Every passing day brings more Senators saying their open to using the budget reconciliation process for finishing health reform. So far, nobody has compiled these statements into a comprehensive list, so here they are.
Senator Specter (D-PA) came out strong:
I believe we ought to pass comprehensive health care reform and we ought to do it now and there is a way to do it. I provided the 60th vote. We passed it in the Senate. Let the House accept it, simultaneously with a bill to make certain changes through reconciliation and 50 votes. There will be no disagreement about taking away the giveaway to Nebraska and Louisiana and the other inappropriate measures but let’s move ahead and let’s move ahead now.
Senator Franken (D-MN) was also pushing for the move:
The best way for that to happen, and as far as I can see – the only way for that to happen – is what I’m calling ‘pledge and pass. If we in the Senate pledge to fix those elements through reconciliation – a budget process that requires only 51 votes, the House of Representatives should pass the Senate Bill.
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) walked back his earlier critisisms of the process and is open to reconciliation:
I’ve been asked about whether I’d support using the process known as reconciliation now. So, I want to make it clear: If I support a bill, then I will vote for it regardless of whether it takes 50 votes to pass or 60 votes to pass. My position doesn’t change just because the House or Senate decides to change the process.
Senator Baucus (D-MT), who chairs the crucial Senate Finance Committee, says it’s the only way:
Approving the Senate bill through the procedure, known as reconciliation, “is the only solution,” Baucus said, adding the Senate “was close” in getting enough votes to pass it.
Senator Conrad (D-ND), who chairs the other crucial commmittee in the process, the Budget Committee, says he would be open to fixes:
If the House passed the Senate bill, could reconciliation, that process, be used to fix things that might be improved upon? Yes. Would I support it? I can’t know that without knowing what would be included in the package.
Senator Bingaman (D-NM) said in a recorded call with reporters that reconciliation is an option (click for audio):
10:01 – Bingaman says that using the reconciliation process is an option for getting portions of the health care reform bill passed in the Senate.
Senator Carper (D-DE) has been reaching out to moderates in the House to convince them that the reconciliation "sidecar" option is the way to go:
Sen. Tom Carper, a centrist Democrat from Delaware who played an active role in Senate healthcare talks, said he would reach out to House Democratic centrists to persuade them to vote for the Senate-passed bill along with a sidecar.
“We’ve had some conversations with some of them already,” he said.
Senator Durbin (D-IL), the Senate Majority Whip, said reconciliation is an option:
We could go to something called ‘reconciliation’, which is in the weeds procedurally, but would allow us to modify that health care bill by a different process that doesn’t require 60 votes, only a majority. So that is one possibility there.
Senator Pryor (D-AR) said he’s open to it:
According to the Arkansas News, Pryor said reconciliation was not his first choice but "he was not necessarily opposed to the idea."
Someone familiar with Senator Feingold (D-WI) has said the Senator is open to the idea:
I spoke to someone from Feingold’s campaign about his position on reconciliation in light of the Massachusetts special election. She informed me that while Sen. Feingold is no fan of reconciliation, now that it’s reconciliation or nothing (apparently), he would be willing to support reconciliation if that’s what it took to get a good bill passed. It wasn’t the slightest bit equivocal or hedgy; it was a straight "yes". So that’s a bit of good news. Hopefully the House can get their act together.
Senator Kerry (D-MA) says reconciliation is his preferred route to passing health reform:
Senator John Kerry said today his preferred route to completing health care reform is for the House to pass the Senate bill, and for the Senate to make it more digestible to the House by approving fixes through the reconciliation process, which allows legislation to pass the Senate by a simple majority instead of 60 votes.
Senator Klobachar (D-MN) is also open to the move:
Whether it’s going to be [reconciliation] or whether it’s going to be taking some of the main initiatives for the self-employed and small business to allow them to get better rates of insurance, and insurance reforms and prevention, and the Medicare cost reforms — which, some of us can’t even imagine voting for health care without having some Medicare cost reform — the bill will move forward, and I think something will get done….
Senator Sanders (I-VT) definitely supports it:
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said he favors using a parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation to get health care reform passed. Such a move would require only support of a simple majority of the Senate, not the 60 needed to prevent a filibuster threatened by Republicans.
"I support the reconciliation process or any other way we can get the votes we need to go forward," Sanders said in a statement.
Senator Menendez (D-NJ) supports it as well:
I’m not sure how we get where we want to be if reconciliation is not the process.
More statements will no doubt come in as the process moves forward, but for now there is building support for finishing health care reform using the reconciliation process. Of course, we need to encourage them not just to finish reform, but to finish it right by making health care affordable to all and holding the insurance companies accountable.
Update
@ProgressOhio points me to Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and his support of reconciliation:
Brown said didn’t yet know for sure whether Reid would commit to the reconciliation fix approach, but added that there’s a widespread sense in the caucus that this is probably the only workable route forward.
“I can’t imagine another scenario,” Brown said. “We can’t start anew, and we can’t do piecemeal.”
(also posted at the NOW! blog)
I’m proud to work for Health Care for America Now



17 Comments

Ben Nelson is scum. Yeah, he’d sure like to have reconciliation now — now that his earlier obstructionism, and deal making has made him a magnet for electorate contempt.
With reconciliation on the table he can go back to just being a corrupt, bribed, nonentity — the way he prefers it.
I was actually personally surprised Nelson voted for health reform at all. I kind of always though he’d prefer reconciliation so he didn’t have to take the “hard vote.”
I don’t trust there will be any reconciliation in the future.
I think the votes will be “disappeared”, and we’ll get stuck
having this lobbyist written shit sandwich bailout shoved down
our throats.
it’s not “health reform” it’s health insurance reform.
also, how will using the budget reconciliation process rules allow for insurance company regulation?
thanks Jason
Where is the recommend button or is this all ready in the little box
It’ll allow for a public option, for one.
that wasn’t my question. a po is not regulation. actually, a po depends on strong regulation and enforcement to survive.
my question is: how will using the budget reconciliation process rules allow for insurance company regulation?
I’m not sure why reconciliation needs to accomplish that task. The point of reconciliation is not to pass an entire bill, just fixes necessary for the Senate bill.
Both bills already passed have insurance regulation in them. The House is stronger in a lot of ways, but just thinking about it for a minute here (I haven’t studied the question), I’d be willing to posit that both bills have the necessary regulatory structure to support a public option.
On the front page, no recommends here.
Pelosi re-kills the Public Option
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/27842
is it your claim that the senate bill needs no insurance regulation fixes? that the regulation is just fine as is?
p.s.
since there is no po in the senate bill, not even a nonviable one, you might want to spend more than a minute on this
What does it say to U.S. Senators when their pledge isn’t considered worth the foul breadth used in making the pledge?
I see the U.S. Senate as the legislative billy club used by the powerful to beat down the American working man and woman.
In American history, strikes and calls for justice by the working class were met by the U.S. military whacking American laborers across their heads.
So old-fashioned. Today, the U.S. Senate makes sure the American rabble are kept in their place.
No, the Senate insurance regulation is definitely weaker. But I’d say that it probably has the necessary elements to support a public option, in my opinion. Doesn’t mean they’re as good as they should be, but seeing as no regulatory changes can go through reconciliation…
thank you for responding my question @4 from yesterday.
any chance of a reply to my question @11 from yesterday:
you might want to take a look at the recent diary, Health Care Reform—the Charade of Regulation, before replying.
finally, re your statement:
probably? do you have any evidence to back that up? what necessary elements and what regulations are you referring to? in particular, what provision for risk adjustment is there?
Sen. Harkin said a deal had been worked out just before Brown won in MA. What was in that deal is what has to go through reconciliation and if we can toss in PO then all the better.
It’s that package of items which have to fit the rules.
If some of them aren’t acceptable then they would have to be passed (quickly) via ordinary legislation, so there would be the Senate bill, another amendments bill and the reconciliation bill (with PO).
What happened to “robust” public option?
Were we, or were we not, told over, and over, and over again – rather condescendingly many times – that public option was the only way, and that if you believed in anything stronger, you were foolish?
And that a weak public option was alright because it would be made “robust” in reconciliation?
Were you wrong?
Not you specifically Jason … but you get the point