenthood and health law defunding included.

The deal would also block the District of Columbia from using its tax revenue to fund abortion services in its short-term stopgap bill.

For some Republicans, those concessions may be enough.

"The deal for a vote is all we can ask for in a democracy," House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif) said after a GOP conference meeting in which Boehner laid out specifics of the deal.

Within the Republican Study Committee, though, Jordan predicted mixed support. A staunch opponent of abortion, he said earlier in the day the effort to defund Planned Parenthood was central to the Republican mission.

"You're going to see a significant number of Republican Study Committee members vote for the deal, and you're going to see a significant number vote against the deal," he said.

UPDATE: 1:07 a.m. -- Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), a leader of the Blue Dog Caucus whose votes were crucial to passage of a previous stopgap measure that was opposed by 54 conservative freshmen, said he thought the extension through Sept. 30 would pass with a similar mix of yes votes from conservative Democrats to make up for opposition from the most hardline fiscal hawks in the GOP.

"You're probably looking at something similar," Shuler, who said he will support the measure, told HuffPost on his way out of the House chamber after midnight.

"It's up to each individual, but I think you move forward, move on to the bigger things at hand," he added.

The vote on the six-day stopgap was an indicator on where opposition to the longer-term measure would come from, and it was not alarming to Republican leaders. The 70 votes against it came mostly from liberal Democrats, with only a few conservative Republicans voting nay: Reps. Louie Gohmert (Texas), Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Justin Amash (Mich.), Mick Mulvaney (S.C.), Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.), Joe Barton (Texas) and Jason Chaffetz (Utah).

As the vote wound down, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) sat next to one another in the chamber, talking and looking friendly and relaxed. Cantor then went and conferred with Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), standing and looking up to scour the vote board on the wall displaying how every one of the 435 members had voted on the stopgap.

Comments

[Cards423]

02:47 PM on 04/12/2011

Some Dem should be telling Boehner that from now on no cooperation from the Dems on anything until he stops opposing everything the Administration proposes.

[Political Piggy]

12:18 PM on 04/12/2011

Very mature Mr. Jordan. Glad to see the Republican Tea Party is so filled with "grown ups" who are our only hope. Maybe you could try attempting to actually govern at some point though. That'd be nice.

[nappyman]

09:42 AM on 04/11/2011

Boehner has to produce the votes. Why did we have an up to the wire negotiation if he can't even produce the votes from his own caucus. Then they negotiated with the wrong person and he did a good job for somebody with no apparent power. Pelosi should only make safe democrats vote for this and everyone else votes their district.

[Onlygodknowswhy]

08:50 AM on 04/11/2011

Look there has to be cuts.
But dont cut the richs taxs and cut grandmas medcaid

[Onlygodknowswhy]

08:44 AM on 04/11/2011

Who need sharia law when you have christian right laws.

[Onlygodknowswhy]

08:38 AM on 04/11/2011

If you take the tax.cut away we wouldnt have to raise.the debt ceiling.

[Skydave]

08:43 AM on 04/11/2011

Now that is way to much common sense for the GOP to comprehend.

[NGCBWI0912]

08:30 AM on 04/11/2011

another bunch of no-spines:

You're probably looking at something similar," Shuler, who said he will support the measure, told HuffPost on his way out of the House chamber after midnight.

[NGCBWI0912]

08:28 AM on 04/11/2011

great - dems should vote it down also and make bho get some backbone

[domicile]

07:25 AM on 04/11/2011

And where are all the jobs and such? All I've heard out of repubs since January is social issues.

[exclintonsupporter]

07:09 AM on 04/11/2011

Oh...the little boys are mad because they didn't get their way...all of the way...too bad...how sad!!!!

[JackNasty]

03:52 AM on 04/11/2011

Eliminating Bush/Obama tax cuts would reduce our deficit by a third. Eliminating the Bush/Obama wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have reduced the deficit by a quarter. The portion of the deficit due to the bad economy amounts to about the same as the wars. The remaining fraction, less than a quarter, is due to spending on recovery programs.

GOP/Obama plan for reducing spending fail to eliminating huge expenses over which we have the most control: the wars and the tax cuts.

We needs a second party.

[Travis Laird]

05:44 AM on 04/11/2011

We need a THIRD party... (But I get what you're saying... They're one in the same)

[Onlygodknowswhy]

08:40 AM on 04/11/2011

No its just that dems will take the crap because they know were not going to vote tepublican.

[JackNasty]

09:18 AM on 04/11/2011

I agree. A third party or even a fourth viable party would be nice. Snce it has become obvious that the Democrats and the Republicans were one big corporate party, I'll settle for a second party.

[katylab]

02:25 AM on 04/11/2011

I am so exasperated with the Dems helping push through the GOP agenda. With a few exceptions, the Dems are a sad and pathetic group. The two-party system must go.

[Shami Khan]

04:22 AM on 04/11/2011

There is no 2 party system. Its the corporate own vs the corporate rented.

[ChumpChicken]

08:28 AM on 04/11/2011

Agreed.

[Rational Thought Plz]

12:42 AM on 04/11/2011

I think it's crazy the way the right jumps on Boehner whenever he compromises to get something done. It reminds me of the way the left jumps on Obama whenever he compromises to get something done. I think it is even more crazy the way the right jumps on Obama as he gives them what he wants and the way the left jumps on Boehner as he irks the TP. These two guys are about as centrist as they come in politics these days. If you are on the left, remember it could be someone like Bachmann, Issa, or Cantor in the majority position and if you are the right, remember it could be someone like Pelosi, Gore, or Nader in the White House.

That said, snarky comments are way more fun.

[BeautyAmerican]

12:36 AM on 04/11/2011

I wish the repubs would clearly spell out what they intend to do, which is de-fund Title X, meaning ALL funding for family planning -- if that in fact is what their intentions are.

According to the gov't website, http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/index.html

"Over the past 40 years, Title X family planning clinics have played a critical role in ensuring access to a broad range of family planning and related preventive health services for millions of low-income or uninsured individuals and others. In addition to contraceptive services and related counseling, Title X-supported clinics provide a number of related preventive health services such as: patient education and counseling; breast and pelvic examinations; breast and cervical cancer screening according to nationally recognized standards of care; sexually transmitted disease (STD) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) prevention education, counseling, testing and referral; and pregnancy diagnosis and counseling. By law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning."

In 40 years, no such program has ever violated those terms. However, many CPC's have stepped on Roe V. Wade's toes, in violation of the Constitution. They exist solely to deter women from having abortions. (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/cpc.html) Planned Parenthood supports a woman's right to choose.

If the repubs are going to shuffle money from Family Planning to "pregnancy and counseling centers" it would violate the essence of Title X.

[hagenjr]

02:56 AM on 04/11/2011

Why do we need title X if we got HCR?

Isnt that an overlap (at least as of 2014 or before).

Do we defund it then?

[BeautyAmerican]

04:09 AM on 04/11/2011

From: http://www.cfhc.org/News/NewsViews/December10/Article4.htm

"As Healthcare Reform laws begin to take shape, a small provision that has yet to be determined lies at the forefront of family planning’s future. Since September 2010, all new health plans have been required by law to cover preventive care benefits without deductible, co-pay or coinsurance.

Unfortunately, the decision to classify family planning services as preventive care that meets this requirement has not been determined by policymakers. To clear the uncertainty, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has formed a committee of distinguished professionals that will offer a sound recommendation to the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

The main argument against the inclusion of family planning services is the idea that family planning is not disease prevention."

It may not be covered by an insurance policy without co-pays and deductibles. Co-pays and deductibles mean the difference between one who can afford contraception and one who cannot. Are you saying they should de-fund Title X even before HCR is a reality?

[hagenjr]

12:33 AM on 04/11/2011

we can not spend ourselves out of debt.

[ThankGodhesgone]

12:47 AM on 04/11/2011

Nor can we cut taxes continuously to get ourselves out of debt.

[mdsmith013]

01:14 AM on 04/11/2011

why not?

[hagenjr]

02:08 AM on 04/11/2011

try it at home, use one credit card to pay off the other. Report how well it works in a few months.

[XZackLee]

07:03 AM on 04/11/2011

Duhhhh.......

In the past it has always increased debt. Every single time. Ryan's great plan, according to the CBO, increases debt for the next 10 years compared to what we have now. So much for being responsible.