What have Democrats previously said about Reconciliation :
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND):
“Once you’ve unleashed reconciliation, you can’t get it back in the barn, and it could be used for lots of different things that are completely unintended at this moment. People need to think about that very carefully.” CongressNow, 4/21/09
“I don’t think this was the purpose for which reconciliation was originally desed. There are many problems that it creates in trying to write substantive legislation. So I would much prefer that we not have reconciliation instruction in this resolution.” RollCall, 4/21/09
“Reconciliation was never intended for this purpose [health care reform], and it doesn’t work well…It was never intended for this purpose, and I think there would be a lot of unintended consequences.” RollCall, 4/21/09
“Reconciliation was designed for deficit reduction. The place where I would agree with the Senator is, I don’t believe reconciliation was ever intended to write major substantive legislation.” Senate floor statement on FY 2010 Budget, 3/31/09
“Our distinguished Parliamentarian has said, if you try to write major legislation in reconciliation, you will be left with Swiss cheese. So I hope people are thinking about that. I know there are attractive features of reconciliation …..I don’t think we should do it for substantive legislation that is really not deficit reduction legislation.” Senate floor statement on FY 2010 Budget, 3/30/09
Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd (D-WV):
“I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation. Such a proposal would olate the intent and spirit of the budget process and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate.” Dear Colleague letter, 4/2/09
“As one of the authors of the reconciliation process, I can tell you that…reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits…it was not designed to create a new climate and energy regime, and certainly not to restructure the entire health care system.” Dear Colleague letter, 4/2/09
“I am one of the authors of the reconciliation process. Its purpose is to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits. It was not designed to cut taxes. It was not designed to create a new climate and energy regime, and certainly not to restructure the entire health care system. The ironclad parliamentary rules are stacked against a partisan minority, and also against dissenting ews within the majority caucus. It is such a dangerous process that in the 1980s, the then-Republican majority and then-Democratic minority adopted language, now codified as the Byrd Rule, intended to prohibit extraneous matter from being attached to these fast-track measures. The budget reconciliation process will not air dissenting ews about health and climate legislation. It will not allow for feedback from the people or amendments that might improve the original proposals.” Senate floor statement on FY 2010 Budget, 4/1/09
“I understand the White House and congressional leadership want to enact their legislative agenda. I support a lot of that agenda, but I hope it will not require using the reconciliation process. Again, I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for excluding reconciliation instructions, and look forward to working with him to ensure those instructions are not included in conference.” Senate floor statement on FY 2010 Budget, 4/1/09
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
“Under reconciliation, the Senate is not the Senate; the Senate is a different institution.” Senate floor statement, April 5, 2001
“I’ve not totally ruled it out…I am doing everything I can to prevent us from going down that road.” Senate Finance Committee hearing, February 25, 2009
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)
[Reconciliation] is an abuse of the process.” From 2003, as cited in The Hill on April 23, 2009
“I have strongly opposed past efforts to use reconciliation…it wasn’t appropriate then. It isn’t appropriate now.” Senate floor statement, April 2, 2009
“There are some features of this resolution with which I take exception, most notably the use of reconciliation as a tool to expedite health care reform. The arguments over the use of reconciliation are familiar to this body. Sadly, a tool intended to streamline the painful process of deficit reduction has been used to clear a path for major policy changes that have, at best, only a passing relationship to reducing the budget deficit.” Senate floor statement, 4/29/2009
“Health care reform is long overdue, and I look forward to the Senate finally acting on an issue that is so important to my constituents. But let’s not kid ourselves. It is no more appropriate to use reconciliation as a hammer to push through health care reform under regular procedures than it is to use it directly to enact those reforms. Both are abuses. Both undermine its original intent. Both inte even greater abuses in the future.” Senate floor statement, 4/29/2009
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
“Today, we are being asked to turn our backs on Senate history by adding language to this budget resolution which will make it difficult for the Senate to fully debate.” Senate floor statement, April 5, 2001
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
“Reconciliation was designed to help Congress pass a large package of measures to reduce the deficit, not to be used to resolve one major policy issue.” Senate floor statement, March 16, 2005
Senator Byrd
“I was one of the authors of the legislation that created the budget reconciliation process in 1974, and I am certain that putting health-care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted.” (“The End of Bipartisanship For Obama’s Big Initiatives?” The Washington Post, 3/22/09)
“The budget reconciliation process will not air dissenting views about health and climate legislation. It will not allow for feedback from the people or amendments that might improve the original proposals.” (Floor statement on FY 2010 Budget, April 1, 2009)
http://budget.senate.gov/republican/pressarchive/PressRecon.pdf
I’ve heard an awful lot of threatening bluster on how the Democrats are going to ram this bill through with various measures. I’m really not buying this. I think that we have a lot of scared congress critters who are trying to talk big.
Let’s talk about the Public Option. The radicals in the House are all for it while the Blue Dogs are supposedly not. So first, the House has to agree on it. Then the Senate, as far as we can tell will deliver a bill without a public option, or at least a watered down version of it. How can any one ram through a bill when they can’t agree on any of the details.
In terms of using Budget Reconciliation or the Nuclear Option. The Wikipedia article and a recent WSJ article make it clear that such an action would strip the bill of any items that did not have a direct impact on costs or revenues. This would leave such a gaping hole in the bill that it would never pass that way.
In sum, I challenge any one to believe this bluster. My prediction: the lack of agreement between the two legislative bodies will lead to a stalemate and no final passage, though I am not currently enthused enough to put money on this. I wonder what the Iowa markets could say about the likelihood of health care legislation?