If the House passes the Senate bill, it goes to the president. Reconciliation is a smokescreen!

[cotton1706]

I've been wondering why nobody has been saying this. If the house passes the senate bill, then the legislative process is complete. They can just send it to the president and it becomes law. They can amend the law of course with reconciliaton or whatever.

I think that is what's going on here. I think the senate is going to convice enough house members that they can pass health care through reconciliation. Then those house members push health care over the line in the house. Then they just forget about reconciliation and send the bill to the president.

[John Valentine]

How can the Senate vote on reconciliation changes to a law that has not been enacted? It seems to me that before the Senate can do anything via reconciliation, the bill as passed by both the House and Senate has to be signed into law.

[caww]

But.. But...if the House passes the Senate bill..what’s stopping the Dems from taking it directly to Bo for his signiture? even though the Dems have said they would use reconciliation...they could just let the chips fall where they may and bullit it to Bo anyway..right..they could?

[caww]

The senate already passed the Senate bill Dec. 24th...so the house need only pass it...then it’s law...Then back to the senate for reconciliation. My concern is Pelosi and Reid might send it directly to Bo for signiture and bypass reconciliation altogether..will make alot of people really mad but Bo won’t care..He wants to sign something...and Pelosi would love to give him that.

[John Valentine]

I’ll be the first to admit that this confuses me no end.

If the House passes the Senate bill intact, then what is there for the Senate to “reconcile”?

And this reconciliation process deals with the bill provision-by-provision with points of order and 60 vote impediments all along the way, and to what end? If this results in something different that was passed by the House, will it not need to go back to the House yet again for another vote?

And once this “reconciliation” process begins, what is the status of the bill previously passed by both House and Senate? Does it become moot?

[JustPiper]

DeMint Just outed the Entire Senate Reconcilation Threat as a Head Fake

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2463788/posts?q=1&;page=1

[caww]

There's an excellent description of Reconciliation on this thread with a link ...explains it well..it's not like reconciling as we generally understand it..

My understanding is the senate bill that the house will or not pass is the original senate bill. But I understand now that reconciliation is off the table...which means they may have the house votes and once passed goes to Bo for his signature into LAW.

What a horrible mess this congress has made of this! Bo doesn't care what the bill is..he just wants one to sign so the Gov. coffers will once again be filled with the peoples money for him to play with...and he can toot his horn of this great accomplishment that no other President could accomplish.

[caww]

I knew it...I kept asking here on this thread what’s to stop them from taking it from the House straight to Bo to sign...they must have the House vote then... Bo had ten of those who voted against this to the whitehouse tonight...wonder what the payoff was for these ten we’re paying for their vote...........no words :(

[autumnraine]

That’s just it though, the Senate is saying “Just pass OUR bill, we will fix what you don’t like about it in reconciliation” but people are suspecting they don’t intend to “fix” anything. Just forward it on up to Obama.

[dan on the right]

This is exactly the point. Reconciliation will not happen. If, and it is a big if, the House passes the Senate bill exactly as written; I see nothing to stop the President from signing the bill.

There will be feeble attempts to negotiate a bill that can go forward in reconciliation, but they will be able to agree on nothing. After saying “he tried to work a compromise bill” the President will say he has no other choice “for the American People” but to sign the Senate / House approved bill. He will commit to change portions of it (the bribes, etc.) that are undesirable; but the bill will be passed.

This is why the House is so undecided - no trust. Obama will go so far as to appoint the brother of an undecided congressman for a big time judgeship (10th Circuit), not even caring about how obvious a bribe it will look like. This President will stop at nothing.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Both houses considered a conference committee in order to produce a single bill, but this was deemed infeasible.

Because Scott Brown promised to filibuster it when it came back from conference.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

They are going to use the House Bill not the Senate Bill.

No. Scott Brown (and probably some Dems) would filibuster.

[GeronL]

thats exactly what’ll happen

[Tatze]

They are going to use the House Bill not the Senate Bill.

No they aren't. If that were true, the Senate would have to pass the House bill, which they haven't and won't. The plan is to have the House pass the Senate bill.

Now they say they will then alter that bill through Reconciliation, but there is no requirement to do so. Obambi could sign the Senate Bill once it passes the House with no further changes.

[Nosterrex]

I did not think that it would be constitutional, but why would Congress put something in a Bill that was unconstitutional? It does not make any sense to me.

[Alas Babylon!]

Obama will go so far as to appoint the brother of an undecided congressman for a big time judgeship (10th Circuit), not even caring about how obvious a bribe it will look like. This President will stop at nothing.

I think the Republicans should promise to open impeachment hearings on this "judge", on the grounds that he was fraudulently appointed, as a shot across his dem brother's bow should he vote to pass the bill.

Republicans really need to start playing hard ball.

[Intolerant in NJ]

It seems to me that before the Senate can do anything via reconciliation, the bill as passed by both the House and Senate has to be signed into law...on the contrary - once a bill is signed into law, it's the law, and would have to be changed by another law - reconciliation is a way of adjusting the bill before it becomes law. Ordinariy this process is completed by Committee when two versions of the law-to-be, a bill passed by the House and another passed by the Senate are merged via committee into one combined bill which is then voted on again by both houses and if approved, signed into law - in the case of reconciliation the combination process is short-circuited so to speak - since it's supposed to be used on budgetary matters involving numbers, and it's pretty easy to see what's happening with numbers (adding a million dollars to an account is fairly obvious) it's apparently not considered necessary to take the finished bill back through more consideration and votes by both houses as with more complicated bills on more contentioous issues - at least that's how I understand the whole mess....

[John Valentine]

Yes, I had misunderstood the process, but not the pernicious intent of the Democrats who are using this special process in an unprecedented way (contrary to their protestations). In fact, they CAN’t use reconciliation and wind up with an intact law without gutting the bill or overruling the parliamentarian over and over again.

it will be a spectacle for the generations.

[Intolerant in NJ]

But.. But...if the House passes the Senate bill..what’s stopping the Dems from taking it directly to Bo for his signiture?...it seems to be the accepted wisdom right now that this is what they're going to do IF they can pass the Senate bill in the House - a mighty big IF it seems to me......

[caww]

But now Stupak is saying the 12demos will not sign unless abortion language is changed...if they change it at all won’t it then have to again go back to the senate? After all the idea was to go straight to Bo from the house...but they cannot get the votes as long as the 12 demos hold out...so if they drop the abortion issue....or gee it just got confusing again!

[Intolerant in NJ]

...if they change it at all won’t it then have to again go back to the senate?...That's the way I understand it - any changes in any way in the House would make it a different bill than the one the Senate passed, and then it would have to go back to the Senate for reconsideration - I had thought this would be necessary anyway, bacause I thought the Senate always had to have the last vote before a bill went to the Prez for signing - but according to the Constitution, for whatever it's worth anymore, this isn't the case - Section 7 for instance talks about a final bill being "presented to the President of the United States; if he approves he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated..." - implying that the scheme to send the bill which originated in the Senate directly to the Prez after signing in the House is legitimate....

If the 12 anti-abortionists in the House led by Stupak really hold firm, there's a good chance Pelosi et al can't make up their votes somewhere else, and without changes to the Senate bill they would be opposed to it - but 'rats are relentless and mercilous in pushing thier agenda, and I'm sure they'll be all sorts of pressure, promises, and thuggish threats made to change nos to yeses - already we have a judgeship being given to the brother of a former no voter - be interesting to see how he votes this time around - I hope the Stupak gang hangs in there.....