In a letter to the editor published in the Charleston Daily Mail, Robert Byrd dismantles the conservative attack on using the reconciliation process to enact tweaks to the health care legislation already passed by the Senate and House:
It has been said that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. In the Daily Mail's March 2 editorial regarding health care reform legislation, "Using reconciliation would hurt Democrats: Choking off debate is no way to muscle through health legislation," the newspaper's misunderstanding of congressional procedures misinforms readers who, in rapidly increasing numbers, find themselves unable to obtain or afford medical insurance.
The editorial correctly quoted me as saying in the spring of 2009 that using reconciliation to enact a huge health care package would "violate the intent and spirit of the budget process . . .".
I believed then, as now, that the Senate should debate the health reform bill under regular rules, which it did. The result of that debate was the passing of a comprehensive health care reform bill in the Senate by a 60-vote supermajority.
I continue to support the budget reconciliation process for deficit reduction. The entire Senate- or House- passed health care bill could not and would not pass muster under the current reconciliation rules, which were established under my watch.
Yet a bill structured to reduce deficits by, for example, finding savings in Medicare or lowering health care costs, may be consistent with the Budget Act, and appropriately considered under reconciliation.
With all due respect, the Daily Mail's hyperbole about "imposing government control," acts of "disrespect to the American people" and "corruption" of Senate procedures resembles more the barkings from the nether regions of Glennbeckistan than the "sober and second thought" of one of West Virginia's oldest and most respected daily newspapers.
My commitment to protecting the best interests of all West Virginians and the American people remains as firm and consistent as my devotion to observing the necessary and essential Senate rules and procedures intended to guarantee debate and the airing of diverse views.
Robert C. Byrd
Washington, D.C.
As Byrd points out, reconciliation won't be used to enact the entire health care bill. What will happen is that the House will pass the Senate's health care bill (which has already passed with 60 votes).
Reconciliation will then be used to enact a series of tweaks to the Senate bill. For example, the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback" will be repealed through reconciliation.
Once the House passes the Senate bill, if Republicans oppose the use of reconciliation, they will effectively be opposing the repeal of things like the Cornhusker Kickback. In fact, once the House passes the Senate bill, if Republicans vote against reconciliation, it would be entirely accurate to say they voted to maintain the Cornhusker Kickback.
For days, Republicans have been citing Byrd in their assault on reconciliation. Now Byrd has rejected their arguments. What will they come up with next?