GOP Summit Attendees Supported Reconciliation For Past Projects

Republican leadership is prepping a full-fledged assault on Democratic lawmakers for the possibility that they will pass health care legislation through reconciliation -- a process it's deemed the "nuclear option."

But as a bipartisan group of lawmakers gets set for Thursday's high-stakes health care summit, it's worth noting that several of the GOP senators attending have in the past supported the parliamentary tool that allows for an up-or-down vote.

Take, for instance, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Back in 2005, the Iowa Republican spoke approvingly of the Senate passing a budget resolution through reconciliation, which he deemed "an important tool to have at our disposal," precisely because of "partisan obstruction on the part of the Democratic leadership."

Then there is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), another Thursday summit attendee, who has begrudgingly acknowledged that past Republican use of reconciliation gives Democrats some freedom to deploy the provision themselves.

"I fully recognize that Republicans have in the past engaged in using reconciliation to further the party's agenda," McCain said in a speech before the Heritage Foundation in late March 2009. "I wish it had not been done then, and I hope it will not be done now that the groundwork has been laid."

Republicans who aren't attending the summit but have played a key role in the health care debate have also expressed support for the use of reconciliation in the past. Back in 2005, when the Senate was considering a filibuster of legislation that would have opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) said it was "totally inappropriate" for his Democratic colleagues to imply that reconciliation shouldn't be used for bills like that being considered. From the floor, he offered the following (VIDEO):

"The point, of course, is this: If you have 51 votes for your position, you win. 51 votes to say there shouldn't be drilling, that there shouldn't exploration, that this small postage stamp of land in this vast area of land should not be looked at for the purposes of giving us some independence in the area of energy... if you got 51 votes to say that, you win. If, on the other hand the senators from Alaska, who feel that in good conscience they had a commitment from this Senate for many years that they would be allowed to pursue this initiative... have 51 votes for their position, they win. That's the way the rules of the Senate are set up. So it is totally inappropriate for a senator to come to this floor and represent that this is some sort of unethical act [as] was implied by the senator from Massachusetts. We are using the rules of the Senate as they are set up to be used. And that happens to be the rule of the Senate."

Story continues below

Advertisement

This line of argument, of course, does not excuse Democrats from their own hypocrisy. Members of the party were once wary of the use of reconciliation for non budget-related legislation. Some still are (see: Conrad, Kent) But not every Senate Democrat shared the sentiment. And those who did were occasionally overruled. As pointed out by political scientist Joshua Tucker, "14 of the 19 times reconciliation was used between FY1981 - FY2005, it was used to advance Republican interests." Perhaps more pertinent to the current debate: NPR reported on Wednesday that many of the recent advancements in health care legislation were achieved through the reconciliation process:

[H]ealth care and reconciliation actually have a lengthy history. "In fact, the way in which virtually all of health reform, with very, very limited exceptions, has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process," says Sara Rosenbaum, who chairs the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University.

In short, complaints about using reconciliation now ring somewhat hollow, especially should they come from Gregg, Grassley, McCain or others. This includes Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) whotold the New York Times in March 2009, that the prospect of Democrats using reconciliation to pass health care "stinks."

But when the Bush administration was having difficulty moving its judicial nominees through Congress, the Texas Republican sang a different tune. In an oped published in the Times, Cornyn called the 51-vote rule a "consistent Senate tradition."

Know something we don't? E-mail us at [e-mail]

Comments

[jws2346]

Oh goody, the Iowa raisin (brother of the Calif raisin) Chucky Cheese Grasshat strikes agin'.

[picaman]

Pull the plug on Grassley!

http://www.actblue.com/page/iai

[Manhattanite]

Here they go again with a disinformation campaign. The "nuclear option" was a proposal by the GOP to repeal the filibuster for judicial nominees. Reconciliation is a process that has been used 22 times to pass major bills, 16 of them being Republican bills...

[StuManChu]

Nuclear option.

[Figerre]

No Sh** Sherlock! That's how we got that $TRILLION unfunded perscription bill for Medicare, 2 wars, and 2 tax cuts - but not putting them on the books.

By the way - am I the only one who lives by calculator but can see that the $1 trillion health care bill, is actually $200 billion a year? Only the Repugs would use the 10 year out deal for Obama, and never for themselves. Ya gotta love these guys, they have the art of lying straight faced down perfectly - I think Rachel Maddow is the only one that calls them on their hypocrisy -- with clips of their own lying mouths doing the same thing in the past. Guess it just depends on when you believe that elections are only valid if you are Republican -- Dems steal elections - right? Like in 2000, the Supreme Court, - this isn't rocket science.

[ThankGodhesgone]

Of course they were for reconciliation when it was something that they wanted.

Too late, McCain, to say that you wished the repub party didn't use it in the past. You did, so no point in crying, now. Life can be a beach, eh?

[KeeponTopic]

Time to pass the HCR as a consistent senate tradition.

Then let the obstructionist GOP choke on their corporate swill.

GOP + Blue dogs = unrepresentative corporate swill.

[AllenD]

The Pugs had no problem whatsoever passing the budget busting Bush tax cuts using reconciliation.

[wonketteRAWKS]

What was Obama's words on reconciliation during 2005 before the gang of 14 intervened?

[BlueDog1]

Will ain't that special" old death squad" Grassley is out of his hole.

[yourmomscalling]

VOTE THEM ALL OUT EVERY ONE OF THEM

[imusintheevening]

so they can replaced with sycophants?

[CTtransplant]

On Monday, I sent this to Senator Reid as one more option to resolve and pass health care reform -

Simple solution:

1) Pass Medicare for All through reconciliation and let it start as early as July, 2010;

2) Change it so that there are no income limits on Medicare/Social Security contributions as of July, 2010 - it should continue for everyone until retirement age...and only THEN should Medicare/Social Security contributions stop! In other words, pay into it until you go on Social Security! Very straight forward...and simple to do!

3) Eliminate the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies...although, if 1) & 2) are put in place, the buying power of the Federal Government will assist in cost reduction/containment.

4) Assign a reasonable monthly premium to Medicare for All that will be affordable for all!

And, by all means, get RID of the offshore account tax loopholes! This is what creates an unfair burden on the backs of middle-class taxpayers by the wealthiest who are not paying the taxes that they should!

[msgirlintn]

CTTransplant,

And I guess you think that because you suggest it, that Reid is automatically going to do it. Don't you think if the votes aren't there for a public option, they are not there for medicare for all?

Dems on the far left need to realize that the Senate is passing the best bill they can through reconcilliation.

[CTtransplant]

The word 'negative' is no longer in my vocabulary~~~~

[johuyik]

Ya see, they would have compromised if there had been a summit...but it's too late now, the grace period has passed.

All the grace is gone...

[BeVeryAfraid]

LOL!

[Patrick Shaw]

I think its time for the Democratic Party to stand up and state what its principles and ideals for the American people are and to stop cowering as though the Republican Party, Corporate America, the Blood Sucking Banks and Insurance Companies input or premission was somehow needed or required to govern our country.

The Democratic Party possesses the White House, majorities the US Senate and the House and a good number of Governorships, State Legislatures and big city Mayoral seats. All won in fair elections against a well-funded and dedicated opposition.

For Christ's Sake would the Democratic Party stand up start acting as if it had the power and right to govern our country and then do so.

It is what the American people are waiting for.

[CTtransplant]

Agree, Patrick!

[msgirlintn]

Patrick,

I think that is what this summit is all about tomorrow. The President has already taken on the Repubs on live tee vee and showed that they don't have a plan and are lying to the American people.

Dems in this country also need to be realistic in what they expect. Single payer is not going to pass. It doesn't look like there are enough votes to pass the public option through reconcilliation. But the bill that is on the table is not perfect, but it is a heck of a lot better than the system that we have now.

[vinny]

clever dem corporatists - devise the bills under the 60 vote rule, thereby boxing out the strong public option, and then use reconciliation to pass health insurance expansion...