H.R.3200 and The Byrd Rule

By Hootsbuddy

H.R.3200, officially "America's Affordable Choices Act of 2009," is in trouble. The house got a torn and bruised version out of the way in time for the August break but the Senate has yet to have it introduced. Early indications are that the next four weeks will reveal the most contentious public argument about Congressional legislation in a generation. I can't recall a grass roots conflict like this since the fight over the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. Tonight's evening news had a snip of a couple of local representatives attempting to have a meeting with constituents. It was clear in the ten-second clip that the officials were quietly attempting to tell the people they represent some details of what they were doing, but they were being largely ignored and challenged from members of their audience who were yelling and challenging them in an agitated, emotional manner.

Scenes like this are playing out all over the country as swelling numbers of stirred up citizens whip themselves into a mob frenzy aimed at killing a whole package to which their representatives have been dedicating so much time.

If the whole package goes through, the result will be the most important piece of legislation of our lifetime, overshadowing in my estimation the significance of even Medicare and Medicaid. That's huge. It's a grand vision but it's looking more like it will die the death of a thousand cuts, even to the point that of being divided into smaller parts to be passed one now and hopefully more in the future.

I found an insightful post by Keith Hennessey who was a big shot in the Bush administration and is now blogging. Sharp. Very informed about politics and policy making. Here's the link to this quote:

Yesterday�s Byrd rule examples would allow a bill to pass the Senate, but with major parts possibly excised. A smart friend wrote that while Senator Reid may not be able to get the whole car through reconciliation, he could probably get the chassis, wheels, and engine. He could then come back in separate future bills to add things like seats, steering, and brakes.

He's refers to what needs to happen to get the thing through the Senate with a simple majority using a parliamentary maneuver called "reconciliation" which by-passes the need for a filibuster-proof 60 votes. But the Byrd Rule (as in Robert Byrd, the Senate's esteemed dean of constitutional precision) which basically says that reconciliation can't be employed for truly significant matters. Here is Keith Hennessey's crash course in reconciliation.

As hopes fade for getting this legislation passed with a super-majority in the Senate, reconciliation appears to be a more politically feasible Plan B. Even if the bill gets cleaned up in time for a Senate vote it looks like special interests are likely to torpedo its chances at passing with sixty votes. In order to fashion it into a fifty-one vote passage, big chunks would have to be sacrificed to satisfy the Byrd Rule(s).

Here are links for further reading.

Doing health care through reconciliation is even harder than I thought

(Yesterday's post by Keith Hennessey. Remember, he's a former official of the Bush administration.)
Why Did the Senate Adopt the Rule Allowing Filibusters? (from a NYT piece, 2004)


Changing the Filibuster Rules (my reflections on the subject, 2005)


Filibuster remarks, again (further reflections, 2005)