Based on this Post piece, that is.

Baucus is apparently offering $10bn over ten years in sweeteners. The GOP are asking for twice that.

They're also thinking of pressing the idea of small business healthcare purchasing pools - designed to bust state employer mandate schemes.

There's more...

The bill (HR 2) passed at 1710 ET by the score of 315 to 116: Dems voted all 233, the GOP were split more or less down the middle.

I assume it was a clean bill (THOMAS is way behind).

Which raises the question, Why, if so many GOP reps are willing to vote for a clean bill, does the Dem Senate leadership think it needs to rush to a compromise bill with tax sweeteners (Jonathan's piece)?

Are the House GOP more centrist than their Senate counterparts all of a sudden? (That wasn't the impression when they were under the DeLay lash!)

There's more...

A Hill piece tomorrow looks at the way the Senate reception for the 100 Hours legislation is shaping up.

Inevitably, the cats are proving hard to herd. Including the chief catherd himself.

On the minimum wage bill, for instance, Nancy will probably pass a nice clean bill. On the Senate side, though,

Republicans [] are seeking tax and regulatory sweeteners for businesses to ease the impact of a phased wage hike to $7.25 per hour. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has indicated that he will back the business breaks, remarking last week that a filibuster-proof margin for a stand-alone minimum wage increase may be achievable, but, "I'm not sure I want to do that."

However, the committee with jurisdiction, HELP (!), has both its chairman (Kennedy) and ranking member (Enzi) opposing adding the sweeteners!

Other 100 Hours bills are similarly set up for a magical mystery tour around the Senate labyrinth.

I sense interesting times ahead.

There's more...

The bill (HR 2) is down for floor action on January 10, under a rule (H Res 6 §508) providing that

All points of order against the bill and against its consideration are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

A classic closed rule, in fact.

The only opportunity to amend the bill will be via the motion to recommit. I've looked at this before in a couple of pieces, which have links to CRS reports and the like explaining the basics.

There's more...