Doocy falsely suggests Byrd opposes reconciliation to finalize health care reform
Fox & Friends' Steve Doocy falsely suggested that Sen. Robert Byrd opposed using reconciliation to pass health care reform, citing comments Byrd made in 2001. However, Byrd recently defended use of reconciliation to complete passage of health care reform legislation already passed by both the House and the Senate.
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.
Doocy suggests Byrd would oppose reconciliation to finalize health care reform bill
Doocy: Dems are "trying to do essentially what [Byrd] spoke out against." During the March 12 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy discussed comments Byrd made in 2001 critical of using reconciliation to pass major reform bills. After playing footage of Byrd's comments -- taken from a video first posted by the conservative website Naked Emperor News and promoted by Breitbart.tv -- Doocy stated:
DOOCY: So there you got the guy who invented reconciliation, and what a fantastic speaker he is on the -- was on the floor of the Senate. He's in declining health right now. But you've got to wonder how does he feel now regarding -- they're trying to do essentially what he spoke out against. Remember, essentially back in 1993, they tried to ram this through via reconciliation, and he said you can't do it. It was not designed for this purpose.
Byrd has defended possible use of reconciliation to finalize legislation already passed by the House and Senate
House and Senate have already passed health care reform bills. The Senate passed health care reform legislation with 60 votes on December 24, 2009. The CBO estimated that the bill would reduce the deficit by $118 billion over 10 years. The House passed its health care reform bill on November 7, 2009.
Byrd: "I continue to support the budget reconciliation process for deficit reduction." In a March 4 letter to the editor published in the Charleston Daily Mail, Byrd stated that "the Senate should debate the health reform bill under regular rules, which it did [emphasis added]. The result of that debate was the passing of a comprehensive health care reform bill in the Senate by a 60-vote supermajority." Byrd went on to defend the possible use of reconciliation to finalize passage of health care reform:
"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."
And the other day there was a discussion about how reconciliation works. There was an assertion that the Senate bill has to be passed by Obama before the reconciliation can be addressed. Then, the Republican portrayal of the Senate Parliamentarian's ruling in response to a question from Sen Mitch McConnel appeared to confirm that portrayal.
But it looks like that was a distortion of reality too!
Republican aides, reporting the decision, interpreted it to mean the House would have to clear the Senate bill and President Obama would have to sign it before the reconciliation bill could be passed. House leaders had been hoping that the two bills could be passed almost simultaneously.
The parliamentarian, however, later reportedly clarified his position to Senate aides, saying that the reconciliation bill could be written in a way that would not require Obama to sign the Senate bill into law before the reconciliation bill is voted on.
And here's the Politico story on this topic that says that Sen Kent Conrad's take on this topic is not accurate either - it's not just Republicans who were wrong on this, apparently.
Senate Republicans caused a major stir Thursday when they told reporters that the parliamentarian had informed them that the Senate bill needed to be signed into law before lawmakers took up a sidecar bill to fix it.
And Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told his Democratic colleagues during a caucus meeting Thursday that he had heard the same thing.
But according to reporting by POLITICO’s David Rogers, the accounts aren’t accurate and misconstrue what the Senate parliamentarians have said. That is that reconciliation must amend law but this could be done without the Senate bill being enacted first. “It is wholly possible to create law and qualify law before the law is on the books,” said one person familiar with situation.
The equally interesting point is that such a comprehensive and contentious piece of legislation has to be slipped in through the process of reconciliation, because there are not enough votes in the Senate to achieve passage the more traditional way for major programs, including the miniority's right to filibuster subject to cloture. A look at public polls on the legislation itself says why pretty clearly: bad process; too much in single package; no confidence in the proponents' assertions (even with qualified CBO support).
Well, it shouldn't take more than 51 votes in the Senate. Cloture is an optional rule, not found anywhere in the Constitution. It is much more wrong that a minority can hold up the business of government in this way, and is fundamentally against the principles America was founded on. Just my two cents.
Senator Byrd's former membership in the KKK, a time in his life he's not only apologized for but has certainly made up for in the public good he's done, is 100% irrelevant to this topic.
It's simply SeaSlug's desperate attempt at negative attention. Please don't fulfill his desperation.
This is an inaccurate claim by mmfa. Byrd was clear when he said, "The entire Senate- or House- passed health care bill could not and would not pass muster under the current reconciliation rules"...meaning the comprehensive reform "legislation already passed" should not move forward under reconciliation.
What he continues to support are items that address budget reductions through reconciliation...not a huge govt. expansion like this legislation.
Actually, it's a perfectly accurate claim by MMFA. Wesley the weasel is blowing smoke, once again.
Byrd HAS said that he is FINE with adjusting the parts of the bill that can be legitimately changed via reconciliation in order to get the whole bill passed.
You're lying by omission, and you've been caught again!!!
The ACTUAL, FULL QUOTE from Sen Robert Byrd?
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.
How dishonest you are, and how dishonest your side HAS to be in order to deceive your followers!!! This is pretty darn shameful behavior on your part, Weasel. You deceptively cropped only ONE PART of what Sen Byrd said to change the MEANING and deny his actual support!