WASHINGTON   –  U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (MO-08) responded to the special election results in Massachusetts by saying that congressional legislation to revamp the U.S. health care system should be put on hold until the new Senator-elect is seated.

“This was a very important election, not just for the people of Massachusetts, but for the entire country.  The American people clearly want to see the process surrounding health care legislation slowed down, more transparent, and stripped of special interests and sweetheart deals,” Emerson said.  “Instead, Democratic leaders are today saying they will do the opposite – and actually speed up that process.  The bill they want to pass is tragically flawed, and it would be a danger to the quality system of care we are fortunate to have today in the United States.”

Senate rules require 60 votes to end debate on a bill and advance to a vote.  When Senator-elect Scott Brown is seated in the Senate, Democrats’ numbers will be reduced from 60 Senators to 59, no longer holding the supermajority necessary to end debate and proceed to a vote on a final version of the health care bill.

“These are details of a process that normally never come into play, but today those details are very important.  It is equally important that the U.S. Senate respect the will of the people of Massachusetts and pause on the health care legislation to allow their duly-elected U.S. Senator to be seated,” Emerson said.

In the U.S. House of Representatives, where there are no such supermajority rules, legislation requires only a simple majority of votes for passage.  Emerson opposed the first draft of the health care bill in 2009, and says she will do the same again unless the legislation is dramatically scaled back in size, cost, and rate of growth in federal government.

“It makes no sense that a bill costing the American people some $1.2 trillion would not, at the end of the day, reduce the costs of health care in our country,” Emerson said.  “There are so many regulatory changes and improvements we can make to the system, and we don’t have to hire one more federal bureaucrat to do so.  We could create savings, across the board, for American consumers of health care.  That is where the discussion ought to begin, but the emphasis instead has been elsewhere. It would be a grave disservice for congressional leaders to continue to rush blindly down the path they are on, regardless of cost or common sense.”