So what we have here, essentially, is gridlock created by the composition of the two Houses of Congress. We have a situation where not one Member on the other side of the aisle voted in favor of the health care bill. In the House of Representatives, the vote was 176 to 1; that is, among the 177 Republicans voting, only 1 out of 177 in the House voted in favor. It is hard to see a more precise definition of ``gridlock'' than what appears here. It would be my hope that we would be able to resolve the issue without resorting to reconciliation. If there is any doubt about the procedure, our institutional integrity would be enhanced without going in that direction. But if you have to fight fire with fire and since it is a legitimate means, then we can use it. Five years ago, in 2005, the Senate faced a somewhat similar situation when the roles were reversed, when it was the Democrats filibustering judicial nominees of President Bush. And we find that so often it depends on whose ox is being gored as to who takes the position. Some of the most vociferous objectors to the use of reconciliation on comprehensive health care reform have filled the Congressional Record with statements in favor of using reconciliation in analogous circumstances when it helped their cause. But in the year 2000, it was the Democrats stymying Republican judicial nominees. During the Clinton administration, it was exactly reversed--it was Republicans stymying Clinton's judicial nominees.…
Share & report
More from Arlen Specter
Well, I asked for the time when no one was here. I do ask for the additional 2 minutes. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Senator from Utah.
I believe that it is vital that the public really understands what the Supreme Court does.
Mr. President, yesterday, I filed a report on a trip which I made to China, Vietnam, and Taiwan, but I did not have an opportunity to come to the Senate floor to discuss it. I do so today on a number of the highlights of the trip. In…
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…





