U.S. Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska are two of three members of the Senate Democratic Caucus who have yet to say whether they will act to prevent a planned Republican filibuster of the Senate’s health care reform bill. (The third is Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.)

(Update: Nelson, citing a personal history of rejecting “efforts to obstruct,” has said he will vote to allow the bill to move forward.)

“[Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid has scheduled a critical vote this Saturday night that will allow the Senate to take-up his bill,” the RNC wrote today in an e-mail that urges supporters to contact Lincoln’s and Nelson’s offices.

“This is the best opportunity there will be to stop President [Barack] Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi from imposing their government-run health care plan on America.”

Speaking with reporters on Thursday, U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin predicted that the planned filibuster would fail because “no Democrat wants to be the one that stopped” health care reform.

Democrats, who currently control the Senate, will need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. That means, in addition to holding their caucus of 58 votes together, the Democrats will need the support of independent Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

Perhaps more notably, Vice President Joe Biden will still headline the dinner (as far as we know). That will put him pretty far outside the Washington beltway as the Senate’s health bill is finalized.

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.

During an interview with MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, Harkin said no one in the Democratic caucus wants to be the person who derails health care legislation.

“We’ve all had our input. We’ve had our debate. But I believe now that the team is together,” he said. “And our team is going to hold together and we’ll have those 60 votes to move ahead.”

Harkin said the bill, which includes a public insurance option that states can opt out of, is not what he would have written. But in order to get the votes needed to move forward it was necessary to put the opt out in the bill, he said.

“I think it’s a reasonable compromise,” Harkin said. “Whether or not a state will opt out or not is up to the states. I would think a majority in every state would want to have that competitive edge a public option would present.”

Here’s video from Harkin’s appearance. His segment starts at 3:45.

Grassley, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee that unanimously approved Rose’s nomination for a full vote, said he would guess that her Senate confirmation is not in jeopardy.

“I’ve had a chance to interview her, and she’s been an assistant U.S. Attorney for a long period of time,” Grassley said during a conference call. “She’s absolutely qualified to do the job she’s been appointed to.”

Rose’s handling of any one particular case, according to Grassley, should not be used as a litmus test for her entire career as a federal prosecutor. He also note how unusual it is for someone within the office ranks to be recommended and nominate for such a post.

“Very seldom does somebody at that professional career track get selected by a U.S. senator,” he said. “They usually pick someone who has been not only a good lawyer, but also very active in the political process… I think it’s quite a feather in Sen. Harkin’s hat that he’d be willing to help someone who’s been a professional all these years to advance to be a U.S. Attorney.”

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)

Not only will the Senate be working weekends through December on health care reform legislation, but it could also spend the upcoming weekend in session, Sen. Tom Harkin told D.C.-based newspaper The Hill.

Harkin, who chairs the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, said Democrats will have the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. And if Republicans try to stall debate by asking that the entire bill be read on the Senate floor he promises a delay to Thanksgiving break.

If that happens, Harkin said, the majority party is likely to use a procedural maneuver to keep the Senate in session this weekend.

“If the Republicans want to stay here this Saturday and Sunday to read the bill, then let them stay here,” Harkin said, adding that Democrats would hold a “live quorum,” where the sergeant at arms requests the presence of all absent senators.

“I’ll tell you, we’re going to do something like that,” Harkin said. “We are planning to do something that would require Republicans to be there 24 hours a day, and if they leave the floor, we’ll ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading, and that’ll be the end of it.”

The goal, Harkin said, is to pass a bill before the Christmas holiday. He predicts a motion to proceed to a vote will be held Friday.

In a letter to Senate Democratic leaders, the lawmakers argue that the current formula, which allots permits based half on emissions and half on sales, is unfair to the higher-emitting utilities (i.e., those that burn coal).

Under the proposed 50/50 formula, utilities that are more coal dependent will need to purchase even more allowances than they would have if all allowances were allocated based on emissions.

Well, yeah. And under the current proposed 50/50 formula, the coal burners would also have to purchase more allowances than if Congress did nothing at all. But the whole point of the bill is to discourage the use of high-emission energies like coal by making them less affordable than cleaner alternatives. Sheppard explains further why the lawmakers’ argument makes little sense in the context of the global warming debate:

Of course, this would work against the entire logic of the proposed scheme, which is to offer utilities financial incentives to switch to lower-carbon fuel sources. [...]

Right now, the climate bill needs all the votes it can get from Democrats. So enviros worry that concessions to this bloc could ultimately result in a deal in which coal plants suffer no real penalties for the carbon they pump into the atmosphere. “Dirty coal polluters know their days are numbered and are lobbying for the largest piece of the pie they can get,” said Jason Kowalski, policy coordinator at 1Sky. “It goes against the spirit of this legislation to reward the polluters that caused this problem in the first place.”

Signing on to the letter were Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Russ Feingold (Wis.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Al Franken (Minn.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Roland Burris (Ill.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Robert Byrd (W.Va.).

Mike Lillis covers congress for The Washington Independent, a Center for Independent Media site.

Grassley’s official statement:

America’s veterans put their lives on the line to defend freedom, protect national security and secure the safety of loved ones at home.

It’s important on Veterans Day to recognize the significant contributions made each and every day by our men and women in uniform. They put their own lives on hold in noble service to their country. We owe those who serve in uniform a debt of gratitude. Because of their sacrifices, future generations of Americans will continue to live under the blessings of freedom.

Harkin’s official statement:

Each year on Veterans Day we honor those soldiers who have served and protected our country. As we think of our loved ones now gone and salute those among us who have served in the nation’s armed forces, let us also remember to honor our veterans in practical ways, by ensuring that they receive the benefits and recognition that they have earned.

In Congress, we have worked to honor the service of our men and women in uniform by providing additional funding for traumatic brain injury treatment and psychological health care, passing a 21st Century GI Bill to improve access to quality education, and providing a much needed increase in benefits to keep pace with the rising cost-of-living. Soon, the Senate will pass the annual Veterans Appropriations bill, to expand benefits for caregivers of wounded veterans, and to improve access to health care for women who have served.

While our country may never be able to fully repay our veterans for their sacrifice, we can express our gratitude and pledge to always stand with them. We send our thoughts to all the troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world and to the military families they leave behind here at home.

A contingent of World War II veterans from Iowa are currently visiting the nation’s capital as a part of the Honor Flight program.

House lawmakers have proposed to do away with the program at the end of 2013, transitioning millions of kids instead to private plans on the exchange. Senate lawmakers have taken a different tack, arguing that CHIP offers both coverage and cost advantages that private companies can’t (or simply won’t) replicate. The Senate bill would reauthorize CHIP through 2019.

Today, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) became the latest lawmaker to weigh in on the distinction.

The chairman of the Senate health committee was quick to point out that he isn’t familiar with the CHIP repeal proposed by the House. Still, he told local Iowa reporters that he wouldn’t oppose such a repeal if the shift to the exchange plans wouldn’t harm kids’ coverage.

“My bottom line is just to make sure that all the kids get good coverage,” Harkin said in response to a question from my colleague Lynda Waddington at The Iowa Independent. “If this [the House repeal] is better for kids, and they can show it’s more effective — and cost effective — fine. I’ll go with that. If not, then I’ll stick with the CHIP program.”

Under the House bill, White House health officials would be required to study the shift from CHIP to the exchange, weighing the advantages of each program in terms of cost and benefits. The idea is to ensure that children won’t be moved into lower-quality health plans.

As many children’s health care advocates have warned, though, there’s nothing in the House proposal that would block the transition, even if the White House analysis found that private plans would offer inferior benefits. Such a safeguard was included in the legislation that passed the Energy and Commerce Committee in July, but budget restraints caused Democratic leaders to scrap that trigger in the final bill.

“It’s probably going to be a conference item,” Harkin said Tuesday of the CHIP repeal. And he’s probably right about that.

Mike Lillis covers congress for The Washington Independent, a Center for Independent Media site.

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)

“You have to be a little bit careful here because the way the … amendment is written, it can now be taken to other steps. For example, every health insurance company in America could now lose some of its tax benefits that it gets for providing health insurance if it provides abortion services. You can take this on down. You could just say that anybody that got a federal loan for housing could not get an abortion. You can take this and just keep going on and on and on with no end in sight,” Harkin said.

The language inserted in the House came by way of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which prohibits abortion coverage for any health insurance product subsidized in any way by the federal government.  As it is written, the bill dictates that any person seeking insurance is barred from purchasing abortion coverage, even if the premium for such insurance is paid out-of-pocket, if the person receives any government assistance.

“I just fear that the House-passed language goes far beyond [previous restrictions] and will effectively prevent women from receiving abortion coverage under the new health exchanges even if they are using their own money to buy insurance,” Harkin said. “I think that is unfortunate and goes too far. So, we will be addressing this issue before [the Senate bill] goes to the floor. My hope is that we can strike the appropriate balance.”

Harkin said his personal preference, and the one he believed all lawmakers had agreed upon prior to the introduction of this amendment, was maintenance of a nearly three-decade agreement that barred use of federal funds for abortion except in cases of incest, rape and life of the mother.

“I think keeping the status quo is the best thing we can do,” he said. “I think it has worked well over the past 20-some years, and I see no reason to change it at this point.”

The Democratic senator from Cumming, who serves as chairman for the Senate Health, Education, Pensions and Labor Committee, did stop short of saying he would vote against a reform bill in the Senate that included language similar to what was in the House version.

“I’m willing to work with my fellow senators, and my refrain is going to be, ‘Don’t upset the apple cart.’ Right now, I believe everyone in our country — except, let’s face it, some fringe groups — like what we have right now. It works well. We have conscience clauses. We provide no federal funding for abortions anywhere except for incest, rape and life of the mother. I think time has shown that these provisions work well. I see no reason to go beyond that now and to let maybe one fringe group or the other upset our whole health care bill because they want to change what has been an accepted law and practice for the past almost 30 years,” he said.

Although every Republican member of the U.S. House voted in favor of the amendment to further restrict abortion access, only one Republican ended up crossing the aisle to vote for the whole reform bill.

“I think that there are a lot of people, and I think you’ll see this in the Senate debate, who want to vote for amendments and will never vote for the bill,” Harkin said, and noted that within the HELP Committee more than 200 Republican amendments were considered, and 161 adopted, yet no Republican member could find a way to vote for the committee’s final bill.

“I think it will become clear that those who are doing these things aren’t just amending the bill to make it better or to try to make it work better. They want to kill the bill. Period. Republicans have said that repeatedly. They want to kill this bill. They want to stop Obama. They want to stop these changes.”