About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CNN's Sylvester advances McCain's claim that reconciliation "would be a drastic change in the way" the Senate "does business"

August 26, 2009 6:05 pm ET — 9 Comments

On Lou Dobbs Tonight, guest host Lisa Sylvester advanced the claim that reconciliation is an "obscure Senate rule" that would be, in Sen. John McCain's words, "a drastic change in the way that the United States Senate does business." In fact, Congress has repeatedly used the budget reconciliation process to enact changes to the nation's health care policy, and Senate Republicans have used or attempted to use reconciliation to pass President Bush's tax cuts, an increase in the Medicare eligibility age, and welfare reform.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

From the August 25 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:

SYLVESTER: The American public today continued to be heard at town hall meetings across the nation. Democrats are planning hundreds of rallies to marshal support for President Obama's proposals. Republicans, too, are listening. Senator John McCain today, he hosted a town hall meeting in Sun City, Arizona, and his constituents there made it very clear how they feel about the president's plan.

McCAIN [video clip]: I am convinced the president is absolutely sincere in his beliefs. But he is -- wait a minute. Wait a minute. He is sincere in his beliefs, we just -- we just happen to disagree. And he is the president of the United States, and let's be respectful.

SYLVESTER: McCain expressed concern that Democrats would use obscure Senate rules to force their health care plan through without a full and open debate.

McCAIN [video clip]: I am unalterably opposed to that. It would be a drastic change in the way that the United States Senate does business, and I hope that if you see something like that coming, you would not allow that to happen.

SYLVESTER: Yeah, that procedure known as reconciliation. The crowd at the senator's meeting was so large that some had to be turned away. They were able to watch the meeting, though, from an overflow room.

Reconciliation is not "obscure" -- Congress has used it several times before

Congressional Research Service reports that Congress used reconciliation process to pass 21 bills between 1981 and 2007. An August 10, 2005, Congressional Research Service (CRS) report lists 19 bills Congress passed that were enacted through reconciliation from FY 1981 to FY 2005 -- 16 of which became law and three of which were vetoed by President Clinton. A separate March 2008 CRS report lists an additional two reconciliation bills passed by Congress since 2005.

Congress previously has used reconciliation to pass health care measures

Congress used reconciliation to pass Medicare Advantage. As part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, enacted through the reconciliation process, Congress -- which was controlled by the Republicans at the time -- created the "Medicare+Choice Program," currently known as Medicare Advantage or Medicare Part C. The program allows seniors to enroll in HMO-type plans rather than the traditional Medicare fee-for-service plan.

Congress used reconciliation to pass COBRA. As stated on the Department of Labor website, as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Congress gave "workers and their families who lose their health benefits the right to choose to continue group health benefits provided by their group health plan for limited periods of time under certain circumstances."

Congress used reconciliation to pass Patient Self-Determination Act. As part of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990, Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act, which requires hospitals, nursing homes, HMOs, and other organizations that participate in Medicare or Medicaid to provide information about advance directives and patients' decision-making rights.

Republicans repeatedly attempted to use reconciliation to pass increase in Medicare eligibility age. The version of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 introduced by then-Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) using the reconciliation procedure contained a section providing for raising the Medicare eligibility age. As the CRS reported, the provision was stricken from the bill during floor consideration on the basis of a point of order that the provision was "extraneous" to matters appropriate to reconciliation.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 -- also introduced through the reconciliation procedure -- also included a provision to raise the eligibility age. Fifty Republicans voted in favor of waiving a point of order against the provision that it was extraneous, allowing the provision to remain in the bill. The final version of the bill signed by Clinton did not contain this provision.

GOP used reconciliation to pass Bush tax cuts, welfare reform

GOP used reconciliation to pass Bush's tax cuts. As Media Matters for America has documented, Republicans used the reconciliation process to pass Bush's 2001 tax cut, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001; Bush's 2003 tax cuts, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003; and Bush's 2005 tax cuts, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the 2001 tax cuts would "reduce projected total surpluses by approximately $1.35 trillion over the 2001-2011 period"; that the 2003 tax cuts would "reduce projected total surpluses by approximately $1.35 trillion over the 2001-2011 period"; and that the 2005 tax cuts would "reduce federal revenues ... by $69.1 billion over the 2006-2015 period."

Republicans repeatedly voted to use reconciliation to pass components of welfare reform. Congress employed the reconciliation process to pass welfare reform in 1996 as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Senate Republicans previously included welfare reform provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which Clinton vetoed. As CRS reports, 46 provisions of the bill were deemed extraneous by the Senate's presiding officer. Fifty-three Republicans voted in favor of a motion to waive the point of order, but the motion -- which requires 60 votes -- failed on a 53-46 vote.

Media have allowed GOP senators to repeatedly attack use of reconciliation

Media have not challenged GOP criticisms of reconciliation process. Media Matters has documented a pattern in which journalists uncritically quote Republican senators criticizing the decision to use reconciliation as overly partisan without noting that the senators they are quoting -- including Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) -- voted to allow the use of the budget reconciliation process to pass legislation during the Bush administration, including the tax cuts.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Bad News (August 26, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
      2  
      "i want my Country Back"
      I didn't realize it was Stolen like it was on a Department Store Rack.
      "He is Destroying the Constitution"
      Why do Right-Wing Extremist think Obama is seeking Retribution?

      Speak truth to power.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ReasonAndResolve (August 26, 2009 6:18 pm ET)
      3  
      Although passing legislation by a simple majority may, in fact, be "a drastic change in the way that the United States Senate does business", it would be a return to the constitutional intention.

      Maybe the conservatives haven't read that part of the document.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (August 26, 2009 7:02 pm ET)
      2  
      I wonder ... is she that dense about Senate laws or intentionally lying?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (August 26, 2009 7:16 pm ET)
        1  
        She's a conservative...

        She lies as a matter of course.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (August 26, 2009 8:35 pm ET)
         
      Senate Rules are interesting, even fascinating.

      Why would we give a minority of voters a power to stop or defeat a majority of voters?

      It's a good question, worthy of debate, perhaps many hours of debate...

      But back here on Earth, in the United States, among the fifty or more million American People who have no health insurance, the question is not so much about the subtle and strange points of legal philosophy behind empowering the (Republican) minority of the U.S. Senate, but about insuring those millions of Americans...

      Salus (Salvus) Populi Suprema

      ...if you're from Missouri, then you may recognize and know the meaning of your own State's motto.

      Either way, it's true and it's the truth.

      I don't see how you're going to stop us... and by us, I mean the Populi, you know, the people.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (August 26, 2009 11:02 pm ET)
        1  
        Shiny shiny objects, and 50,000 employee/lobyists from the health industries. They're giving it a good run.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Missouri Democrat (August 27, 2009 1:59 pm ET)
           
        Dem not to be picky, but as a citizen of Missouri I have to correct you. The state motto is "Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto" which translated loosely is The welfare of the people is the supreme law. Now that we got rid of Baby Blunt and are about to get rid of Daddy Blunt that might actually happen here. Go Robin Carnahan.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by truthseeker77 (August 27, 2009 7:11 am ET)
        1
      Isn't reconciliation intended for budget matters only and not for health related issues?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ReasonAndResolve (August 27, 2009 10:29 am ET)
        1  
        It is intended for matters that either cost money or raise or lower taxes.

        Many elements of the reform bills currently being considered would fit that criteria. It would probably be necessary to either suspend the Byrd rule or split the bill, but this is no more of a parliamentary game than the constant filibusters of the minority Republicans that have effectively circumvented the constitution by making 60 the new "simple majority" that is required to pass legislation.
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.