Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) opposed using the filibuster-proof reconciliation process to pass a comprehensive health care bill. But, despite speculation to the contrary, he says he’s open to at least considering a burgeoning plan to use reconciliation to amend the Senate health care bill.
“Currently, there is uncertainty about how to move forward on health care reform. I would hope the president would clarify where he stands on the path ahead,” reads a statement. “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.”
A number of conservative Democrats in the Senate have lashed out at the idea that the Senate would move ahead with a “sidecar” package to preemptively amend their own health care bill. That would create the political space for the House to pass the Senate bill word for word. It’s still unclear, though, whether the Senate is politically or procedurally prepared to move ahead with that plan. Nelson, however, may not be their biggest obstacle.
You can read the statement in full below.
“Nebraskans with health insurance face unsustainable increases in their premiums, while 220,000 Nebraskans have no health insurance at all. Â I still support health reform that addresses those problems. Currently, there is uncertainty about how to move forward on health care reform. Â I would hope the president would clarify where he stands on the path ahead.
“I’ve been asked about whether I’d support using the process known as reconciliation now. So, I want to make it clear: Â 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.
“If the bill provides coverage for the 220,000 Nebraskans who don’t have insurance, help for all other Nebraskans who are paying too much for health care, and doesn’t lead to government-run health care and ensures that public funds aren’t used for abortion, then I’ll at least take a look at it.
“I’ve also seen some mention of previous legislation I supported that moved through reconciliation, such as the major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and some other bills.
“I’d like to make it absolutely clear: I supported bills brought forward under reconciliation simply because the underlying bills met my standard for good legislation. I opposed a bill because it didn’t meet my standard of good legislation. Whether it required 50 votes or 60 votes, the process used didn’t change the substance.”
