TPM LiveWire

Conrad: Leadership Asked Me To Come Up With Co-Op To Get 60 Votes

October 29, 2009, 11:41AM

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)

Health Care Co-ops, Health care, Kent Conrad, Olympia Snowe, Public Option, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy

Send to a friend!

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), champion of a nonprofit coop over a government-run public option, told CNBC today that Senate leadership asked him months ago to come up with an alternative. The leaders, he said, didn't think they could get 60 votes for a public option.

"The reason I was asked to advance an alternative was it was clear at the time ... that there were not the votes for a public option," he said. With Sens. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd ill, and one of the Minnesota seats not filled, "we only had 57 votes."

"So I was asked to come up with something that would be a not for profit competitor that was not government run," he said.

Conrad also said that the Senate may need Sen. Olympia Snowe's vote to break a filibuster and bring the bill to a vote.

Appearing later on Fox, Conrad said it will be "really difficult" to resolve health care reform this year, but it can be done.

He added that it may be weeks before the Congressional Budget Office can analyze the numbers in the Senate version of the bill.

Join the Conversation!

13 comments

Recommend Recommend (0)

Icon

October 29, 2009 1:12 PM

The possibility no one is really considering publicly is breaking a Republican filibuster the old fashioned way--Forcing them to actually do it.

Senators are only allowed to speak twice on a particular issue during a legislative day. If no Senators want to speak, Reid may call a vote.

Reid could allow the same legislative 'day' to continue for the next two months, giving every Senator who wants to filibuster health care their two times to speak. When they have all gotten their two speaking opportunities (or are so worn down that they'll vote for cloture just to let the issue be over with), Reid will get the final vote that he wants.

The best way to do this would just be to have the Senate never recess. Keep the body in session 24 hours a day, 7 days a week until those opposed to the will of the people get tired of being obstructionist or simply run out of the amount of time Senate rules allow them.

It wastes a lot of legislative time, but if there are 57 Senators for a public option definitely, it will pass when the Republicans simply give up.

The three dems who might back a filibuster will probably capitulate into voting for cloture if Reid keeps health care as the only item on the agenda over a sustained period. Why? Because they'll get sick of just standing in the way, knowing full well that when they run out of time the dems will pass the bill anyway.

I honestly think the cost of legislative time is much lower than the cost of legislative quality that will come if they try to pursue a reconciliation strategy. This approach is not without precedent either. It's been done before to break filibusters on major bills before.

Why are they not pursuing it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Eric Jaffa

October 29, 2009 1:47 PM in reply to Icon

I agree.

If Republicans + Lieberman want to filibuster, make them do it for real, not just win a cloture vote.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Homefries

October 29, 2009 1:50 PM in reply to Icon

I agree, and I think this may well be Reid's strategy.

Force the opponents to oppose it the old fashioned way. Nit pick the speeches for accuracy. The majority of Americans who support this get to see the opponents make fools of themselves.

This is the end game, and the Insurance companies are going to pull out every trick in the book to derail this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tonnyb

October 29, 2009 2:35 PM in reply to Icon

Sounds like a good idea. I will show steel on the part of democrats and obstruction on the part of Republicans. Let them take that performance with them into the 2010 elections.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tonnyb

October 29, 2009 2:37 PM in reply to tonnyb

Correction: "it will show ..."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

truthspeaker

October 29, 2009 3:17 PM in reply to Icon

I agree. Call their bluff, especially Bayh, Landrieu, Lieberman. Bums!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tosh

October 29, 2009 1:51 PM

Agree with this. Don't forget that as much as the GOP'ers are blowhards, they also are old men for the most part. Make them 'buster.

Of course we know that Harry *won't* do this. But nothing could more dramatically show to everyone that the GOP and 1-4 ConservaDems are the Party of No than forcing them to ramble on about healthcare for 24 hours a day for a week.

John

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tosh

October 29, 2009 1:53 PM in reply to tosh

PS: Conrad is a douchbag. He has been through this entire process.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Icon

October 29, 2009 2:20 PM

The Senate has gotten too complacent. Senators in the minority (whichever party happens to be in the minority) have gotten too used to saying they're filibustering without really being willing to make the endless speeches necessary to do it.

Force them to make good on their promise to be obstructionist and you'll get a cloture vote. Several Republicans will probably even cross the aisle to vote for cloture if it's clear that the Dem leadership is committed to keeping this as the *only* agenda item for as long as necessary.

Meanwhile, the media will poke so many holes in the Republicans for offering either incorrect arguments or irrelevant speeches on the floor of the Senate that it will hurt them next year.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Andreams

October 29, 2009 3:03 PM

A national coop is the only kind that would make any sense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Mr.E.

October 29, 2009 3:04 PM

Not an expert on senate procedure, but I don't think this suggestion is accurate. I think the rules have been modified so the Rs don't have to actually stand there and read phonebooks any more. There may also be a provision that a filibuster can be kept alive by simply asking for a new vote that can be made by a single R, but would require 60 yes votes to close debate.

Nonetheless, I support the idea of making senators who oppose HCR to actually stand up and say so on the record, even if only C-SPAN is watching. I think that is what, if nothing else, will make hesitant Ds finally toe the line.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Homefries

October 29, 2009 3:28 PM in reply to Mr.E.

"In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster where no floor speech and no quorum is required may, therefore, be more powerful than an actual filibuster, which would require attendance by a quorum of Senators as well as the physical presence of the Senators speaking.

Previously, the filibustering senator(s) could delay voting only by making an endless speech. Currently, they only need to indicate that they are filibustering, thereby preventing the Senate from moving on to other business until the motion is withdrawn or enough votes are gathered for cloture."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

As Senate Majority Leader, Reid can call their bluff.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?