Democrats only need 50 votes to pass a bill on the floor. No more bad deals.

[ProSense]

Spokesman: Schumer's Not Initiating Any Trigger Negotiations

Brian Beutler

Sen. Chuck Schumer's spokesman Brian Fallon says his boss stands foursquare behind the opt out public option, and any suggestion that he's been involved in negotiations regarding a triggered public option are false:

"Since Leader Reid announced the opt-out public option would be included in the Senate bill, Senator Schumer has not approached anyone about compromises," Fallon said in a statement to TPMDC. "He is fully behind the level playing field opt-out, which he himself helped advance."

That's a direct contradiction to the assertion in this post, by a Democratic aide, that Schumer recently approached Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) about a public option compromise. But it doesn't address Landrieu's contention, that Schumer is a point man in behind the scenes negotiations regarding a potential trigger compromise.

We'll try to get more clarification on that last point.

Improve it (read: make it better, not weaker), and get it done.

[Cha]

1. Too bad all reports can

be as thoroughly and honestly reported like TPM.

[Clio the Leo]

2. Did you see this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x10748

Now, what Harry said could mean a lot of things. It could mean, "we want to appear as though we're listening to all sides so I'm going to answer the question thusly...." or it COULD mean "Landrieu and others want a trigger and Schumer is trying to talk her out of it" or ..... well, it could mean a lot of things.

But he clearly said that Schumer and Landrieu were working on a PO "all Democrats could live with."

We shall see......

[ProSense]

3. Yeah, hard to know what he means

especially since the sticking point has been up to now a handful of Democrats.

[jenmito]

5. Landrieu said today that she is for a trigger during her floor speech. She sounded

like she wouldn't vote for the bill with a REAL PO, but was voting yes tonight so she could get a public option that would only be triggered if the insurance companies didn't do what they're expected to do (something like that). She made it VERY clear that this was NOT a vote for the bill as it now is. :eyes:

[Clio the Leo]

9. Interesting.....

..... I'm hoping Sen. Landrieu, Lincoln and Nelson's speeches will be available on CSPAN for me to watch later. I missed them.

[jenmito]

19. I only saw HER speech...

it made me mad how clear she made it that this is NOT giving approval for the bill as it is now.

[Cha]

15. Aren't there more

who want PO than not? So that should mean that the minoritiy suck it up for the good of the country and not their own personal careers? :)

[jenmito]

18. Yes, but people like Lieberman may NOT suck it up for the good of the country...

He claimed it's a "matter of conscience" when we all know it's a matter of selfishness and loyalty to the insurance companies.

[Cha]

20. I'm sorry but that faux pious

little asshole needs to have his conscience cleaned.

[jenmito]

22. Don't be sorry...

you're exactly right. I wish he could be stripped of his chairmanship but I think they need 60 votes for THAT, too! :eyes:

[firedupdem]

4. So are we completely done with the 60 vote requirement? We

can pass a healthcare bill with 50?

[ProSense]

6. Yup, only needs 50 votes to pass in order to proceed to conference. n/t

[jenmito]

8. But they need 60 to ALLOW the vote to take place which needs 50. n/t

[ProSense]

11. No, this was that vote. At the end of the debate, it's an up or down vote. n/t

[jenmito]

14. But there can't BE an up or down vote until they close debate with 60 votes. That's the vote

Lieberman (and now Lincoln) say they won't vote yes for-for cloture-which needs 60.

[Davis_X_Machina]

17. Yes. The motion to end debate and proceed to a vote...

...on the bill-as-amended is not privileged, subject to debate, and therefore subject to filibuster.

[ProSense]

23. Reid can determine when to end the debate.

They agree to the terms of the debate ahead of time. The debate is to allow for discussions to amend the bill, once the amendments presented are voted on, Reid can call the vote. Given that to change the bill at this point requires 60 votes, the debate is going to come to an end. I hope Reid moves on reconciliation. The fact is, what are Lieberman and Lincoln going to claim as their reason for not ending the debate if their efforts to change the bill fail?

This vote is a less daunting one than the vote to get the bill to the floor. The Republicans tried this recently and failed. People get tired and eventually just let the bill go forward.

[jenmito]

26. I think you're missing something. When all the amendments are done getting taken out or put in,

they have to have a cloture vote requiring 60 votes to get to the up or down vote which only needs 50 to pass. Lieberman and Lincoln (and maybe Nelson and others) may vote with the Repubs. to filibuster, to not allow that final vote. Reid has been saying HE thinks Lieberman will NOT vote with the Repubs., but who knows. And with a few Senators saying they will not vote for a bill with a public option (unless it's a trigger), even though a PO will save us money, they may not vote to GET to the final vote. This vote will be MORE daunting than tonight's IMO.

[janet118]

30. Correct . . . they need a 60 vote to close debate n/t

[h9socialist]

10. But . . .

. . . it is true that the final vote will require a simple majority. It's the procedural votes that are the pain in the ass.

[h9socialist]

7. Not as such . . .

. . . you've still got to CLOSE the debate. Then you've gotta reconcile with the House Bill. And every amendment to the bill will require 60 votes. We're far from out of the woods. The U.S. Senate is a very unrepresentative body that was included in the Constitution to give private property a means to thwart democratic majorities. The filibuster is a way for the minority to step on the majority's cake.

[ProSense]

24. "And every amendment to the bill will require 60 votes. "

Fine by me. The bill is decent in it's current form. I hope that any bogus amendment to change it fails.

[h9socialist]

31. OK . . .

But don't get carried away. There's a lot that needs to be changed -- especially when they take the both bills to conference committee (assuming it gets that far). Moreover, if it weren't for these damned procedural votes requiring 60 votes, we would've had healthcare reform in 1993! Finally, the "public option" thing is a watered down compromise anyway! This bill should really be asetting up true national health -- what Senator Sanders calls "Medicare for All Single Payer" -- I would go even further by saying that we should really be setting up a National Health System, like in Great Britain, funded by progressive taxation. In GB everyone is xovered and in only cost 7.5% of GDP. Like it or not, we will not solve the health care crisis until we've taken capitalism and greed out of the health care system. THERE IS NO MARKET SOLUTION TO THE HEALTHCARE PROBLEM IN THE U.S., BECAUSE THE MARKET IS THE PROBLEM! Until our healthcare reform plan takes that reality into account it will be no more than a "half-a-loaf" compromise.

Don't get me wrong, if I were a Senator, I would vote for the bill Senator Reid put forward. However, it's no where near what's needed, and leaving all the filibuster rules in place just makes it harder to get a decent bill.

[frazzled]

12. No: there are dozens more 60-vote cloture votes needed before the 51 vote

As Ezra Klein put it this evening: Democrats find 60 votes to go find 60 votes

Today's cloture vote is so Democrats can begin debate and modification of the bill. During that debate, they will need to call cloture votes in order to amend the bill. After that process is finished, there will be another cloture vote to begin voting on the bill. At this point in the history of the United States Senate, Harry Reid pretty much needs to call a cloture vote before he can sneeze. It's all cloture votes, all the time. And the fact that Reid won today's vote doesn't mean he'll win tomorrow's.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/democrats_look_to_have_60.html

[ProSense]

13. "they will need to call cloture votes in order to amend the bill"

That's to amend the bill, i.e., change it. That means if some one wants to change the bill, they need 60 votes to allow the amendment to go forward.

[Davis_X_Machina]

16. Of the foreseeable votes, only the motion to proceed to consideration...

...of the conference report is privileged and non-debatable.

All the other big votes, including the vote ending the upcoming debate and proceeding to the vote on the Senate bill as amended, and the vote on approval of the inevitable conference committee report, can be filibustered.

[Tank Hankerous]

21. Beware the self-serving jackasses among us in the US Senate....

Senator Nelson: “Throughout my Senate career I have consistently rejected efforts to obstruct. That's what the vote on the motion to proceed is all about. It is not for or against the new Senate health care bill released Wednesday. In my first reading, I support parts of the bill and oppose others I will work to fix. If that's not possible, I will oppose the second cloture motion—needing 60 votes—to end debate, and oppose the final bill.”

· Senator Lieberman: "I've told Sen. Reid that I'm strongly inclined, I haven't totally decided, but I'm strongly inclined to vote to proceed to the healthcare debate, even though I don't support the bill that he's bringing together, because it's important that we start the debate on healthcare reform, because I want to vote on healthcare reform this year. … I also told him that if the bill remains where it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage.”

· Senator Landrieu: “My vote to move forward on this important debate should in no way be construed by the supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end. I have decided that there are enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward, but much more work needs to be done.”

· Senator Lincoln: “In fact, madam president, this vote for or against a procedure that allows us to begin open debate on health care reform is nothing more and nothing less. … I will vote to support — will vote in support of cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, but, madam president, let me be perfectly clear: I am opposed to a new government-administered health care plan as part of comprehensive health insurance reform, and i will not vote in favor of the proposal that has been introduced by leader Reid as it is written. I, along with others, expect to have legitimate opportunities to influence the health care reform legislation that is voted on by the senate later this year or early next year. I am also aware that there will be additional procedural votes to move this process forward that will require 60 votes prior to the conclusion of the floor debate. I've already alerted the leader, and I'm promising my colleagues, that I'm prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included.”

[Mass]

25. They still need 60 votes for cloture of debate before they can vote on the bill.

Which does not mean they should engage in bad deals, I agree. But we are not done with the 60 votes requirement.

[ProSense]

27. Agree.

I wish I could remember the recent situation in which the Republicans tried to block an end to the debate. They held out for two days and gave up on day three. It's just not effective.

Tonight was the critical vote: failure would have effectively killed the bill. Now that it's on the floor, a public option and the other key provisions in the bill will be extremely difficult to remove.

[Cha]

29. Pretty darn

lucky day considering the whole scope and the span of decades this has taken.

[Unvanguard]

28. Don't they need 60 for cloture? n/t