Health Bill 'Reconciliation' Anything But

By: Ed Royce
Orange County Register

March 19, 2010

President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid face two obstacles in their attempt to enact health care "reform": the American public and the structure of our government.

Democratic congressional leaders are embarking on a process to squash the will of the people and undermine the intent of the founders. The president, a former constitutional law professor, has thrown out the textbook.

"Great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities, and [since] opinion is sensibly rallying to it, it was thought better to let it lie [until the] next session, when I trust, it will be passed," Thomas Jefferson wrote. Conversely, Democratic leaders realize that their health care plan gets less popular by the day and are, therefore, twisting parliamentary procedure into a pretzel to force their way.

The wolf in sheep's clothing is an arcane Senate procedure called reconciliation. Liberals are describing this as "a simple up-or-down vote." But this is hardly the type of democracy the founders had in mind.

This parliamentary process, established in 1974, was created to help balance the books. Under its expedited rules, debate is limited and, most importantly, 51 votes are required for passage, therefore avoiding the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster. Remember the Christmas Eve health care vote in the Senate in which Harry Reid "Cornhusker-kickbacked" and "Louisiana Purchased" his way to 60 votes?

With Sen. Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts - a victory primarily won by his opposition to the Democrat's health care visions - the 60-vote requirement cannot be met. Democratic leaders could either work to find bipartisan solutions to the health care problems faced by millions of Americans, or they could work around the voters. They chose the latter course.

Pelosi will first have to muscle the Senate bill - Cornhusker Kickback and all - through the House and send it to the president. A second, "corrections" bill would be passed in the House, and then in the Senate, under the expedited "reconciliation" procedures.

Pelosi has suggested that the House may "deem" the Senate bill passed, using a sleight of hand called a "self-executing rule," allowing members to avoid a direct vote on the unpopular Senate bill. Experts question its constitutionality, but Speaker Pelosi likes it "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

These parliamentary maneuvers are being used to nullify an election, rip apart the founders intentions and, in the ultimate irony, will use a cost-saving tool to enact a massive health care entitlement that will haunt our books for generations. Never has this type of shortcut been used to enact such sweeping social change. If all goes according to President Obama's script, one-sixth of our economy will be altered without a single vote from the opposition that represents millions of Americans in either chamber of Congress. Astounding.

In the past, senators from both parties have avoided using reconciliation to push sweeping social legislation that lacked bipartisan support. In 1993, Sen. Robert Byrd and other Democratic leaders objected to President Bill Clinton's proposal to use reconciliation to enact his health care proposals.

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote, "The accumulation of all powers ... in the same hands ... [is] the ... definition of tyranny." To guard against this danger, a system of separation of powers was enshrined in the Constitution. In order to ensure that ambition "counteract[s] ambition," Madison blended the powers of each branch to ensure that diffuse government power shielded our individual liberties.

In creating two chambers of Congress, along with three separate branches of government, the founders built a system of checks, not only among branches, but also within the legislative branch. The extensive rights of the minority in the Senate are not meant to destroy the legislative process, but to force overreaching legislation to be moderated; to serve as "the cooling saucer" of the legislative process, as George Washington once described the upper chamber's role to Thomas Jefferson over coffee.

But the procedural gymnastics used by the Democratic leadership is akin to throwing boiling water at the American people.