Help me and others to understand this "Reconciliation" process. Nobody is explains the same way!

rface | 3.3.10 | rface

[rface]

Here is how I understand the process - so tell me where I am wrong:

The Democrat goal is to get the House to vote - using "simple majority" - on the Senate version of the Health Care bill.

**I know that months earlier the House passed their own version that contained, among other things, provisions prohibiting public funding of abortion. There are other major differences also..... BUT - this new vote that the House is taking is an attempt to pass the EXACT SENATE VERSION.....of Health Care...... The Senate Version does not contain the verbiage prohibiting tax pay funding of abortion......so If the House passes the Senate version - then why the need for any sort of "Reconciliation"?

Before the Massachusetts Election, The Senate Passed a bill with 60 votes and now they pass it onto the house. If the House votes a simple majority - then the bill is passed. Obama signs. Deal Done.

Why is there any need to "Reconcile"?

.

The only issue I see is that the House has to swallow the Senate Bill WHOLE - and I wonder if the House knows that if they pass this bill then the bill is done.

.

SO - what do I not understand?

[rface]

sorry for this vanity - but I want to understand

[P-Marlowe]

My understanding is that they can change the Senate bill all they want, but if they pass the Senate Bill (even with the changes) the “reconciliation bill” (the amended Senate bill) is not subject to filibuster.

[tsmith130]

I have a question to add. Exactly which Senate bill? Seems to me that there has been at least 2 more drawn up since the Senate passed their bill. So is the bill they are currently talking about one of the new ones or the original Senate bill?

[freespirited]

There is only one way that the House can be convinced to pass the Senate bill: by making promises to conservative RATS that various provisions will be changed in a later legislative package. Hence the use of reconciliation.

The Senate bill is the one passed around Christmas after Nelson caved.

I suppose this could have something to do with the Constitutional requirement that all revenue bills originate in the House. So the House would have to pass a bill first, then the Senate has to pass something, and now that they dont have a supermajority, reconciliation is their only hope (that is in theory, I dont think they can make it work).

[hole_n_one]

In a nut shell..........

You don't like it?

Too effin' bad.

[Revolutionary]

I believe they are planning on shoving yet a third bill down our throats. One we haven’t seen yet. They will try to pass it in the house with 50% plus 1 and then go to the Senate and try to do the same 50% plus 1 under the reconciliation rule. Even though it would violate the actual rule, what do they care. Jamming the Senate version through the House had two problems they may not be able to overcome. One, all spending bills (may not have the correct terminology here) have to start in the House, so they can’t technically use the Senate Bill without going to conference first. Two, I don’t think they could get the votes for the Senate version anyway. So I think they are going for door number 3, a new bill that no one has seen yet and is probably still in the making, one special deal at a time.

Someone that really knows the ins and outs of the rules, can validate or poke holes in my answer.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

It was also crafted as means of passing STRICTLY budget legislation. And, specifically, legislation that REDUCES the budget.

It was never intended for legislation as massive as socialist medicine.

We have an amendment process for that.

This is tyranny, pure and simple.

[Rocky]

Nobody is explains the same way!

I think I see one of your problems.

[La Lydia]

What is being "reconciled" isn't the difference between the House and Senate versions of the health care/socialized medicine bill. Reconciliation is a specific way to pass a budget bill without it being subject to a filibuster. The original idea was to "reconcile" the budget with spending and/or debt-limit bills or resolutions. (That is to make the amount of money they plan to spend match the amount of money they think they will have. Ha!) Anyway, they are using the reconciliation process to pass health care because they want to avoid a filibuster of it and because, under the rules, Democrats could pass the the bill with a simple majority rather than a 60-vote supermajority (this is why it is called going nuclear). The hang up here, of course, is that all revenue bills, (which this bill is, because it raises taxes) under the Constitution, must originate in the House.

[jaz.357]

Nobody is explains the same way!

Tha isa jes awat I say, Lucy!

[Ingtar]

There is no need to reconcile. If the House passes it, Zero will sign it. This is a scam to get Dims to go along thinking they will have a chance to modify it.

[t-dude]

The simple majority vote must come from the Senate. The house must first pass the Senate bill that they do not like, with the understanding the Senate will then craft a bill fixing the things they don't like.

This would then need to pass the Senate but it can't because they no longer have the 60 votes, so the Senate can use a rule called budget reconciliation that only needs a simple majority (50 + 1)

The problem is they can't use budget reconciliation for things like abortion - that's not a budget issue. So I think they are stuck myself...of course they will try to bend the rules as far as they can.

[Freddd]

In this particular case, this one instance, I can sum it up for you in one word.

FRAUD.

[SloopJohnB]

Hope this clears up some of the confusion. Cato Institute senior fellow Michael D. Tanner explains ‘Reconciliation:

"For those not versed in the arcane rules of the U.S. Senate, reconciliation is not what a divorced couple attempts when they visit Dr. Phil. It is a mechanism for avoiding filibusters on certain budgetary issues. If Democrats can find a way to apply it to health care reform, they could pass a bill with just 51 votes, negating the election of Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown and the loss of the 60-seat supermajority. Reconciliation was established in 1974 to make it easier for Congress to adjust taxes and spending in order to 'reconcile' actual revenues and expenditures with a previously approved budget resolution. Thus, at the end of the year, if Congress found that it was running a budget deficit higher than previously projected, it could quickly raise taxes or cut spending to bring the budget back into line. Debate on such measures was abbreviated to just 20 hours (an eyeblink in Senate terms), and there could be no filibuster. As Robert Byrd, (D-W.V.), one of the original authors of the reconciliation rule, explained, 'Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits ... [I]t was not designed to ... restructure the entire health care system.' He warns that using reconciliation for health care would 'violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate.' In fact, in 1985, the Senate adopted the 'Byrd rule,' which prohibits the use of reconciliation for any 'extraneous issue' that does not directly change revenues or expenditures. Clearly, large portions of the health care bill, ranging from mandates to insurance regulation to establishing 'exchanges,' do not meet that requirement."

In another article he adds this:

The Reconciliation Rulebook

[rface]

but the House DID start this ball rolling......it passed the House many moons ago and then got stalled in the Senate, since they couldn't get the 60 and then Brown won Kennedy's seat.....but I do understand the process better -- but it also looks like some slight-of-hand is being done behind the curtain.

Thank you.

[La Lydia]

Maddening, isn’t it? A bill passed the House. The House bill was not introduced in the Senate. The Senate passed a different bill in December. The slight of hand behind the curtain you noticed were the negotiations over the dueling bills that the Democrats and the White House held among themselves last month as a way to avoid a congressional conference committee, which would have included some Republicans. The House has to take up the Senate bill and pass it (because the legislation has to originate in the House). Then the House has to pass a reconciliation bill (which includes the House changes to the Senate bill) and send it to the Senate. Then the Senate has to pass it.