In a conference call today, Senate HELP Committee chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) again stated his conviction that health care reform will have a public option. In defense of the public option Harkin pointed out that a majority of Senate solidly supporting the idea.
“There are 52 solid Democrats for a public option and only about five Democrats really kind of opposed to it,” Harkin added. “One has to ask if the 52 should give into the five or if the five should come on board with the vats majority. I think the answer is clear.”
Not all Democratic senators need to vote for a bill with a public option, they only need to vote for cloture to end a filibuster of the bill. Conservative Democrat Mark Pryor (D-AR) doesn’t think Democratic senators refusing to vote for cloture is a likely scenario. Even Joe Lieberman (I-CT) sounds unlikely to vote against cloture:
Lieberman said he was “inclined to let the motion to proceed” (or cloture) go forward, but “I haven’t decided yet.”
The public option has a strong majority in the Senate. So far, none of the five Democrats opposed to the public option have publicly given any indication they would let the whole of health care reform die because it contained a public option. Even if Democrats threaten to filibuster a bill with a public option, Reid can now choose to move the bill forward with only a simple majority using reconciliation.
As Rockefeller (D-WV) and Schumer (D-NY) have said, the decision to include a public option is completely in Reid’s hands. Is Harry Reid going to let his caucus to be ruled by a tiny handful of senators or will he stand with the vast majority of his party?
3 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Advanced search
52 Dems, and 62% of the American people behind them. Pull the trigger NOW
Jon,
Harry can decide whether the PO will be in the bill or not. But if it’s not then Schumer, Rockefeller, or any other individual Democrat can do the following:
1) Object to the proposed UC agreement that Amendments to the bill would require 60 votes to pass
2) When the bill moves to the floor without such an agreement an Amendment putting in a PO will be filibustered, but, also, one of the Senators supporting it can make a point of order calling for a vote on the amendment being considered by the Senate.
3) The presiding officer of the Senate, most often the Vice President of the United States, can then make a parliamentary ruling upholding the point of order and citing the Constitution of the United States rather than previous Senate rules (which uphold the right of unlimited debate) as the precedent supporting the ruling.
4) A supporter of the filibuster can then “appeal from the chair” by asking whether the Chair’s decision will stand as the judgment of the Senate.
5) If one of them does, then an opponent of the filibuster can move to table the appeal.
6) Since motions to table are not debatable, the Senate immediately votes on the tabling and decides by simple majority vote.
7) If a majority decides to table the ruling of the Chair, that the filibuster is unconstitutional, and that a majority vote is enough to bring a bill to vote and to pass it, then the point of order, along with majority rule, is upheld.
8) By its action in upholding the Chair, the Senate will have established a new precedent, namely that filibusters are unconstitutional, and that all legislation thenceforth may be passed by majority vote, following a point of order calling for a vote.
None of this requires Harry Reid’s cooperation or is up to him. The 52 supporters of the PO in the Senate would get a vote allowing them to overcome the filibuster and pass the PO amendment attaching it to his bill. It does, however, require the cooperation of Joe Biden who would be the presiding officer and therefore probably the President as well.
I understand that the Democrats are not likely to pursue this scenario if Harry doesn’t put the PO in his bill. However, if they fail to do something like this then they will bear the responsibility, along with Harry, for the failure to pass a PO in the Senate. In other words, it is they and not just Harry, who would be submitting to the tyranny of the five.
Thank you for your detailed accounting of such arcane Senate procedures. I agree that the “dignity” of the senate might be called into question by such action. However, given the likely consequences of failure – political annihilation in 2010 after building up expectations as much as Obama has done – don’t you think that a combination of progressives on this core policy – like Sanders, Wyden & Rockerfeller – and more restrained supporters such as Dodd & Harkin himself – might be emboldened to take on the obstructionist minority within the party? If so, perhaps you might want to consider forwarding your idea to Bernie or someone like David Waldman?