TPMDC
Will Democrats Give A Public Option Amendment an Up or Down Vote on the Senate Floor?
Brian Beutler | October 2, 2009, 1:05PM
Share
Send to a friend!
If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid does not ultimately decide to include a public option in Senate health care legislation before he brings a bill to the floor, it could have important consequences for the fate of the public option.
As I've noted before, the public option would then have to be added to the bill by amendment, or, failing that, in a contentious conference committee with the House of Representatives.
Neither option is particularly straightforward: The latter route would ask Democratic conservatives whether they'd support a filibuster to kill a health care bill with a public option--brave, but dangerous. The former will be a daunting climb.
It seems very likely that any provisions that Senators want to add to the health care bill will, by what's known as a unanimous consent agreement, be required to pass with at least 60 votes. Note, that's different from normal Senate legislation, which only needs 51 votes to pass, but often has to overcome a 60-vote procedural hurdle to end a filibuster.
The difference is important. In the case of unanimous consent, the public option would need 60 supporters--a number even its supporters admit it doesn't have right now. In regular order, by contrast, the 60 votes would only be required to overcome a filibuster. The question, in that case, would be whether there are 60 senators who believe that the public option deserves an up or down vote, even if they happen not to support the underlying amendment, or if some Democrats will team with Republicans to filibuster it.
Now, as its name implies, unanimous consent agreement requires the unanimous consent of the entire Senate, so public option supporters could theoretically throw a wrench into this. They could argue that public option amendments could be exempted from the agreement. I have some calls out to see what the current thinking is and how the key players plan to proceed, and I'll report back what I learn. But though this is very deep in the procedural weeds, it's an important pivot point to watch.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
Most Popular
- How Clemmons Went From Prisoner To Alleged Cop Killer -- And Why It Matters For Mike Huckabee
- High-End Grifters
- Another Huckabee Pardon
- Bachmann: Just Over A Year Ago, The Private Economy Was 100% Private
- Why Are Dem Voters Now Less Motivated Than Republicans?
- CBO: Health Care Reform Will Lower Out-Of-Pocket Burden For Most Consumers
- Rep. Hinchey: Bush Purposely Let Bin Laden Escape To Justify Iraq War
- Radio Host Bill Press: Glenn Beck Is A 'Ticking Time Bomb' Who Will 'Explode In The Face Of Roger Ailes'
- Family Guy Mocks Chris Matthews' Inflated Ego
- Latest High-Flying Accused Ponzi Schemer Has Ties To Indiana Guv
- Obama Issues New Orders On Afghanistan
- Why Are Dem Voters Now Less Motivated Than Republicans?
- Dems Add Entitlement Reform To Packed Agenda Ahead of 2010 Elections
- Huckabee Cites System's 'Failures' In Response To Washington Police Killings
- How Clemmons Went From Prisoner To Alleged Cop Killer -- And Why It Matters For Mike Huckabee
- Gibbs: Social Office Not Problem With Dinner Crashers
- Rep. Hinchey: Bush Purposely Let Bin Laden Escape To Justify Iraq War
- Radio Host Bill Press: Glenn Beck Is A 'Ticking Time Bomb' Who Will 'Explode In The Face Of Roger Ailes'
- Bachmann: Just Over A Year Ago, The Private Economy Was 100% Private
- Return to Sender: Feigning Indifference & Losing My Religion
- Why Have We Subjugated Ourselves?
- Obstructionism Trumps Transparency
- Progressives (and Obama) are Doing Better Than We Think -- and We Won't Know What We've Got 'Til It's Gone
- Jeff Goldberg Faults Obama For Suggesting Settlement Expansion Leads To Violence
- A Dime In My Pocket
- Great Moments in CNN Journalism
- Return to Sender: Feigning Indifference & Losing My Religion
- Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics
- The Pivot
- Basic Investment Advice
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
QuiteAlarmed
October 2, 2009 1:29 PM
Why not just break out the public option into a separate bill, pass it through reconciliation, and then do the rest through the regular process? The CBO has indicated that the public option will save 50 billion, so it shouldn't be a problem getting it past the parliamentarian.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
October 2, 2009 1:34 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
What makes you think it would pass through reconciliation? Based on committee votes so far it seems unlikely that a fully robust public option could get more than 48 votes in the Senate. It's probably less likely to pass on its own than as part of a larger bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnAH
October 2, 2009 1:48 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
I agree, I think that they need to include the public option in the bill that goes before the senate and force the GOP and Blue Dogs to actually filibuster health care reform; not just the public option but the entire bill.
Don't let the GOP get away with just saying that they are going to filibuster and then have the closure vote, actually make them do it on CSPAN for for as long as you can. We need the footage of the GOP literally doing nothing but saying no against the entire bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
October 2, 2009 1:53 PM in reply to JohnAH
This is not "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Holding the floor and talking is not required by the rules.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 2, 2009 2:19 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
That's not correct. He can force the Republicans to hold the floor. He just can't force them to talk while they hold the floor; at least not until they run out of quorum calls.
Here's a link to the Huffington Post article about this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html?page=4
Be sure to note the comment by "DinkSinger" that discusses the limits on the Republicans' ability to use quorum calls.
If Senator Reid wanted a showdown, he certainly has the authority to force the issue. He's just made a political decision not to create a scene.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 2, 2009 2:07 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Who are the eleven Democratic Senators that you think will vote against the public option on the floor? Remember, if we take Senator Baucus at his word, he will support the public option as long as it can get the necessary votes.
I'll give you Senators Kent Conrad and Blanche Lincoln as "no" votes. Senators Bill Nelson and Tom Carper voted for the Schumer version of the public option; so, presumably, their votes can be had, if needed, by using the Schumer version.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
izzatxeaux
October 2, 2009 2:37 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
Lincoln, Conrad, Landrieu, Nelson (NE) Bayh, Lieberman, Carper, Hagan, Nelson (FL) Baucus, McCaskill
and if somehow Baucus keeps his word, there's always Jean Shaheen to round out the 11
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 2, 2009 2:59 PM in reply to izzatxeaux
Three of your eleven have already indicated that they will vote for a public option (Baucus, Carper and Nelsen). See my post above.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 2, 2009 3:16 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
Five of those eleven actually.
Senator Hagan voted in favor of a public option in the HELP bill.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/hagan-comes-out-in-support-of-public-option.php/
Senator McCaskill has stated that she would support a "constrained" public option.
http://www.ky3.com/home/video/56355922.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
izzatxeaux
October 2, 2009 3:25 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
thanks for the response
should have qualified my comment as a wag on their final vote on a real, non co-op, no triggers PO - and of course we shall see - too many of them have done something completely different than what they have said
most important, I should have stated I will be thrilled to be wrong on any of them and will gladly eat all the crow ya want
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 2, 2009 4:25 PM in reply to izzatxeaux
You might be right. I want to see them forced to go on the record with a vote though. If they are going to sell us out, I want to know who.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
holyhandgrenaid
October 2, 2009 3:35 PM in reply to izzatxeaux
Shaheen has come out in favor of the PO, and fairly early on if I recall at that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
October 2, 2009 5:51 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
"...if we take Senator Baucus at his word, he will support the public option..."
He voted against both Rockefeller's amendment (robust PO tied to Medicare rates) and Schumer's amendment (level playing field PO). It seems to me his position on the PO is crystal clear. Ditto for Lincoln and Conrad.
Carper and Nelson voted against Rocefeller's amendment but for Schumer's, so we can conclude that they would not vote for a robust PO.
That's five. Add Landrieu, both Nelsons, Bayh, Lieberman, McCaskill and Pryor(?). That's 12. Some of them might be induced to vote for a very weak PO.
Others who have expressed varying degrees of reservations on the PO and should be considered "soft" votes: Begich, Bennett, Klobuchar.
This is far from over and the arm-twisting hasn't started in earnest yet, but if they had the votes they wouldn't be spending so much effort courting some of these people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 3, 2009 4:10 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
"Carper and Nelson voted against Rocefeller's amendment but for Schumer's, so we can conclude that they would not vote for a robust PO."
And we can also conclude that they would vote FOR a less robust public option.
Your twelve is now down to ten.
"both Nelsons"
You are double counting a Nelson: you already counted Bill Nelson, even though he voted for Schumer's Amendment.
Your ten is now down to nine.
"McKaskill"
Claire McCaskill has already voted for the public option in the HELP bill.
Your nine is now down to eight.
So, even if we accept your cynical assumption that Max Baucus was outright lying about being willing to vote for a public option if it could get enough votes and even if we assume the conservative democrats who haven't taken a position yet (like Evan Bayh) will oppose a public option despite the fact that it reduces the deficit, the Democrats still have 52 votes for the public option. That's 2 more than they need through reconciliation.
So they can get a less robust public option through reconciliation and they might not need Carper or Nelson's votes (because they have 2 votes to spare) which means that they might be able to get the robust public option through.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 2, 2009 1:44 PM
The Insurance Industry does not want a public option. Obama and his Democrats will make sure they get what they want.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
October 14, 2009 12:49 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Yes, as both of us have noted, the White House has sung the praises of Baucus's bill and of Snowe and nary a good word for the senators like Rockefeller pushing for a strong public option. I'd say the tea leaves are pretty clear. The White House won't be pressuring the Conservadems to fold, they'll be pressuring the progressives to fold, with probably, at best, a weak trigger option thrown in as cover. I sincerely hope I am proven wrong, but I see no indication that I am.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnmccsf
October 2, 2009 1:47 PM
It wouldn't be any less daunting to ask conservative Dems not to fillibuster a merged bill WITH a public option than to ask them not to filibuster one with a PO added via floor amendment
The latter might even be less problematic ie filibustering a vote on final passage after all committee and floor work has been done would be a more difficult vote for conservative dems
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnmccsf
October 2, 2009 1:49 PM in reply to johnmccsf
What's more, an up or down floor vote which adds a Public Option to the bill strengthens the House conferees
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Partisancheese
October 2, 2009 6:03 PM
Hopefully an "up" vote. If not, there will be some interesting controversies in the years ahead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 2, 2009 8:48 PM
Sorry, complete neophyte here. "Floor amendment", "unanimous consent" (in this context), "merged bill". Anyone recommend a good site that explains all this procedural and legislative stuff? Preferably in plain English? Also, the above article has me a little confused after the 3rd paragraph:is all the following stuff referring to the "adding by amendment" option? And why do measures added to the bill (the po, in this case) have to be approved by unanimous consent? Why would they choose such a difficult route to adding a po? Sorry to be so clueless. Never paid attention in civics, I guess. Anyway, I hope they get it done and are smart about navigating a robust option not some eviscerated semblance of one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
October 3, 2009 10:46 AM
This discussion is a little too wonkish, even for me.
I think its clear at this point that the "robust" PO (medicare + 5%) does not have the votes to pass. Even in the House. There is simply too much corruption and too little political cover for the conserva dems for the requisite support.
I think there is still a chance that the "negotiated rates" PO (similar to the Schumer amendment) could make it in the Senate legislation. It definitely has enough support in the House. And I think it could pass on cloture and an up or down vote in the Senate.
But it has to make it in the Senate Bill. If it doesn't make it in, its dead. No way it survives as simply an amendment.
What will probably pass at that point if the "negotiated rates" PO does not make it in the Senate Bill will be the Finance committee plan. The Wyden/Cantwell State PO plan (which I think will be the minimum that we'll get).
Regardless, we just need to keep up the pressure for the "robust" PO, keep fighting for it, and let the chips fall where they may.
I just did a tele-town hall with my rep Wed night. And let her know in no uncertain terms where she should stand.
So we'll see.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 3, 2009 3:34 PM in reply to willia451
All very discouraging. How would it make it onto the Senate bill?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
October 3, 2009 7:01 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
4 people (in essense) will decide next week what gets in, and what does not get in, the Senate Bill. Baucus (D-MO) (Finance Committee chair), Harkin (D-IA)(HELP Committee chair), Reid (D-NV) (Senate Majority Leader), and President Obama.
Of the 4, only Harkin has come out publically and stated a robust PO, like the one in the HELP committee bill, should and will be in the final Senate Bill.
The others have only stated that a robust PO, or something like it, should get in. And that a robust PO is their preference, but, whatever gets in must be able to get at least 60 votes (at least for cloture one would assume). Leaving the door open to just about anything.
So we'll see. By Tuesday the Finance Committee Bill should be reported out of committee. And by Friday (or VERY soon thereafter) we should know what made it in, and what did not.
If your looking for someone to press, its Reid. He will be the primary guy to decide what gets in and what does not.
Write to him through his website (I have several times already) and tell him how you feel.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 3, 2009 6:50 PM in reply to willia451
...and what is its likely strength if it makes it onto the Senate bill, i.e. robust or watered down?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
October 3, 2009 8:16 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Depends on what you mean by "robust". I think I mis-spoke earlier. The HELP committee plan is not a "robust" public option either. It is NOT a government run and managed program tied to Medicare rates + 5% or whatever.
The sec of HHS would be required to contract with private insurers to create "Community Health Insurance Plans" in an exchange created in each state or region of the country. The plans have to be non-profit, and the rates would be negotiated.
Its a "level playing field" PO, in short. At the least, its not a "Medicare type" plan in a nationally run exchange.
Here is a link:
http://dodd.senate.gov/multimedia/2009/PublicInsuranceOption.pdf
The Help Committee version is closer to the Schumer amendment than anything. Its a level playing field, "negotiated rates", non-profit public option. But the "public" part comes from the fact that its government contracted, subsidized, and minimum requirements mandated. The competition comes from the fact that it IS non-profit. But the rates ARE NOT tied to Medicare. At least they are not from what I've read on it.
So in essence, Reid seems to have two choices. The "negotiated rates" PO that is in the HELP Bill. Or the Wyden/Cantwell state based and run Basic Insurance Plans (again, subsidized by the federal government) that are in the Finance Committee Bill.
Any way you look at it, both PO "types" in the Senate Bills would probably qualify as "watered down".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
October 4, 2009 5:03 AM in reply to willia451
Neither looks good, as you say. They look more like co-ops, no? We've seen how good non-profit insurance companies are at keeping costs down. Case in point: BCBS. Useless. So what's left? Any hope of a more robust House version making it onto the bill when the two are cobbled together?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
October 4, 2009 6:33 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
Again, depends on what you mean by "robust". To me, robust has always meant a Federal govt administered insurance plan, in a centralized national exchange, with rates tied to Medicare + 5%.
That kind of plan is definitely no where in the Senate. And it probably will not be in the House version either. The only people that support such a scheme are the Progressives. And while they are a large block, they are not large enough it seems.
The most we'll get (just speculating here) will be a "negotiated rates" type option, similar to what is in the HELP committee version, or the version that came out of the House Energy committee.
A "robust" PO, simply does not have the votes. In either chamber, to pass. I think that is proven at this point. There is simply too much corruption, and not enough political cover for the moderates and conserva dems to support it. House progressives were not able to get the necessary votes (218) to pass a robust PO in their latest whip count in the House.
While no one is saying it (for obvious reasons) the robust PO is probably dead in Congress. At least right now.
Having said that, now is not the time to give up. We need to keep pushing for a "robust" scheme. The more we push, the closer we may get to "robust". We might not get there completely, but its worth the effort.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?