Monday, February 1, 2010

Cornyn: The System Worked On Health Care

By Ronald Brownstein  

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas

Sen. John Cornyn was the first of four lawmakers and administration officials to take part in a "Congressional Debrief," an event hosted by The Atlantic and National Journal the morning after President Obama's first State of the Union address. Over the course of the conversation, the Texas Republican spoke about the president's address as well as the legislative landscape in the year ahead, the possibility of more bipartisanship and the future of the filibuster. Edited excerpts follow.

Q: There were several lines in Obama's State of the Union speech that were clearly aimed at signaling to Republicans that he's willing to consider some of their priorities if they are willing to consider some of his. Did you see any openings there for a kind of grand bargain on some of these issues?

Cornyn: I actually thought on the energy front that that was fairly encouraging, embracing nuclear power and recognizing that our shared concern about the environment, that we can actually address that without a huge cap-and-trade system and growing the role of government.... I think in terms of the cap-and-trade program, that's pretty much dead in the Senate as it came out of the House. But that's something that caught my interest, and I hope we can work on that.

Q: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and others have suggested that the president put health care reform on the shelf. Is it the case that Senate Republicans are absolutely determined not to work with Democrats and the president to do anything on health care this year?

Cornyn: Well, we've said throughout the debate that we believe there are important reforms that need to take place in health care, but it shouldn't take a big excuse for another government takeover of a huge sector of the economy, covering one-sixth of the economy. So there are certain things that we've outlined where we think we can work with the president, if they're interested.

Q: Can you mention a few?

Cornyn: Being able to purchase health policies [across state lines], things like expanding the use of health savings accounts and changing the incentives people have for how they utilize health care, wellness and prevention programs that have been shown to be -- help people live happier, healthier, more productively.... Medical liability reform is something that the president said he would consider but didn't....

There's plenty of room to do it, but it's not going to happen if he decides to jam through, particularly on reconciliation rules, and continue the sort of sweetheart deals that the voters, at least in Massachusetts, have rejected.

Q: Another target in the Obama speech was the more common use of the filibuster. Is it a good thing for the country that virtually all major legislation now requires 60 votes?

Cornyn: I think you can find bipartisan support in the Senate for a 60-vote cloture requirement because it protects the right of the minority to have an influence on the outcome of the legislation. It always frustrates the majority, and I remember when the Republicans had the majority, we were frustrated by the Democrats slowing down or stopping what we wanted to do....

So I think that's why it's important when you're in the majority to show a little self-restraint, maybe even a little humility, and reach out to the other side and try to find some common ground. Teddy Kennedy was an expert at this. He was the ultimate pragmatist when it came to legislating. If he wanted 100 percent, he might settle for 80 percent or 60 percent today and keep working toward the 100 percent he wanted later on. But this seemed to be an all-or-nothing proposition, without any real desire for, in terms of policy, any desire to shape it in a way that it would draw bipartisan support.

Q: On the one hand, we are seeing the highest level of party-line voting going on in Congress since the turn of the 20th century. At the same time, you're seeing the more and more common use of the filibuster. That seems like a poor way to attack problems of the sort that we face.

Cornyn: Well, it does impede quick action on legislative goals, but frankly, I think, here it worked the way the American people wanted because it slowed down this bill. They got to read it, they got to find out what was in it, and the more they found out what was in it, the less they liked it. And ultimately, the voters had their say with Scott Brown's election.

So it's frustrating, but in a country of 300 million people there's so much at stake, so many unintended consequences from action in Washington on big bills, I think taking our time, making sure we get it right, making sure we've read it and we understand it and what it will do, is really, really important. And I understand it's frustrating for the majority party, particularly when they won such a resounding victory a year ago, but you see what a difference a year makes.