I was over at a Scott Murphy press conference earlier this afternoon, hearing his reasoning for voting "no" on a landmark health care reform bill that paves the way for health care to be available to a wider audience.

Murphy, who appeared much more harried than usual, and spoke much faster than he usual does, cited a few reasons, that you can read about in my story (a longer version will be published in the morning.) But, I did think it was interesting to note that although he had several issues with the legislation, Murphy did not offer an amendments on the bill.

* No word on exactly why not, but if I had to guess, it would be that the Congressman knows he doesn't have enough political clout to amend major legislation put forward by the House leadership and championed by the President.

I'd further note, that just like when then-Representative Kirsten Gillibrand broke ranks and voted against the Troubled Asset Relief Program back in September 2008, Murphy's vote may have been at least partially to placate the portion of his constituency that is, for various reasons, not in support of health care reform. He knew the bill would go through without his vote, and thus didn't have to worry about having the bill's failure on his conscience, but could also say that he stood up for the interests of major employers (and minor employers) in the district, as well as continuing to talk about the need for further reforms.

When Gillibrand broke ranks in 2008, it was generally agreed upon that TARP was unpopular in the district, and seen as a politically-motivated vote done on the eve of a major election. Perhaps Murphy's vote was similar?

There is a good break down of who voted which way on the legislation here.

*It has come to my attention that a limit was imposed on the number of amendments by rules concerning debate on the bill. Read more here.