Loniel Greene resigns from Metro Council


Top Stories
A right-leaning disgruntled Republican comments on the news of the day and any other thing he damn-well pleases.
This bill establishes a scholarship program for eligible students to attend participating private K-12 schools. An "eligible student" is a student who:
(1) Resides in Tennessee and is zoned to attend or enrolled in a public school that, at the time of the student's initial application for a scholarship, is identified as being in the bottom five percent of schools in overall achievement;
(2) Meets the minimum age requirements to attend kindergarten with eligibility extending until the student graduates from high school, except that the student must be less than 22 years of age by August 15 of each year;
(3) Is a member of a household whose annual income during the year prior to initial receipt of a scholarship met the requirements for free or reduced price lunch; and
(4) Was previously enrolled in a Tennessee public school during the two semesters immediately preceding the semester in which the student receives a scholarship under this bill; is enrolling in a Tennessee school for the first time; or received a scholarship pursuant to this bill in the previous school year.
In order to participate in the scholarship program, the private school must:
(1) Be identified as a category I, II, or III school and comply with all health and safety laws or codes that are applicable to such schools;
(2) Annually administer to scholarship students state assessments or nationally recognized tests approved by the state board of education that measure educational progress and provide the parents of scholarship students with the results of the assessments;
(3) Provide the department of education with graduation rates of scholarship students as well as other student information as required by the department;
(4) Comply with federal nondiscrimination policies and not discriminate against students with special education needs who meet the requirements for admission to the school. However, as a private school, the school is required to offer only those services it already provides to assist students with special needs. If a scholarship student would have been entitled to receive special education services in the public school the student would otherwise be attending, then the parent must acknowledge in writing, as part of the enrollment process, that the parent agrees to accept only services that have been identified as available to the student in the nonpublic school. A participating school may partner with an LEA to provide special education services;
(5) Accept the scholarship amount as payment in full for the cost of tuition and fees that would otherwise be charged by the school and allow scholarship students to remain enrolled in the school for the duration of the school year at no additional cost if the school withdraws from the program during the school year;
(6) Submit to the department a financial audit of the school conducted by a certified public accountant;
(7) Demonstrate financial viability to repay any funds that may be owed to the state by filing with the department financial information verifying the school has the ability to pay an amount equal to the amount of the scholarships expected to be paid during the school year. The school may comply with this requirement by filing a surety bond payable to the state;
(8) Require any person applying for a position as a teacher, or any other position requiring close proximity to children, to submit to a criminal background check;
(9) Provide lunch to scholarship students at no cost or at a reduced cost pursuant to the same income qualifications established under the National School Lunch Program; and
(10) Comply with rules prohibiting the employment of individuals who advocate to overthrow the American government or who are members of a political party subscribing to a political faith that advocates doing so.
After initial approval by the department as a participating school, a school may continue to participate in the program as long as the school demonstrates achievement growth for scholarship students at a minimum level of "at expectations." If a participating school demonstrates achievement growth for scholarship students at a level of "significantly below expectations" for two consecutive years or the department determines the school has failed to comply with this bill, then the commissioner of education may suspend or terminate a school's participation in the program. If a participating school is suspended or terminated from the program, or if the school otherwise withdraws from the program, scholarship students enrolled at the school may transfer to another participating school without loss of eligibility and such students would be given preference for enrollment.
An eligible student will be entitled to one scholarship per school year. If a student voluntarily leaves a participating school for reasons other than the suspension or termination of the school's participation in the program and enrolls in another participating school, neither the student nor the successor participating school will receive any funds under this bill for the remainder of the school year. If the student enrolls in the LEA in which the student resides and is zoned to attend, the LEA will receive the funds that otherwise would have been remitted to the participating school on behalf of the student.
Except as mentioned above regarding LEAs that adopt different guidelines, the annual amount of the scholarship will be the lesser of the following:
(1) The cost of tuition and fees that would otherwise be charged by the school; or
(2) The amount representing the per-pupil state and local funds generated and required through the BEP for the LEA in which the student resides and is zoned to attend.
The scholarship funds will be subtracted from the state funds otherwise payable to the LEA and will be paid directly to the participating school. If the participating school's cost of tuition and fees is less than the scholarship amount, the remaining funds will be retained by the department and the LEA in which the scholarship recipient resides.
The amount of scholarship awarded to a student will not be treated as income or assets for the purposes of any tax or qualification for any other federal or state grant program.
The total number of scholarships awarded statewide under this bill will be limited as follows:
(1) For the 2015-2016 school year, the department may not award more than 5,000 scholarships;
(2) For the 2016-2017 school year, the department may not award more than 7,500 scholarships;
(3) For the 2017-2018 school year, the department may not award more than 10,000 scholarships; and
(4) For the 2018-2019 school year and thereafter, the department may not award more than 20,000 scholarships.
This bill requires the department to develop procedures to allocate scholarships among participating schools if the number of available seats exceeds the above limitations. If the number of eligible students applying for scholarships at a particular school in a particular grade exceeds the number of scholarships awarded, the department must inform parents of eligible students of all available scholarship options and provide an opportunity for parents to apply to other participating schools. If, after all possible matches of eligible students with participating schools have been made, there are scholarships still available, the remaining scholarships will be awarded to eligible students who reside in an LEA that contains at least one school in the bottom five percent of schools in overall achievement as determined by the performance standards and other criteria set by the state board.
This bill requires the department to develop procedures necessary for administering the program, and specifies in detail requirements for the department in administering the program.
BAEO - This week marks National School
Choice Week (NSCW) when a diverse coalition of education reform
organizations join forces to shine a spotlight on high-quality education
options
for children across the country. As a compliment to the occasion, we
are happy to announce the release of our national report on The State of Education in Black America 2015.
Make no mistake, this is not an endorsement of Will Pinkston for School Board. I am supporting Jackson Miller. I am posting this simply because some may find it interesting, especially they may find interesting those who are "Friends of Pinkson." I support school reform and school choice and Will Pinkston has stood in the way of reform. He is among those who want to continue doing things the way we have always done them and opposes public charter schools at every opportunity.
Among the Friends of Pinkston, I am not surprised to see many of the Democrat Party establishment and court house crowd. I am not surprised by Amy Frogge who is his close ally on the School Board nor by some of Nashville's most liberal politicians such as Bill Freeman or Councilman Fabian Bedne or Vice Mayor David Briley. I am disappointed to see Republicans such as Davette Blalock and Robert Duvall supporting Will Pinkston. I have highlighted a few of the names that jumped out at me.
From Tony Roberts:
![]() |
Rep. Glen Casada |
In the area of health care, there are two issues I'm working to address.
Senator Mark Green
Unanimously passing Tennessee's Senate Commerce Committee last week, my bill to reform our state's Medicaid program - a federally-mandated program for which our state has a waiver - or TennCare.The Tennessean summed this legislation up in that it would "radically alter how health insurance is delivered to Tennessee's Medicaid (TennCare) recipients" and addresses the working poor that would have been covered by the expansion through the Affordable Care Act.Simply, Senate Joint Resolution 88 allows patients in our state's health care program for the indigent and poor to participate in flexible savings accounts that reward healthy behavior and choices while incentivizing selective consumer choices and price-shopping. In essence, the proposal makes the system patient-centric and not "3rd-party payer-centric." This will create competition and reduce prices in an open-market environment.
In the TN Senate Commerce Committee, I requested that Commissioner of Insurance and Commerce, Julie McPeak, appear to provide an explanation for the double-digit increases in premiums by individual health-insurance plan holders.From Commissioner McPeak's presentation it was clear that the consequences of Obamacare continue to cost hard-working Tennesseans. As healthy individuals left the healthcare exchange, prices covering the sicker patients have skyrocketed. The point was obvious, prior to Obamacare, Tennessee had a competitive market that drove the price of insurance down. In the wake of Obamacare, competition is gone and Tennesseans are paying the price.
![]() |
Alan Coverstone |
Cruzville Presidential Debate Watch Party,
Thursday, January 28 at 7 PM
Carrabba's Italian Grill- Nashville/Green Hills in Nashville, Tennessee.
Cheer on Ted Cruz with fellow supporters at the Cruzville GOP Presidential Debate Watch Party. Everyone Welcome! For more information, email: Aaron R. Snodderly at cruzcrewaaron@yahoo.com or Karen Moore at cruzcrewkaren@gmail.com .
Facebook link.
Saturday, January 30, 2016
2:00 PM
Are you religious? Where does religion leave off and culture begin? Is
this relevant to politics or government? Where does separation of church
and state come from? Is religion antilogical, and antithetical to
government? How does religion affect for...Learn more
Above is the Council meeting video from this past Tuesday January 19th. I normally try to post it the next day following the meeting but other things took priority this week so I am just now getting to it. Normally the announcement section of the meeting and the actual meeting are two separate videos but this time they are combined in this one. The actual meeting starts at timestamp 22:12.
For a link to the Council agenda, staff analysis and my commentary on the agenda, follow this link.
There are no surprises in this meeting and no drama. There is not much point in actually watching the meeting. Here are the highlights.
![]() |
Josh Stites |
The Fair/Codes/Farmers Market Committee of the Metro Council will be hosting a meeting to hear from the public concerning the future of the Fairgrounds. This meeting will be held in at the Fairgrounds in Wilson Hall on Tuesday, January 26th from 6 p.m. to 8:15 p.m. "There will be an open discussion and the meeting will end at promptly 8:15," according to an announcement.
Liberty on the Rocks, Thursday, January 21, 2016, 5:30 PM/ Mafiaoza's 2400 12th Ave S Nashville, TN 37204. For more info, follow this link.
The Council agenda for 1-19-2016 is available at this link.
The staff analysis is not yet available so I am providing my analysis
without benefit of the staff analysis, so you may want to check back for
an update or seek out the staff analysis for yourself at this link. The staff analysis is now available but I have not read it.
Appointments to Boards and Commissions. There
are ten mayoral appointments on the agenda for Council confirmation. As
is usual, I expect all to be confirmed without debate. The most notable
of these appointments is that of former mayoral candidate, Democrat
Party fund raiser, and local business tycoon Bill Freeman to the
Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority. I think this is a good
appointment. The Metropolitan Airport Authority is undergoing its first
major management restructuring in 28 years and it recently received a
scathing evaluation from a consultant hired to evaluate the
organization. The $119 million-per-year organization that
oversees Nashville International Airport was criticized for being
"paternalistic, dictatorial and centralized.” To read the Tennessean's report on the issues surrounding the Airport Authority follow this link.
Someone of the high profile and business credentials of Bill Freeman on
the board of the Airport Authority can restore confidence that needed
changes will take place at the Airport.
Resolutions:
There are 15 resolutions on the agenda. At this time they are all on
"consent," meaning they are deemed non-controversial and will be all
lumped together and pass by a single vote instead of being considered
separately. A resolution will be moved off of consent and considered
separately unless it receives a unanimous positive vote from the
committee to which it was assigned. Any member from the floor may ask
for an item to be taken off of consent or any member may request his
dissenting vote or abstention be recorded. Below are the resolutions of
interest:
RESOLUTION NO. RS2015-76 is "A resolution requesting the Metropolitan Board of Fair Commissioners to reinstate and continue to allow gun shows on Fairgrounds property and to otherwise comply with Section 11.602 of the Metropolitan Charter."
On Tuesday December 1, 2015 the Fair Board voted to discontinue gun shows at the fair grounds after the pending gun show of the December 4th and 5th weekend. The Fair Board was supposedly going to develop new guidelines to improve safety at the Fairgrounds and then would reconsider allowing gun shows if exhibitors would agree to the new rules. No one really believed the Fair Board would ever allow gun shows to return to the fairgrounds. Metro legal weighted in and legal told the Fair board to allow the gun shows scheduled for January. This resolution was on the Council agenda for December 15th, but since Metro legal had ruled the gun shows scheduled for January could still take place this was deferred, I would assume to see it this could be resolved without Council action. It has not been resolved so this is back on the agenda.
With a much more "progressive" council than ever n the past, it will be worth watching how this turns out. I suspect the major motivation for this is simply a dislike for gun culture and support for anything to curtail the proliferation of gun ownership. I also suspect however that there is certain elite liberal snobbishness at play which looks down its nose at gun shows. Until country music became the most listened to format and a major source of income for Nashville, the elites were embarrassed by country music also. I tend to think the opposition to gun shows may be motivated more by a sociopolitical class prejudice rather than a gun control motivation. I believe there is a certain desire for Nashville to appear progressive and enlightened and progressives want the "redneck" element to be deprived of outlets to express themselves. They would prefer that part of Nashville's identity not be tied to stock car racing, flea markets, and gun shows. Also, the Gun and Knife shows bring in a quarter of million dollars a year to the struggling fair grounds. Part of the effort to end the gun shows may be an effort to deprive the fair grounds of revenue in hopes that it will eventually be operating so deep in the red that there will be greater reason to close the fairgrounds and sell off the property.They would much prefer that property be a trendy mixed-use development or a corporate campus.
Bill Goodman's Gun and Knife show has been operating at the Fairgrounds for 35 years and there is no evidence that illegal gun sales have ever occurred there or even that a gun or knife purchased there has ever been used in a criminal act. There are some felons who have stated that the gun shows at the Fair grounds is where they obtained their gun, but one may surmise they did not want to admit to an additional crime of stealing a firearm so those admission from felons should be taken with a grain of salt.
Only licensed dealers are permitted to sell firearms at the fairground gun show. Under current law if you as an individual sell a gun to another individual, you do not have to be a licensed firearm dealer and you do not have to perform a background check on the person to whom you are selling. That is what is known as the "gun show loophole." However, at the Nashville Gun and Knife Show only licensed dealers were allowed to exhibit and sell guns.
RESOLUTION NO. RS2016-86 is another one of these PILOT deals (payment in lieu of taxes). I don't know if this is a good deal or not, but I hope it is carefully scrutinized.
BILL NO. BL2015-81 is a bill which is disapproved by the Planning Commission and rezones 9.2 acres off on Clarksville pike which would allow the construction of between 72 to 120 apartment units of what is considered "workforce housing" which is another term for affordable housing. Here is a link to a Tennessean story about the The planning Commission's unanimous vote to disapprove the bill. At the last council meeting a lot of people spoke both for and against the bill. To win council approval, since it was disapproved by the Planning Commission, will require 27 votes. This will be the first test of the new council to see if "councilmanic courtesy" is really dead.
BILL NO. BL2016-99 would end term limits for member of the Human Relations Commission. This needs to be defeated! If anything the Human Relations Commission needs to be abolished; it does not need to be strengthened. It serves no purpose except to promote and enforce politically correct attitudes. Anything they do that really needs doing could be done by other agencies. There is a Fair Housing Office to take fair housing complaints and the Attorney Generals office can take complaints of illegal discrimination. One of the most objectionable things this agency does is sponsor the twink booth at the Gay Pride festival. They call it the "youth pavilion."Third Reading: There are 25 bills on Third Reading and most of them are zoning bills. These are the ones of interest.
BILL NO. BL2015-84 establishes the Waverly Belmont Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. This would restrict the tearing down of existing housing and building a very large home or two large homes on the lot. On some streets in this part of town, there are more big new houses than original smaller houses. I understand the desire to preserve the character of the neighborhood but a consequence of not allowing the character of a neighborhood to change and more expensive homes to be build is that our tax base does not keep pace with the demand for more spending. Also by restricting this type of tear-down and replacement with larger homes in one area puts more pressure for this to occur on those areas adjacent to the area with the overlay. It shifts the problem and intensifies it for neighboring neighborhoods. For more information see the Tennessean reporting on the issue.
This is an eight-hour meeting. I don't think anyone wants to watch the full meeting. The discussion of the inclusionary zoning starts at time-stamp 36:40 and ends at 3:45:20.
To summarize the comments, developers don't like it because it goes too
far and advocates of affordable housing don't like because it does not
go far enough. No one speaks in favor of the proposal. For access to the
Planning Commission agenda and staff reports, follow this link. To see the Planning Commission staff report on the proposed inculusionary zoning text see page 5 through page 41.
At time stamp 42:50 the staff begins the explanation of the incusionary zoning proposal and completes this explanation at 1:02:30. One thing interesting in this proposal is that the set aside affordable units must be similar in size and number of bedrooms to the non set-aside units. So if the units in a condo sale for $500,000 dollars and the bedrooms are very spacious, the units set aside as "affordable" must also be at least 80% as spacious. I have a question: If the non-set-aside units include concierge service, a gym, a spa, a pool, dog-walking service and fresh cut flowers every day, do the set-aside units also get these services and amenities? If there is a hefty condo fee for the non-set aside units, do the set-aside units have to pay the same fee? Is that monthly condo fee included in calculating affordability? I don't know.
Following the staff explanation, the chairman ask for those who wish to speak in favor of the proposal to come forward. No one does. No one supports the proposal. Opponents are then permitted to speak. Proponents of affordable housing express displeasure saying they want a mandatory program. I am surprised that more people did not speak. NOAH and VOICE representatives spoke but no mainstream housing advocates spoke. No one speaks in opposition from a pro-free-market position. The only developer who speaks is former Metro Councilman Roy Dale.
Following the pubic hearing, the members of the Commission discuss the proposal. There is some interesting discussion. One thing is very clear; without a large Metro subsidy this proposal will simply not work. Those unit build to be affordable for someone at 100% of area median income (AMI) would require more subsidy than those built to be affordable for someone at 80% AMI and so on. Also, this proposal would not address the very low income or the needs of the homeless. This proposal does not and cannot impose rent control, due to state legislation that prevents a city from imposing rent control. This proposal would not incentivize affordable housing in areas that already have adequate affordable housing. To get developers to seek the density or height bonuses proposed in this plan, it takes away established bonuses. This proposal is a "voluntary" inclusionary program but designed to force a developer to seek the bonuses (see time stamp 3:02:00). This is a very complex proposal and while I have a general understanding of what is proposed, I do not fully understand all of the details of the setback, parking, and height bonuses of the proposal. It would take some study to digest all of what is proposed. The proposal does nothing to preserve existing affordable housing stock nor to encourage greater housing density throughout the county. The commission votes unanimously to recommend
that the Metro Council disapprove the proposed voluntary inclusionary
zoning policy.
by Joey Garrison, The Tennessean, Jan. 15, 2016 - A proposed system of financial incentives designed to spur affordable housing in Nashville was dealt a blow Thursday by the Metro Planning Commission, which voted to reject the plan as they called for more community input on the issue.
After nearly four hours of debate — one that saw both affordable housing advocates and developers vent concerns with the plan — the commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Metro Council disapprove the proposed voluntary inclusionary zoning policy.
Their hope is that the council, which is set to consider the legislation next month and has ultimate say, will send the bill back to the commission, which would then initiate a public engagement process on how to solve affordable housing......
"Half of the folks are thinking we should have gone a lot further, and others think we're crazy for going down this path at all," planning commissioner Stewart Clifton said. "So, there's a certain amount of inevitability that the general public is not going to be for this." (read more)
By Tony Gonzalez, Nashville Public Radio, Jan 15, 2016- Nashville’s new affordable housing proposal was dealt a blow Thursday night after three hours of criticisms from poverty advocates, developers and planning commissioners.In the end, the commission refused to endorse the affordability blueprint offered by planning staff. During a public hearing, no one spoke in favor of the plan.(read more)
by Joey Garrison, The Tennessean, Jan.12, 2016 - Metro Nashville planners have finalized a proposal for a new system of financial incentives that would seek to encourage developers to build more affordable housing in Davidson County. But they don’t want the Metro Council to vote on the measures just yet. ....the planning department has asked the planning commission to approve... officials have recommended that the council delay consideration until Nashvillians have more time to weigh in. .... proposal hinges on perhaps as much as $10 million in recurring funds that would need to be carved out in Metro’s upcoming budget. .....Planners want more discussion on one of the key elements of the proposal: the elimination of bonuses that are offered to developers who provide public parking, pursue eco-friendly building standards and promote mixed-use development. This bonus system would be replaced by one focused on incentives for affordable housing. (read more)For more on this topic also see, Metro planners recommend affordable housing incentives.
From Senator Jack Johnson: Preview of the 2016 Legislative Session
Local Hiring– A bill has been filed to stop local governments from enacting any charter provision, ordinance, resolution, referendum or regulation which requires a company bidding on a public construction project to employ individuals that reside within their jurisdiction. The legislation comes after the adoption of a charter amendment pushed by labor unions in Nashville that requires at least 40 percent of work hours of local companies bidding on contracts come from Davidson County workers on Metro construction projects that cost $100,000 or more. The amendment does not affect companies outside of Tennessee, which can hire as many out-of-county or out-of-state workers as they choose. The practical effect of the bill would be to nullify the Metro Nashville amendment and prevent other local governments from taking similar action in the future.
My comment: Thank God for a common sense State legislature that is stopping Nashville form becoming the San Francisco of the South. I expect this bill to pass and hopefully if Nashville should pass a proposed inclusionary zoning ordinance that the State legislature will also nullify it.
By Linda Bryant, Nashville Post, January 13, 2016 - Nashville’s legislation on affordable and workforce housing faces a key hurdle Thursday when the Metropolitan Planning Commission meets to consider approval of long-awaited inclusionary zoning legislation.This should be deferred by the Planning Commission. No one is happy with it and the Supreme Court may very well rule that this type of "taking" is unconstitutional and there is no source of funding to fund the "incentives." Also, it is doubtful it will result in very many units of affordable housing being built and it will most likely lead to an increase in the price of housing and a decrease in the availability of affordable housing; not an increase.
But even as the Metro Planning Department’s IZ proposal moves forward via a commission review, it is paradoxically in the process of slowing down.
Crosscurrents are being created by a few factors including the absence of a funding structure for as much as $10 million in recurring funds needed from Metro’s budget and misgivings about skittish developers seeking eleventh hour changes to the proposal.
Meanwhile, affordable housing advocates are signaling displeasure with the proposal and say they will let their concerns be known at tomorrow's 4 p.m. Metro Planning Commission meeting.....Bill Hostettler, principal broker with Nashville-based HND Realty LLC, said that the UZO covers building uses beyond residential, such as retail and office. As such, he is concerned that even an incentives-based IZ policy could dissuade mixed-use development that includes residential (if the incentives for the preferred options are not as strong as those for a less-preferred option).....(read more)
From Tim Skow:
1ST TUESDAY Members &Friends ...
IF .... you also forced yourself to watch OBAMA last night... it looked like he was dodging the ''GUNS & POLITICS'' storm he started last week. HOWEVER... Hillary is running TV ads telling everyone she is coming for gun manufactures and gun owners !! Make NO mistake, a MAJOR political fight is coming in 2016 at every level on the ballot !!
THIS FRIDAY [the 15th ] ... our ''GUNS & POLITICS" lunch event features a powerful line up that YOU WILL NOT WANT TO MISS !!
From the National Rifle Association : NRA National Board Member Tim Knight !
[ Tim started the successful fight in Colorado that recalled multiple State Senators, beat Obama & NYC Mayor Bloomberg's $$$ and helped flip the political balance in Colorado ]
From the TN State Senate :
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders plans to bring his "Feel the Bern" tour of historically black colleges to Tennessee State University in Nashville. No date yet. READ MORE
by Gary M. Galles, The Los Angeles Times, Jan. 4, 2016 - This month the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to hear a legal challenge to San Jose's controversial inclusionary housing ordinance. Enacted in 2010 and upheld by California's top court in June, this zoning law requires housing developers of 20 or more units to sell 15% of them at prices far below their market value or pay a six-figure fee instead.
More than 170 California communities impose similar mandates and set-asides, but the net effect isn't more affordable housing for all. Rather it is a reduction in the construction of new homes, which pushes prices upward. ....This is hardly a solution to a housing affordability crisis. It's also an unconstitutional government taking of private property without just compensation, and a violation of several precedents specifically, which is why the San Jose case deserves consideration by the Supreme Court.. ...
An analogy reveals the foolishness of inclusionary zoning.
Suppose there was a law that if you opened a new supermarket you had to sell 15% of your groceries to low-income people at far-below market prices to improve their access to good nutrition. This would clearly be an unfair burden. Those wanting to open new supermarkets did nothing to cause the problem; on the contrary, they intended to increase food accessibility. Read moreGary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University, a research fellow with the Independent Institute in Oakland and author of "Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies." Before the Council passes our own version of inclusionary zoning, I hope they will think long and hard about the effect of such a policy. If it is passed, I hope the State will ban it or the Supreme Court will strike it down.
People who think they can get rich without working, other stupid people,
and people who like a
For the first time, Congress sent a bill
repealing key provisions of Obamacare to the President for his signature earlier this week, which he will veto. Republicans have voted to repeal Obamacare on numerous occasions before, but this is the first time a bill passed both houses and reached the President. The reason it passed this time, is that it passed through the budget reconciliation process so Senate Democrats could not filibuster the bill. The House passed it, sent it to the Senate, the Senate amended it and sent it back to the House, the House passed the Senate version. This process meant the bill did not require 60 votes to clear the Senate but only a simple majority. The President, however, will veto the bill and there are not enough votes to override a veto.
The Bill did not actually repeal Obamacare but repealed major provisions. Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015 would make these key changes to Obamacare:
Tennessee | |||
R | Roe, Phil | TN 1st | |
R | Duncan, John | TN 2nd | |
R | Fleischmann, Chuck | TN 3rd | |
R | DesJarlais, Scott | TN 4th | |
D | Cooper, Jim | TN 5th | |
R | Black, Diane | TN 6th | |
R | Blackburn, Marsha | TN 7th | |
R | Fincher, Stephen | TN 8th | |
D | Cohen, Steve | TN 9th |