About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Quick Fact: Washington Times falsely declared reconciliation and self-executing rule "rare procedural tools"

March 17, 2010 6:23 am ET — 15 Comments

A March 17 Washington Times article falsely described reconciliation and the self-executing rule as "rare procedural tools" that Democrats may invoke to pass health care reform. In fact, both procedures have been used repeatedly and are an accepted part of House procedure.

Washington Times: Democrats "to pursue rare procedural tools to pass" health care reform

From the March 17 Washington Times article, titled, "'Self-executing rule' decried as a 'trick'":

House Democrats Tuesday defended the idea of tying together the Senate health care overhaul bill and a companion bill of repairs that could spare members from having to vote outright for the Senate's tax on high-cost insurance plans and other contentious provisions.

[...]

Although specific plans to tie the bills together - using a procedure known as the "self-executing rule" - haven't been announced, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said during a discussion with bloggers Monday that she liked the idea "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

Republicans called the potential use of the procedure another trick to circumvent the public and protect House Democrats at the ballot box in November.

[...]

But the election of Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown gave Republicans enough votes to filibuster a conference report, the traditional way the two chambers repair differences between their respective bills. That led Democrats to pursue rare procedural tools to pass President Obama's top legislative agenda item, requiring the House to pass the Senate bill and both chambers to pass a bill that repairs it.

FACT: Reconciliation is not "rare" and was used by GOP to pass Bush tax cuts, welfare reform

Congressional Research Service reported that Congress used reconciliation process to pass 21 bills between 1980 and 2007. An August 10, 2005, Congressional Research Service (CRS) report lists 19 bills Congress passed that were enacted through reconciliation from FY 1981 to FY 2005 -- 16 of which became law and three of which were vetoed by President Clinton. A separate March 2008 CRS report lists an additional three reconciliation bills passed by Congress since 2005.

GOP used reconciliation to pass Bush's tax cuts. Republicans used the reconciliation process to pass Bush's 2001 tax cut, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001; Bush's 2003 tax cuts, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003; and Bush's 2005 tax cuts, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the 2001 tax cuts would "reduce projected total surpluses by approximately $1.35 trillion over the 2001-2011 period"; that the 2003 tax cuts would "reduce projected total surpluses by approximately $1.35 trillion over the 2001-2011 period"; and that the 2005 tax cuts would "reduce federal revenues ... by $69.1 billion over the 2006-2015 period."

Republicans repeatedly voted to use reconciliation to pass components of welfare reform. Congress employed the reconciliation process to pass welfare reform in 1996 as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Senate Republicans previously included welfare reform provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which Clinton vetoed. As CRS reports, 46 provisions of the bill were deemed extraneous by the Senate's presiding officer. Fifty-three Republicans voted in favor of a motion to waive the point of order, but the motion -- which requires 60 votes -- failed on a 53-46 vote.

FACT: Congress previously used reconciliation to pass major changes to health care law

Reconciliation has repeatedly been used to reform health care. On February 24, NPR noted that many "major changes to health care laws" passed via reconciliation. Additionally, during a February 24 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, correspondent Julie Rovner quoted George Washington University health policy professor Sara Rosenbaum saying: "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."

Congress used reconciliation to pass Medicare Advantage. As part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, enacted through the reconciliation process, Congress -- which was controlled by the Republicans at the time -- created the "Medicare+Choice Program," currently known as Medicare Advantage or Medicare Part C. The program allows seniors to enroll in HMO-type plans rather than the traditional Medicare fee-for-service plan.

Congress used reconciliation to pass COBRA. As stated on the Department of Labor website, as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Congress gave "workers and their families who lose their health benefits the right to choose to continue group health benefits provided by their group health plan for limited periods of time under certain circumstances."

Congress used reconciliation to pass Patient Self-Determination Act. As part of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990, Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act, which requires hospitals, nursing homes, HMOs, and other organizations that participate in Medicare or Medicaid to provide information about advance directives and patients' decision-making rights.

Republicans repeatedly attempted to use reconciliation to pass increase in Medicare eligibility age. The version of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 introduced by then-Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) using the reconciliation procedure contained a section providing for raising the Medicare eligibility age. As the CRS reported, the provision was stricken from the bill during floor consideration on the basis of a point of order that the provision was "extraneous" to matters appropriate to reconciliation.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 -- also introduced through the reconciliation procedure -- also included a provision to raise the eligibility age. Fifty Republicans voted in favor of waiving a point of order against the provision that it was extraneous, allowing the provision to remain in the bill. The final version of the bill signed by Clinton did not contain this provision.

FACT: Republicans "set record" in use of "self-executing rule"

Wolfensberger: Republicans "set new records" for using self-executing rule. Don Wolfensberger, former chief of staff for the House Rules Committee under Republican leadership, stated in a 2006 Roll Call column that the Republican Party "set new records" for its use of the self-executing rule in the years following Gingrich's ascension as Speaker:

Self-executing rules began innocently enough in the 1970s as a way of making technical corrections to bills. But, as the House became more partisan in the 1980s, the majority leadership was empowered by its caucus to take all necessary steps to pass the party's bills. This included a Rules Committee that was used more creatively to devise procedures to all but guarantee policy success. The self-executing rule was one such device to make substantive changes in legislation while ensuring majority passage.

When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority's preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O'Neill's (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright's (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

On April 26 [2006], the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (March 17, 2010 7:26 am ET)
      3  
      Let me see if I have this straight. The right wing blowhards tell me that the "deem and pass" rule is unconstitutional, but the republicans used it often they were in charge. Now the only conclusion I can come to, is that any bill that was passed when the Republicans used the rule, must be invalid and not law.

      Wonder what laws were passed that are invalid?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (March 17, 2010 8:30 am ET)
        3
      -- Reconciliation is not "rare" -- mmfa

      Using a couple of mmfa's well-worn tactics:

      -- Please define "rare" --

      -- Conversion of raw numbers to percentages --

      mmfa states that "Congress used reconciliation process to pass 21 bills between 1980 and 2007". In the two years of the 110th Congress, Members introduced 14,042 measures, and 460 were enacted into law.

      Using the 110th congress as the standard...they would have passed an average of 230 bills per year...the 28 year history posed by mmfa means they passed about 6000 bills...producing a rate of .0035...one third of one percent.

      I'd say that's pretty darn rare.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by theocracy (March 17, 2010 10:17 am ET)
           
        I don't know; I'd say your contention is pretty darn silly.

        Reconciliation is only supposed to be applied to bills which have budgetary implications, and is to effect changes in spending amounts and revenue.

        I picked a day in 2008 (January 28) and checked the Congressional Record. I'd have to say that I'm shocked that Reconciliation wasn't needed for the following bills: The Felix Sparks Post Office Building Designation Act, a similar Act for Larry S. Pierce and for Richard B. Anderson; and who can forget "Honoring the Texas Water Development Board on its selection as a 2007 recipient of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Performance and Innovation in the SRF Creating Environmental Success Award." As they say, "You can look it up.".

        I think I remember the oratory over these bills on CSpan; it was reminiscent of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, I imagine.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (March 17, 2010 11:38 am ET)
        2  
        I have to agree with you there. "Not rare" has always seemed inaccurate to me and, therefore, a weak and self-defeating argument. The relevant facts and strongest arguments are, IMOP, these: Republicans use reconciliation more than Democrats by a three-to-one margin, and the Bush wealth redistribution upwards tax cuts exploded the deficit, directly contravening the stated purpose of the reconciliation rule, which was to protect against a deficit increase.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (March 18, 2010 1:56 am ET)
          1  
          The reason we haven't seen the revisions yet? Because they want the revisions to live up to the requirements that the revisions actually improve the deficit reduction projections from previous versions! The CBO is okay with the 10 year outlook, but they think the 20 year outlook still needs some tweaking, so they've gone back to make a couple of minor adjustments. They've been doing this for a week or so, fixing it to get it to do what the reconciliation usage is supposed to do!

          But what do we hear from those on the right? That the delay is due to the fact that the votes aren't there. They are there.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (March 17, 2010 12:21 pm ET)
          3
        Great point Wesley. Whenever MMfA puts a bone of contention, usually a single word, in their piece, in "quotes", that normally means the parsing squad has been sent out to do its work.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (March 17, 2010 1:51 pm ET)
          2  
          Since you and Wesley didn't call it unconstitutional and illegal, guess that means you guys lose. Just like you guys lost the last election. Oh and the 2006 election too.

          Wonder if there's a chance righton and wesley are one in the same person?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (March 18, 2010 2:00 am ET)
               
            No, I don't think so. But I am pretty sure that Bludog and Wesley the weasel are one in the same, and I'm pretty sure that pongowistleton and RightON are the same person. There are others that are pretty clearly sockpuppets too - it's those sockpuppet identities that stalk my posts and downrate them along with the regular posters.

            I do suspect that RightON and Wesley and maybe a few other of the posters communicate via IM or phone calls to coordinate attacks. They also have some leadership role and direct connections to the talking points that are regularly distributed to the rightwingers.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bludog1 (March 18, 2010 1:06 pm ET)
                 
              Oh my; conspiracy theories abound. In point of fact DD, I am indeed very different from Wesley, whoever that person might be. Just kills you that people might have similar philosophies and concerns about where the progress crowd is attempting to take us, doesn't it? No need to answer.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by FactYouAll (March 18, 2010 1:51 pm ET)
             
          Or, it means that you really didn't read this page very carefully at all:
          A March 17 Washington Times article falsely described reconciliation and the self-executing rule as "rare procedural tools"
          Nice job!!

          FYA
          Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (March 17, 2010 1:15 pm ET)
        1 1
        The rightwing is using the definition of "rare" to mean "extraordinary" or "extreme".

        And it's not. It's not an extreme measure. It's used on a regular basis for a number of normal kinds of legislative initiatives.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bludog1 (March 18, 2010 1:10 pm ET)
             
          but that begs the issue. we all know that a healthy percentage of the business is done by unanimous request, or self executing and the like. That is one category of work. This is a whole different category of work, and you know it full well. With all three parts of government, you have not been able to do it. You have lost ground, rather than gain ground. Now you are resorting to the kinds of tactics that are frankly beneath the decorum of the Congress for matters as important as this is. But you know that as well.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by FactYouAll (March 18, 2010 11:19 pm ET)
               
            Of course, that would be unanimous consent (UC) request.

            Depending on your criteria and categorization of work, how much of it this process covers might vary. One thing is very clear; with the GOP in the minority, UC is used much less now than any other time in the history of the Senate.

            Senate stats show how often cloture has had to be used before simple procedural votes over the past few Congresses. That is because the GOP minority will object to the UC request, in attempts to avoid simple majority voting that is needed to pass a bill.

            So in this sense, successful UC use has dropped as cloture votes have gone up.

            FYA
            Report Abuse
      • Author by FactYouAll (March 18, 2010 1:46 pm ET)
           
        "Rare" is defined and quoted because it was part of the Wash Times story that begins this entire thread (Duh). Hardly nefarious.

        In any case, is rarity really an issue? What about the ability and history to use this rule for significant legislative action? What about the merits of the policy involved?

        BTW, what is a measure? Of the 230 bills/year, how many of them were passed are via reconciliation (IMO, a better statistic to focus on)?

        All in all, to disagree on policy and then use process to make your argument is very, very weak.

        FYA
        Report Abuse
    • Author by wolhynien (March 17, 2010 12:36 pm ET)
         
      For all the health care legislation mentioned in the article, which parties were in charge of the Executive and Legislative branches? It was a mix of Democrats and Republicans.

      The difference today is that one party - the Democrats - are unilaterally advancing a healthcare bill while holding strong majorities in both chambers of congress.

      It seems as though the spirit of Admiral David Farragut lives on with President Obama and Speaker Pelosi pushing through the most sweeping social and economic change since the New Deal (read: the Raw Deal) ---- Damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead!

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.