The legislation would take direct aim at workplace union elections, which has been a key area of concern for organized labor.

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, leads the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and admits that, despite work over the past year on the bill, its future remains uncertain.

“Well, it is still under consideration,” Harkin said Thursday during a conference call with reporters. “We’ve been working all last year to try to reach some agreement on a modified version of it that would be acceptable. I think we came pretty close to that, but now with this vote in Massachusetts … we just don’t know.”

The proposed bill would require organizers to gather signatures on union cards, and unionization of a workplace would occur when and if the necessary number of signatures had been reached. Those who advocate for the change note that the existing balloting process allows opportunity for company leaders, who are often against organized labor, to apply undue pressure on workers who have petitioned for the vote to commence. By keeping the process open and transparent through card signatures, organizers believe the opportunity to influence the actual election outcome will be reduced.

Those who oppose the change argue that by not having a balloting process, union organizers will be given an upper hand in the process and also that workers should be able to indicate their choice privately on an unsigned ballot.

The issue has become one of survival for organized labor, which saw overall membership fall an additional 12.3 percent in 2009, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the private sector alone, membership dipped 10 percent. The issue is key for Democrats not only because of their long-touted support of working class Americans, but also because they receive significant campaign funding and election support from unions and their membership.

Harkin is not yet willing to say exactly how such reforms garnered through bipartisan compromise might look, but he is adamant that the process governing unionizing needs to be addressed and changed.

“Let me put it this way, something has to be done to change the laws regarding the way we conduct union elections, how they are conducted. We’re looking at some proposals to do that. While it may not be card check as we know it, it will definitely be a change in the way we conduct elections,” he said.

When asked if such a compromise could be struck this year, Harkin wasn’t overly optimistic.

“[It's] possible that sometime this spring, before summer, we may see something like that — but it’s just a possibility. I’m not sure,” he said.

“I’m not happy with the result, but the conservatives aren’t happy either. This must be a compromise,” Harkin said. “There are one or two members of our caucus that, for whatever reason, have sort of taken a ‘my way or the highway’ position. Since we need 60 votes — I wish it weren’t so — but you’ve got to deal with the realities around here.”

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)

Harkin said that every Republican has “joined together to try to sink this and to stop it,” and that has opened the door to a few senators becoming key votes to stop a filibuster.

In fact, recent events have him considering whether he should re-submit a bill he and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., co-sponsored several years ago that would still allow for slowing a bill but would prevent complete blockage of a bill through a filibuster.

“It really is an abuse of a person’s position as Senator to demand … everything. It is really unfair to the rest of the Senate and the rest of the caucus too,” he said. “If they feel aggravated and they don’t have what they want … well, there are a lot of us who don’t have what we want. And to lay down an ultimatum that it has to be this or nothing and I’m walking away from it … That’s not the way you do legislation if you want to be a legislator. Maybe this is not the right place for a person to be that takes a position like that.”

Although it has been rumored that 10 Democratic senators — five who lean liberal, and five who are more conservative — have struck a tentative compromise that would limit the public option set forth in the U.S. House bill, Harkin would offer no specific details. The group, he said, was keeping the information private pending scoring from the Congressional Budget Office.

“If a group of senators send something to the CBO to get scored, and it is not in the public domain, the CBO will give the score back to that group without putting it in the public domain. We wanted to go that route because we wanted to be able, if the score is not good, to turn some dials, as we say around here, and change somethings to get it to an acceptable level,” he said. “If the details get out early about what we are going to do, then you get all the lobbyists here in Washington and all the groups around the country in a dither and that makes it harder to strike a deal.”

While the group of senators has a tentative idea on what a good score from the CBO would look like, Harkin said a final figure has not yet been reached.

“We are so close to having a final agreement and getting this done by Christmas, we have to be very cautious about how we proceed,” he said. “That’s why I won’t discuss any of the details of it. There are a lot of rumors out there, but I don’t think any of the 10 that I was engaged with has issued any statements at all about what is in the agreement.”

Harkin was originally hopeful that the CBO score would be delivered on Friday. The agency has said that date will be impossible, so he is now optimistic the figures will be available on Saturday.

“I think what we will finally come up with is a very progressive bill,” he said. “It is still going to have more good in it than bad. … It is simply mathematics and arithmetic. Because every single Republican has joined together to try to sink this and to stop it, and to stop Obama and make this his Waterloo, we have to come up with 60 votes to break their filibuster. In order to do that, we have to cater to two individuals basically who are driving a pretty hard bargain. Quite frankly, we may not get both of them. If we don’t, then we’ll have to get a Republican. And, if we have to get a Republican, then we are probably going to have make more changes.”

Today marks the 11th consecutive day of floor debate on the health care reform bill. As of the press call with Harkin, 16 amendments had been debated and six dealing primarily with preventive services for women and earmarking Medicare savings back into the program have been adopted.

“We are closer to health reform than ever in my lifetime, and certainly in my political lifetime,” Harkin said. “I keep telling people not to think about this as the 10 Commandments written in Stone. This is a law. This is legislation. Once we get over this hurdle and we break the back of the status quo, we can move ahead in the future — next year or the year after. We can start to look at different things and how we might change them in the future, be we’ve got to get over this hurdle.

“If it means that we don’t get all that I want … well, that’s life. We don’t always get what we want in life, but at least it is progress. It may not be as much as what we wanted in the beginning.”

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) on Capitol Hill (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)

“I’m going to take this out and attack the opponents on this, and be proactive in saying that we have a deal here that’s gonna make it better for the American people,” Harkin said Thursday morning in a conference call with reporters.

Harkin said he “can only hope” that Republicans who have opposed reform efforts will make the legislation a theme in their speeches on the campaign trail.

“I hope it is an issue next year,” he said.

“There are a lot of things that will start going into effect next year, for example, we started a high-risk pool for people with pre-existing conditions. I want to see [Republicans] say that is not a good deal.”

Harkin noted that the bill prohibits rescission, provides coverage for those who retire early and are not eligible for Medicare, offers tax credits to small businesses that provide health coverage to employees, eliminates co-pays and deductibles for preventative care, allows children to continue on family policies through age 26, and bans lifetime benefit limits.

“The biggest single cause of bankruptcies in Iowa is health care expenses when people bump up against their lifetime limits,” Harkin said. “We banned those. I’d like to see the Republicans go out next year and tell everyone that is a bad deal.”

In addition, Harkin is convinced that voters “are not going to look kindly upon the Republicans for their delaying tactics” in connection with reform efforts.

“Let’s have the amendments. Let’s have the votes. I’m not afraid of that,” he said. “I’m more than willing to have these amendments and have the votes, but you are just going to filibuster the bill — well, it’s time to get to a vote.”

Harkin, who celebrates his 70th birthday today, also renewed his call for members of the Senate to work all weekend, if necessary, in order to pass reform efforts on to the conference committee. He now anticipates that a health care reform bill will be ready for a Presidential signature by January.

Here is a transcript of some of Harkin’s comments:

I can only hope so. I hope that we pass the bill, that it goes to conference and that we give it to the President and he signs it. I hope it is an issue next year. I hope they come out — I hope the Republicans next year, when things start going into effect — there are a lot of things that will start going into effect next year, for example, we start a high-risk pool for people with pre-existing conditions to go into. I want to see them say that is not a good deal. We stopped recissions, so that insurance companies cannot drop you when you become sick. I’d like to see the Republicans next year go out and say that is a bad deal for the people of America.

We have a new re-insurance for retirees, to cover retirees who aren’t yet eligible for Medicare. We have a provision in there that will provide for coverage for these [individuals]. I’d like to see them go out and tell people from age 55 to 65 that this is a bad deal for them.

We have small business tax credits. Tax credits that go up to about 50 percent for small businesses to be able to get coverage for their employees. I’d like to see Republicans go to every small business in Iowa and tell them that is a bad deal.

Our bill bans lifetime limits. How many times do people go into bankruptcy in this country and in Iowa? The biggest single cause of bankruptcies in Iowa is health care expenses when people bump up against their lifetime limits. We banned those. I’d like to see the Republicans go out next year and tell everyone that is a bad deal.

We provide for no co-pays and no deductibles for certain prevention screenings and wellness benefits. I’d like to see see them go out and say that is a bad deal.

Our bill, next year, would require insurers to permit children to stay on their family policies until they are age 26. I’d like to see the Republicans go out next year and just say that is a bad deal for everyone.

Well, you get my point. I’d love to have this debate next year.

Not only defending — promoting.

You know my old stock thing: Never defend, always attack.

Poll after poll, people want this. It is just like the public option. Almost 2-to-1 people support a public option — and among Democrats it is 4-to-1, and among doctors 3-to-1 in this country.

So, I’d like to see the Republicans go out and tell people this is a bad deal.

I also think that people are not going to look kindly upon the Republicans for their delaying tactics on this. Let’s bring it up for a vote. Let’s have the amendments, as we did in our committee. Let’s have the amendments. Let’s have the votes. I’m not afraid of that. I’m more than willing to have these amendments and have the votes, but if you are just going to filibuster the bill — well, it’s time to get to a vote.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal speaks as House Speaker Pat Murphy and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean look on.

“Our goal is, hopefully for a long time, to do nothing on this issue,” Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, said. “To let people know that on April 3 there was a ruling, and on April 27 there were a lot of people who said the end of the world was coming. Well, it’s a month later, and the sun is still shining, the grass is still green and people are enjoying their lives and living in more dignity because of what’s happened.”

Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, spoke Thursday night at a reception in their honor hosted by One Iowa, the state’s largest gay rights organization. The day the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, Gronstal and Murphy issued a joint statement praising the decision and closed the door on legislative action to overturn it. Over the course of the session’s final weeks, both men repeatedly beat back attempts to push through a constitutional amendment overturning the court’s decision.

Also speaking at the event was former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean, who, as governor of Vermont, signed the country’s first civil unions bill into law nearly ten years ago. Dean applauded Gronstal and Murphy for their efforts.

“The reason I am proud of them is that they have done something that is not easy to do,” Dean said. “This is an incredibly emotional issue; I don’t have to tell you what the backlash is. But people in politics who have to face voters, this is the tough thing to stand up for. When people take risks like this on your behalf, you have got to support them.”

Dr. Howard Dean mingles with the crowd at Thursday night's One Iowa event. Also in attendance were U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell, former Lt. Gov. Sally Pederson, Gov. Chet Culver Press Secretary Troy Price and numerous state legislators.

The summer after the Vermont civil unions bill was signed, Dean said the rhetoric became so heated he wore a bulletproof vest most of the time. Flash forward to last month and Vermont’s legislature was able to overwhelmingly pass a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. That shows how much opinion can change over time.

“Once somebody stands up and says who they are, it’s impossible to discriminate against them,” he said. “Most decent human beings can say terrible things about somebody they don’t know anything about. They can’t say those things about friends and neighbors.”

Despite the praise, Gronstal said he didn’t stand up for same-sex marriage in order to win support.

“We do have to face the voters, but we also have to face ourselves every morning,” he said. “We have to be able to look ourselves in the mirror every day. And by the way, we didn’t do this for the GLBT community. We did this for everybody.”

The goal now, Murphy said, is to make sure the work doesn’t stop and groups like One Iowa continue to fight to elect “open-minded people who are willing to protect the rights of the people of this state.”

Dean agreed, saying if Iowa fails, the entire gay rights movement could fail.

“We have to make sure they get re-elected,” he said. “If they lose, this sets back the movement. People around the country will say: ‘Look what they did in Iowa, and look at the price Democrats had to pay.’ So it makes a big difference.”

For movie fans of a certain age, those of us who first saw now-65-year-old Harrison Ford in the initial Indiana Jones film, “Raiders Of The Lost Ark,” back in 1981, the nostalgia of seeing the swashbuckling leading man is perhaps enough to justify the two hours its takes to watch the movie.

“For an old man you ain’t bad in a fight. What are you, about 80?” says Indiana Jones’ new prot

So when I finally got home, and could access the national political blogs that for some reason the Mount Vernon School District’s wireless network had blocked, what did I read?

“Obama loses one.”

It’s the latest example of national political writers just not understanding Iowa’s caucus and convention process.On Thursday, I published a comprehensive look at the math that showed Obama taking 15 delegates, Clinton winning nine, and Edwards definitely getting two, with three delegates still in play, and one more delegate possibly shifting pending deals between candidates.

But national estimates ignored things like deals between candidates and the possibility of people just not showing up, and acted as if the numbers were set in stone. Those estimates allocated two more delegates to Obama and one to Edwards, for a 17-9-3 estimate.

On Saturday, Edwards gained viability in the 1st District, where he had been two people short of viability coming out of the Mar. 15 county conventions. My estimates had listed this seat as being in question, but national reports assumed Edwards would not be viable and that Obama would gain the delegate. This is what sites such as MyDD and Democratic Convention Watch are listing as the Obama “loss.” But like the old blues song says, you can’t lose what you never had. In fact, the truly accurate Iowa numbers before Saturday were Obama zero, Clinton zero, Edwards zero.

Meanwhile, in the 4th District, a deal that Iowa Independent reported between Edwards and “another campaign” — math would indicate Clinton — failed to materialize, and Obama gained a fourth delegate which I had listed as in doubt. But national sites, pretending Edwards did not exist, had already allocated this delegate to Obama, and are failing to report it as a gain.

It was a bit more fair for national sites to list the Edwards delegate in the 5th District as an Edwards hold. However, coming out of the county conventions Edwards was only viable by one person, so I had listed the seat as in question. That was a judgment call, as opposed to the inaccuracy of reports on the 1st and 4th Districts.

The Iowa Democratic Party reports a national delegate count of Obama 16, Clinton 9, and Edwards 4 from the five conventions.Edwards supporter Sam Juhl, mayor of Roland and an Iowa House candidate, told Iowa Independent Wednesday there had been a conference call between 4th District Edwards supporters and “another campaign” to make Edwards viable.

Math in the district would indicate that would have been Hillary Clinton’s campaign. With Edwards not viable, Obama needed to gain fewer Edwards supporters to win a 4-2 split in the 4th district than Clinton would have needed to earn a 3-3 tie.

Based on county convention results, Edwards and uncommitted forced would have been 18 people short of viability in the 4th District.

Results from the other districts:

CD 1: Obama 3, Clinton 2, Edwards 1
CD 2: Obama 4, Clinton 2, Edwards 1
CD 3: Obama 3, Clinton 2, Edwards 1
CD 5: Obama 2, Clinton 1, Edwards 1

This Edwards staffer dutifully wore a hot costume all afternoon.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller and Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy enjoy the day at the steak fry. Miller has endorsed Obama, and McCarthy has endorsed Biden.

Hillary Clinton gives her stump speech at the steak fry.

Chris Dodd discussed the finer foods available on a stick at the Iowa State Fair during his speech at the steak fry.

Head getting sunburned? A fashionable hat can be crafted out of an Obama sign and a few stickers.

John Edwards discusses his health care plan during his speech at the steak fry.

Joe Biden's "Ears of Experience" display.

Biden gives a sobering address on the realities of the situation in Iraq to close out the presidential candidate speeches.

An Uncle Sam costumed steak fry attendee supporting Edwards.

Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and his wife, Christie.

Harkin and guests give a final bow for the crowd to close out the 2007 Harkin Steak Fry.