Nuclear option on health care

Democrats to Use Reconciliation to Ram Through Health Care?

August 4, 2009 by friendsoftalkradio

Last night Dick Morris appeared on Fox News. Mr. Morris and Sean Hannity discussed Democrats plans to change Senate rules to allow passage of their health care bill with only 50 votes in the Senate, thereby upending 200 years of precedent that require a 60 vote majority to end filibusters. They are threatening to do so using this procedural technicality. President Obama and Chuck Schumer have both indicated their willingness to do do.

As most of you know, the Senate requires a 60 vote majority to pass any bill. There is one exception. This exception applies only to budget reconciliation bills. The use of this process to pass major bills like health care reform is unprecedented.

From the

Politico:

Baucus has until Sept. 15 to reach an agreement with Republicans -- and that is still the goal. "But if we don't, it is not going to stop us from moving forward with health care," Schumer told reporters Monday. "If the Republicans are not able to produce an agreement (by then), we will have contingencies in place. Health reform is just too important to let this window pass by." Among the options is invoking a procedural maneuver known as reconciliation, which would allow Senate Democrats to pass a bill with a simple majority rather than a 60-vote filibuster-proof threshold.

You may recall that Republicans threatened to use this procedure to bring court appointments to the floor that Democrat's were filibustering in committee. It was called the

"nuclear option." A gang of 16 senators banded together to preserve precedent and make a deal with Democrats to avoid this reckless measure. The Republicans made the argument that the use of the filibuster against court appointees had never been used before and the Democrats were abusing its use. This was true, but would have set a terrible precedent for future use of the filibuster. From Wikipedia:

During the 108th Congress in which the Republicans regained control of the Senate by a 51-49 margin, the same conservative nominees that the Senate Democrats had blocked in the 107th Congress began to be moved through the now Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee.[10]

With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be successfully filibustered.[citation needed] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown[11]. Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress.

As a result of these ten filibusters, Senate Republicans began to threaten to change the existing Senate rules by using what Senator Trent Lott termed the "nuclear option". This change in rules would eliminate the use of the filibuster to prevent judicial confirmation votes. However, in the 108th Congress, with only a two vote majority, the Republicans were in a weak position to implement this procedural maneuver.

The history of the filibuster is clear to all.

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[12] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[12] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.

The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end debate via majority vote. Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter". Other Senators backed King, and Clay backed down.[12]

Budget bills are governed under special rules called "reconciliation" which do not allow filibusters. Reconciliation once only applied to bills that would reduce the budget deficit, but since 1996 it has been used for all matters related to budget issues.