So the stage is now set where we have gridlock on the issue of comprehensive health care reform. In this situation, we have had the bills passed by both the House and the Senate, and we are now looking to use reconciliation, a procedure which has been employed some 22 times in analogous circumstances. Illustrative of the analogous circumstances are the use of cloture to pass Medicare Advantage and the passage of COBRA, the passage of SCHIP--health care for children--and the passage of the welfare reform bill in 1996. In a learned article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Henry J. Aaron, an expert on budgetary matters, had this to say: [reconciliation] can be used only to implement instructions contained in the budget resolution relating to taxes or expenditures. Congress created reconciliation procedures to deal with precisely this sort of situation. . . . And he is referring here to what we have with the Senate-passed bill and the House-passed bill. Quoting him further: The 2009 budget resolution instructed both Houses of Congress to enact health care reform. The House and the Senate have passed similar but not identical bills. Since both Houses have acted but some work remains to be done to align the two bills, using reconciliation to implement the instructions in the budget resolution follows established congressional procedure.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker addresses the use of reconciliation for health care reform amid legislative gridlock.
Share
More from Arlen Specter
Congressional legislation 'doesn't amount to anything if the president can say, 'My constitutional authority supersedes the statute.'
The Polman article recites a number of Senators who voted no against proceeding with the DISCLOSE Act, having made in the past very forceful affirmative statements in favor of disclosure. It may be that by reminding those 4 Senators…
This Convention has been ratified by 186 of the 193 countries involved, and it is a very important statement of international policy to respect the rights of women and to advance the cause of women.
The Court is very ideologically driven at the moment, and I think the public needs to understand that.





