Byrd: Don't Pass Health or Energy Reform via Reconciliation
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), the Appropriation Committee chairman, has sent a letter to his colleagues articulating his opposition to using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care or climate change legislation.
"I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation.... As one of the authors of the reconciliation process, I can tell you that the ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never intended for this purpose."
This isn't a surprising move. Byrd is, to say the least, a long-serving senator from a coal state and he voted yesterday along with 25 of his colleagues to prevent the senate from passing climate change legislation through the reconciliation process. More significantly, he's the author of what is known (by sheer coincidence) as the "Byrd rule", which makes any provision in a reconciliation bill doesn't impact entitlement or tax law vulnerable to a point of order--and, therefore a 60-vote threshold. The Byrd rule is, like the filibuster, extra-constitutional, but it's also standard practice in the Senate, and, it's to be expected that its author takes a limited view of what belongs in a reconciliation bill.
The full text of the letter is available here.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Byrd will fight any kind of carbon reduction legislation tooth and nail. Coal is West Virginia and damn near every ton of reduction in bituminous coal usage we achieve will come directly out of Appalachia's share of national production. The costs of mining in West Virginia and Kentucky are so much higher than in Wyoming, Montana and Colorado that Appalachian coal could not compete in a smaller market.
April 2, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think Byrd's opposition (to this anyway) comes more from Senate tradition than his interest in coal production.
April 2, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having to agree with you has made me seriously re-examine my position, but in the end, I still agree. Reconciliation was never meant to be a tool to end-run the filibuster rule. The fact that the R's abused it as such is no excuse to do the same. Byrd may not like constraints on coal usage, but this position is based on principle.
April 2, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
But by the same token the filibuster was never meant as a tool to defeat every single important bill the majority puts out there. If nothing valuable gets passed the next thing that the republicans will throw at the public is the image of the "Do Nothing Congress," all the while keeping Congress from doing anything!
If reconciliation is the only way to go around their abuse of the system, why not do it? It isn't cheating after all; it is the only way to get around a bloc of blockheads that only want to obstruct.
The "it was never meant to be used this way," is a very lame reason for not accomplishing anything when we are faced with a threat like the republican party and their lack of conscience and honor.
Weren't Bush's tax cuts passed through reconciliation?
April 2, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. In 1993-94, Byrd opposed Hillary Clinton's push of using reconcilliation to pass health care reform.
Like Ezra Klein, I personally don't like the idea of limiting a complicated bill such as universal health care or cap-and-trade to 20 hours of debate. Nor do I like the idea of the the filibuster being a tool to block legislation. A minority of Senators should not be able to block legislation and appointments; elections have consequences. I just don't know how you split the baby in half.
April 2, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rules for the filibuster have been changed several times in the past, they can be changed again. That's how you split the baby. A number of different proposals have been floated. I'd be willing to accept the opposition to reconciliation if those with that position put just as much effort into reforming the filibuster so that it at least requires substantial effort on the part of the minority to maintain a filibuster. As it is now constituted (if I recall correctly), it effectively requires the majority to keep a quorum of senators on call, but the minority to only have a single senator available.
The talk about the importance of Senate traditions while completely ignoring how thoroughly those traditions have been trashed on the other side is maddening.
April 2, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go away, Robert.
Just go away.
April 2, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we say that these Dems who get healthcare coverage off of our hard earned taxpayer money don't want healthcare coverage for everyone else. WTF? May be Byrd is getting senile.
April 2, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I wish dems would stick to the old axiom. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. This is getting absurd.
April 2, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're going to cave on everything, Michael.
And if I'm wrong, I owe you dinner.
April 2, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that you are wrong. It's not looking good though. I was hoping on the reconcilliation process for healthcare reform at least and it's not looking good. People and the economy need healthcare reform desperately. We'll never get out of this incredible hole if we don't get that at least.
I still owe you on the last one by the way.
April 2, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel the same way CT...there is still hope but these conservadems just don't get what change we want and how bad it is needed...hey...at least CT voted for decriminalization of pot today!
April 2, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wheeeee!
I know we sent Joe back to the Senate, but CT is a pretty reasonable state.
April 2, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
More accurate title:
April 2, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
April 2, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Byrd will trade health reform for energy reform in a heartbeat. He's just trying to generate the leverage necessary to make that trade.
April 2, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Byrd and the bunch who signed the anti-reconciliation bill should look to close the end-around permanently if they don't plan on ever using it because you know the GOP will use it again in the future.
And to classify all those who vote against reconciliation as anti-climate or anti-health care is ridiculous. I bet most, if not all will vote for cloture, they just realize that the reconciliation tactic puts too much power in the progressive wing. Bush operating from this far right base is what eventually got him into the political situation the GOP finds itself in now - alienating the moderates and independents.
April 2, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
WRONG. What alienated independants was that HIS POLICIES PROVED TO HAVE FAIILED. Look, people don't care about if a bill passed with 60 votes or 10. They just want something done to help them during these tough times, period.
April 2, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Robert Byrd is now Chairman Emeritus of the Appropriations Committee. Daniel Inouye replaced him as Chairman.
April 2, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like all the superannuated old bastards to just get out of the way. Which is a not so nice way of expressing CT Voter's opinion above. Speaking as a member of AARP myself, we are in danger of letting the home for the elderly that is the US Senate sink the country.
April 2, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll make a compromise with Byrd. He doesn't want to use the reconciliation, then I tell you what, limit fillibuster to 24 hours, then a simple majority would be needed to suffice afterwards. Let those who want to filibuster have their say, but don't allow it to stop progress on the issue. Filibustering was a temporary measure used to get consensus on an issue. Not a permanent measure designed to thwart the other party.
April 2, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Byrd is such a useless piece of meat. The sooner he goes to his reward, the better.
What the hell does he care about global warming? He'll be long gone by the time the disaster really hits. Doddering old fool.
April 2, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cut to video of crying emo teen saying "Leave Big Daddy Alone!"
All of you non-redneck liberals: how did your senator vote of the Iraq War resolution?
Other senators on the D side of the aisle have made similar statements, like Sen. Ben Nelson. Claims he will not be rolled. Everyone is from the Party on One in the Senate. That's the way the rules of the Senate have been negotiated over the years.
Sen. Byrd is about the poorest, so for all the "pork" he is associated with, there has never been a hint of a DOJ investigation. We are in a love/hate relationship with coal in this state.
Look at what some of you have typed here. What would be your response if that was on RedState or FreeRepublic.? Go over to CongressMatters and learn about Senate Rules, then come back. I'll wait.
April 2, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink