What Is "Reconciliation" - And Why Is It A Threat?
During last week's health summit, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid uttered a remarkably dishonest and, in retrospect, ironic statement, claiming that "nobody is talking about reconciliation" to pass the health bill.
It was a dishonest statement because Democrats have been openly floating the specter of passing the health bill using reconciliation since it first became obvious it would have difficulty passing the Senate, including just days before the summit by Sen. Reid himself.
It was ironic because it seems that all the cable news shows, talk radio, blogs and pundits have been talking about since the summit is whether President Obama, Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will use the Senate budget reconciliation process to pass their big government, big bureaucracy health bill.
But what exactly is the reconciliation process? And why, exactly, is it so controversial a move to pass the health bill?
A Tool for Congress to Meet Spending Goals
The budget reconciliation process was created in 1974 as part of the law that created much of the modern rules and organizational structures used by Congress to pass the annual budget.
This new law required Congress to pass a budget resolution every year that would set the parameters by which the various congressional committees would write their specific parts of the total budget bill.
Within these budget resolutions, instructions can be given to specific congressional committees to create legislation that would alter current laws affecting spending and/or taxation in order to conform to the targets set out in the budget resolution.
To enhance Congress’ ability to meet budget resolution targets, these pieces of legislation are not passed under the normal rules of the Senate. Instead, they fall under the “budget reconciliation process” rules which prohibit unrelated amendments to the bills and set a maximum of 20 hours of debate on the floor. As a practical matter, this means only 51 votes are needed to pass a reconciliation bill because the limit on debate overrides the threat of a filibuster.
The Byrd Rule to Prevent Abuse of Reconciliation
While the budget reconciliation process was a success in its principal goal of giving Congress more power to meet the spending and revenue goals of the budget resolution, it quickly became prone to abuse.
Provisions that had nothing to do with meeting budget resolution requirements, even some that directly contradicted them, were passed using the reconciliation process.
To prevent this, the so-called “Byrd Rule,” named after Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, who introduced the legislation, was passed in 1985 and made permanent in 1990.
The Byrd Rule allows any senator to raise a point of order objection to provisions in a reconciliation bill that they consider extraneous to meeting budget resolutions requirements. Then, it is up to the chair – either the Vice President (as President of the Senate) or, more often, the presiding officer of the Senate if the Vice President is not present -- whether that provision stays or is stricken.
However, the chair almost always relies on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian to determine if that objection is legitimate. (Learn more about the parliamentarian here.)
This determination is made based on six tests created as part of the Byrd Rule used to weed out provisions that have nothing to do with raising or reducing taxes or spending. It takes a 3/5 majority vote to override the decision of the presiding officer if he or she finds that a provision violates one or more of these tests. (This Congressional Research Service report is a good primer on the Byrd rule if you want to learn more.)
Reconciliation in Action
Reconciliation has been used for 22 bills, of which, 14 were passed by Republican majorities. Nineteen of those bills were signed into law by the President. Three were vetoed. You can view a chart of these bills here.
Notice the similarity between them? All of these bills were obviously directly related to taxation and spending, and since 1985, have successfully met the Byrd rule tests.
Health Reform Is About More than Federal Spending
This is why passing the left's big government, big bureaucracy health bill using the budget reconciliation process is so fundamentally dishonest and dangerous to Senate precedent.
Leaving aside the bill's merits (which, to be clear, are abysmal), both its defenders and detractors would acknowledge that it is, for better or worse, a fundamental overhaul of the nation's health system, both public and private. It sets new rules and regulations that span the entire healthcare sector. It is much larger in scope and more all encompassing in purpose than simply affecting federal spending and revenues.
This is not to say that the bill would not have some effect on the federal budget. Almost any piece of legislation could meet that meager standard.
The reconciliation process was only intended to be used for legislation directly related to meeting budget resolution spending and revenue goals.
The minor affect the left's health bill would have on the deficit over 10 years (beyond that there is every reason to think it would increase the deficit substantially), even by charitable estimates, cannot be used to justify passing this sort of sweeping legislation using reconciliation.
This is one reason why a number of Democrats, including Sen. Robert Byrd, author of the Byrd Rule and who also helped create the budget reconciliation process in 1974, called the idea of using it to pass the health bill (and cap and trade) "an outrage that must be resisted."
It's also why Robert Byrd objected to President Clinton's efforts to pass Hillarycare in 1993 using reconciliation.
Why should the left's latest big government healthcare grab be held to any different standard?
Welfare Reform vs. the Left's Big Government Health Bill
This week, the left is out in force, pointing to other significant pieces of legislation passed by Republicans using the budget reconciliation process as justification for passing their health care bill. One of the examples they are using is welfare reform.
Since welfare reform was passed while I was Speaker of the House, I am happy to compare the two cases.
First, welfare reform was an integral part of the Republican Congress' efforts to balance the budget, producing immediate savings of over $50 billion dollars between 1997 and 2002. It was originally combined with the balanced budget act that President Clinton vetoed in 1995.
By contrast, for most of the debate over the health bill, the left has constantly boasted about how their bill was "deficit neutral". President Obama repeatedly sought to assure the American people that he would not sign a bill that "added one dime" to the deficit. Medicare cuts were combined with new taxes to pay for the cost of new programs and bureaucracies.
So while real effective health reform would certainly have a positive effect on the deficit, it is clear that the left never intended for their health bill to be primarily a budget bill. Its focus was and still is on getting more people covered. It was only after Democratic leaders began setting the stage for passing the bill using reconciliation that they began emphasizing it as a way to reduce the deficit. (Paul Ryan explains here how their bill uses smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of savings).
Second, when we decided to roll welfare reform into the balanced budget bill in 1995, we never stopped the conference committee efforts to resolve the differences between the versions of the welfare reform legislation that passed in the House and Senate earlier in the year. This continuation of work, along with the active participation of the governors, allowed us to quickly produce the final bill in conference the next year, once it became clear that President Clinton was now finally ready to sign welfare reform.
In contrast, the Democrats have done an end run around the conference committee process that would resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills, instead trying to negotiate their final bill in secret at the White House. This process continues today, with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid exploring different tricks they can use to ram a bill through their respective chambers without first producing a conference bill.
Third, welfare reform was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, with more Democrats voting for it in the House and Senate than opposing it. It was signed by a Democratic President. Bipartisanship was integral to the success of the bill.
Today, Democrats are turning to passing the bill using the reconciliation process precisely because they are rejecting bipartisanship. Republican Scott Brown's stunning election in Massachusetts, thanks largely to opposition to the left's health bill, has meant that the Democrats would need at least one Republican vote to break a filibuster in the Senate. And their bill is so bad they can't get one.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, welfare reform was overwhelmingly popular with the American people. One poll showed that over 90 percent of Americans favored reform, including 88 percent of those on welfare.
As for the left's health bill, after a year of debate and discussion, the American people have overwhelmingly rejected it. A poll we released at the Center for Health Transformation showed that it is opposed by a 2-1 margin. It is a fact that the more Americans learn about the left's plan, both its substance and the corrupt manner in which it has been passed, the more they oppose it.
Three Corrupt Options for the Left
The left's big government, big bureaucracy health bill is overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people. It is incapable of obtaining any bipartisan support in the Senate.
Faced with this reality, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should do the responsible thing and scrap the unpopular bill and start over, focusing instead on smaller pieces of legislation that could obtain bipartisan support.
However, they've made it clear they aren't willing to do this. The Democrats are determined to pass a comprehensive health bill no matter how unpopular it is. This means they have to use reconciliation to avoid needing 60 votes to end debate in the Senate.
There are several corrupt options available to the Democrats using reconciliation.
One option would be for the House to pass the exact same health bill the Senate passed in December (thus avoiding the need for the Senate to marshal 60 votes again for a final bill now that Scott Brown is in office) with an understanding that a separate bill with a series of fixes would be passed immediately afterward using the budget reconciliation process in the Senate.
The left argues that technically, this would keep the use of reconciliation fairly narrow. However, the plain truth of the matter is that the Democrats would be using the budget reconciliation process to pass a bill they could not otherwise pass using the normal legislative process. It is a dirty trick that ignores congressional tradition and the overwhelming opposition to the bill from America.
Another option is for the Democrats to try and pass the full health bill in the Senate with 51 votes using reconciliation and then for the House to pass the same bill that emerges from the Senate.
For all the reasons outlined above, this would be an enormously inappropriate use of the budget reconciliation process. But it also means that the left's endlessly complicated bill that creates hundreds of new regulations, new programs, and new bureaucracies would have to survive the Byrd Rule tests, creating the possibility that by the time all the extraneous provisions are removed, the final "swiss cheesed" legislation would be unrecognizable.
For President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to promise to pass a bill when they, in reality, don't know what the final bill will look like, is the height of irresponsibility. (Of course, they passed the stimulus without reading it so it would certainly fit with their precedent.)
How Far Are The Democrats Willing To Go?
Which brings us to a third, more drastic option for the Democrats to get their high tax, big government, big bureaucracy health bill passed.
As explained above, under the Byrd Rule, the vice president of the United States is ultimately responsible for deciding whether a provision in a reconciliation bill is extraneous. It is merely tradition that dictates he follow the advice of the parliamentarian, not a Senate rule.
To avoid their legislation being subjected to Byrd Rule tests, the vice president could choose simply to ignore the advice of the parliamentarian on points of order and rule to keep the extraneous provisions in the final bill. Any senator can appeal these rulings, but the appeal may be defeated with a simple majority vote.
To be clear, no vice president has ever acted in this fashion in the history of the reconciliation process. But no one has ever tried to push this kind of bill through reconciliation before either.
With the American people overwhelmingly opposed to the health bill, not to mention every other part of the left's agenda, and the political environment turning increasingly toxic for the Democrats, President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could decide to make a cynical, calculated political decision.
Faced with the high likelihood of political defeat in November, they could decide it is preferable to pass the bill they want and be defeated rather than to fail to get a health bill (or only a partial bill), and be defeated anyway.
In fact, this seems to be the message Speaker Pelosi was pushing this past weekend , dismissing her caucus' concerns of defeat.
Republicans Must Vow To Replace the Left's Health Bill
If the Democrats are bound and determined to exert all their power and manipulate every rule they can to pass their big government health bill, Republicans may not be able to stop its passage.
We'll find out today as President Obama is set to announce his recommendation on the way forward.
But no matter what President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid decide, the bottom line for Republicans is that they must stand with the American people in opposing this bill.
This doesn't just mean voting against it and using every parliamentary maneuver available to delay its passage.
It also means running on a platform of replacing whatever left-wing health bill the Democrats manage to pass with real health reform that empowers patients and doctors, not bureaucrats, to bring down health costs. And delivering on that promise in 2011 if Republicans gain control of Congress.
And if President Obama is still determined to ignore the will of the people by vetoing the Republican bill after such a clear message from America, it means that the Republican candidate for President in 2012 must run on a platform that includes signing the replacement of the left's big government health bill. After all, no matter what dirty tricks the politician may try to get his way, in America, the people have the final say.
Your friend,
Newt Gingrich
The President put it all on the line in an address from the White House today. Saying "now is the time," he promised a full-on campaign to pass ObamaCare before Easter. My response? Let the final battle begin! – Mat
Here is the message sent out earlier from Liberty Action:
After weeks of carefully setting up the strategy everyone saw coming all along, Barack Obama has called on Congress to schedule a final "up-or-down" vote on his pro-abortion, anti-family, anti-fiscal sanity version of healthcare reform.
Cleverly avoiding the use of the word "reconciliation,"
Obama made it clear that he's now willing to force a straight party-line vote on his massive trillion dollar takeover of America's medical care system.
Here's exactly how it will work, thanks to a statement made by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) a few hours before Obama's announcement:
The House, Harkin says, will first pass the Senate bill after Senate leaders show House leaders they have the votes to pass reconciliation in the Senate. Then the Senate will apply pre-arranged "fixes" and pass the bill with 51 votes or more.
Of course, Democrat House members have to believe that Senators will address their many concerns through amendment processes if the strategy is to have any chance of working.
And that's the biggest challenge the Democrats face... and our biggest opportunity to stop this bill once and for all!
++ It's still the same 2,000-page, pro-abortion monstrosity.
Using the bully pulpit of the presidency during the "Sham-Wow Summit" last week, Barack Obama pitched a healthcare reform plan that is in essence just a repackaged version of what we've already seen - with a few new bells and whistles.
Obama was never really interested in "finding common ground."
His sole purpose in the "Summit" was to resuscitate his unwanted, pro-abortion healthcare agenda that should have been dead and buried many months ago!
++ Sadly, the continual arm twisting is taking a toll in the House.
I'm deeply concerned that President Obama's power play and the continual bullying by White House operatives could sway moderates in the House into changing their votes in favor of ObamaCare.
A recent survey of 39 House Democrats who earlier voted against ObamaCare found that NINE now say they may switch their votes. And the liberal media is doing everything in its power to paint those who oppose ObamaCare as "obstructionists."
Here's the danger: The President's speech today could mark a momentum shift in favor of ObamaCare - especially if members of Congress do not hear from the majority of Americans who strongly oppose this pro-abortion, anti-family bill.
In fact, I believe the next week is absolutely crucial. We need thousands of patriotic Americans to respond to this last-ditch effort to force ObamaCare down our throats!
++ We MUST take two vital actions right away:
FIRST, please join (or, re-join) our ongoing FAX BARRAGE to flood Congress with a crystal clear message:
"NO TO OBAMACARE!"
I know you may well have sent faxes before. I wouldn't be asking you again if the President had not just launched the final "offensive" in his maniacal effort to pass ObamaCare.
Your faxes will be scheduled to be delivered with thousands of other citizens' faxes as part of a powerful FAX BARRAGE beginning immediately! Go here now to schedule your faxes to Congress:
http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=25713&CID=310&RID=23710767
SECOND...
Please call your two Senators and your Representative and tell them what you think about the President's latest sales pitch of socialized medicine - a travesty that the vast majority of Americans simply don't want!
Here are the number for South Orange County:
Sen. Feinstein 202-224-3841
Sen. Boxer 202-224-3553
Rep. Campbell 202-225-5611
Timothy, make Congress hear YOUR VOICE! Now more than ever, we must counter the socialist campaign that is reaching its climax. The president is in full campaign mode!
His technology platform is stirring huge numbers to make a "virtual march on Washington."
The next few days are absolutely critical to stop the momentum shift the Obama/Pelosi/Reid power axis is desperately trying to achieve! Please...
Join our intense Liberty Counsel FAX BARRAGE. This strategy has been very effective in the ongoing fight to stop ObamaCare.
There must not be any doubt in our elected officials' minds that their careers will not survive a vote for the so-called "President's Plan" or any other version of ObamaCare. Go here right now:
http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=25714&CID=310&RID=23710767
If you prefer, we always encourage you to send your own faxes.
We have provided all the information you need to fax Senators and Congressmen here:
http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=25715&CID=310&RID=23710767
We must respond to the gauntlet the President threw down in today's message! Now as never before, we must actively stand against the abortion mandate, the mandate for personal participation and the fiscal insanity that are at the heart of every version of the ObamaCare bill!
God bless you,
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel
P.S. ObamaCare, whatever version the socialists are parading, can not be tolerated! Despite this latest public relations blitz, the President's proposal is still "smoke, mirrors and gimmicks."
The next few days will be crucial in countering any potential momentum shift brought on by our smooth-talking President.
There must not be any doubt in our elected officials' minds that their careers will not survive a vote for the so-called "President's Plan" or any other version of ObamaCare. Please send your faxes today!
If Obamacare passes it will provide (list from Dick Morris, author of Catastrophe
):
• A $500 billion cut in Medicare
• 30 million new patients with no new doctors
• Health care rationing
• Protocols of care to deny costly treatments based on how many "Quality Adjusted Life Years" remain
• Require the uninsured to pay $8500 to buy policies
• Fine them 2.5% of their income if they don't
• And send them to jail if they don't pay
• Tax medical devices like pacemakers and automated wheelchairs
• Force up premiums for all Americans by $2,000 a year
• Add $500 billion to the federal deficit (by 2024)
• Raise income taxes 2.5%
• Raise capital gains taxes 2.5%
• Cut reimbursement to doctors who order too many tests for patients
Please call, fax and write your congressman and Senators today and tell them: Vote NO on ObamaCare or we will vote you out!!
PHONE NUMBERS FOR SWING VOTE CONGRESSMEN:
PLEASE CALL!
DC OFFICE
LOCAL OFFICE
Harry Mitchell
(202) 225-2190
(480) 946-2411
Gabrielle Giffords
(202) 225-2542
(520) 881-3588
Ann Kirkpatrick
(202) 225-2315
(928) 226-6914
Jerry McNerney
(202) 225-1947
925-833-0643
John Salazar
202-225-4761
970-245-7107
Jim Hines
(202) 225-5541
(866) 453-0028
Alan Grayson
(202) 225-2176
(407) 841-1757
Bill Foster
(202) 225-2976
630-406-1145
Baron Hill
202 225 5315
812 288 3999
Mark Schauer
(202) 225-6276
(517) 780-9075
Gary Peters
(202) 225-5802
(248) 273-4227
Dina Titus
(202) 225-3252
702-256-DINA (3462)
Carol Shea-Porter
(202) 225-5456
(603) 743-4813
Tim Bishop
(202) 225-3826
(631) 696-6500
John Hall
(202) 225-5441
(845) 225-3641 x49371
Bill Owens
(202) 225-4611
(315) 782-3150
Mike Arcuri
(202)225-3665
(315)793-8146
Dan Maffei
(202) 225-3701
(315) 423-5657
Earl Pomneroy
(202) 225-2611
(701) 224-0355
Steven Driehaus
(202) 225-2216
(513) 684-2723
Mary Jo Kilroy
(202) 225-2015
(614) 294-2196
Zach Space
(202) 225-6265
(330) 364-4300
Kathy Dahlkemper
(202) 225-5406
(814) 456-2038
Patrick Murphy
(202) 225-4276
(215) 826-1963
Christopher Carney
(202) 225-3731
(570) 585-9988
Paul Kanjorski
(202) 225-6511
(570) 825-2200
John Spratt
(202) 225-5501
(803)327-1114
Tom Perriello
(202) 225-4711
(276) 656-2291
Alan Mollohan
(202) 225-4172
(304) 623-4422
Nick Rahall
(202) 225-3452
(304) 252-5000
Steve Kagen
(202) 225-5665
(920) 437-1954
Senators from your State. or Congress.org - Elected Officials
1-202-224-3121- Congressional Switchboard
1-202-225-3121- Congressional Switchboard
(202) 225-0100 - Speaker of the House Pelosi
The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care
