Jon Walker: How the Public Option Would Likely Get A Vote During Reconciliation

[Hissyspit]

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/01/how-the-public-option-would-likely-get-a-vote-during-reconciliation/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CampaignSilo+%28Jane+Hamsher+Campaign+Silo%29

How the Public Option Would Likely Get A Vote During Reconciliation

By: Jon Walker Monday March 1, 2010 10:53 am
 
If Democrats use reconciliation to pass a health care bill and even one Senate Democrat actually supports the public option, or one Senate Republican thinks it makes political sense to force a vote on the matter, there will likely be a vote on a standalone amendment to add a public option. One of the important aspects of reconciliation is that any amendment offered normally gets an up-or-down vote provided it meets the rules.

According to the rules of budget reconciliation, debate is limited to only 20 hours in the Senate. At the end of debate, pending amendments which are germane and don’t violate the Byrd rule normally get up-or-down vote. Neither reconciliation measure nor amendments to a reconciliation measure can be filibustered.

A rapid process of voting on the pending amendments to the reconciliation measure is called a “vote-arama.” From the Congressional Research Service (PDF):

- snip -

The biggest concern is that a public option amendment would be swept up in an action to stop a Republican filibuster by amendments. Awhile back Republicans were threatening to use the “vote-arama” to create a filibuster by amendments by offering thousands of amendments to stop the final passage of the reconciliation measure. If Republicans attempt this, David Waldman outlined how Harry Reid and Joe Biden could put a stop to it. In theory the public option amendments could be swept up in the effort to clear hundreds of Republican amendments.

Harry Reid and Joe Biden might use clearing on any planned Republican filibuster-by-amendments to stop the public option from getting a vote, or some other parliamentary trick to do the same. Of course this would require Reid and Biden to actively take steps to deny the American a vote on one of the most popular provisions related to health care, which they both claim to support.

If (and that is a big if) Democrats move forward with health care reform using reconciliation, it is likely that there will eventual be an up-or-down vote on the public option. All it takes is one senator to offer a properly designed amendment – perhaps one of the 30 Senate Democrats who are on record saying they support an up-or-down vote on the public option. Maybe the American people will finally get to see who stands with the American people and which senators are working to protect the profits of the private insurance companies.

MORE

[kctim]

1. Interesting info, thanks

I think this question goes with the post on recon and a PO.

If the Republicans and moderate Democrats keep pitching a fit over a strong PO, why not create a plan with a strong PO or single-payer and tell the American people that if they vote for supporters in Nov of 2010, they will get that plan? If the majority want such a plan, winning in Nov would be no problem.
I think that would work better than all this fighting and settling for a weaker plan.

[The Wielding Truth]

2. You mean that our reps would actually do something smart, aggressive, and meaningful?

I would be so proud if the correction of health care would be handled responsibly like adults and not skittish sheep.

[AlinPA]

3. It is "a big if" for Democrats to move forward using reconciliation. Harry Reid won't

try because he won't want to anger "his friends on the other side of the aisle" as he often calls them. There is a lot of blame on why HCR has gone bad, IMO it is mostly Harry Reid's weakness and timid approach to confronting the republicans. Being "nice" with republicans just doesn't work.

The senate has some Democratic senators who could be leaders like Boxer, Brown, Kerry and Feingold but what are their chances when Reid loses his seat in November? Senate majority leader appears to be seniority based job. In this case we have a real loser.