Incidentally, it is the House where legislation is written, then it passes through the Senate, and if sent back with changes, conference between the two Houses seeks to rectify any changes, then it must be voted upon unchanged, again by both Houses of Congress, in order to become something passed to the President for signing.
You tried to imply I didn't understand that Senate pork had been passed in the Senate but had not been passed in exact same language in the House. Your agenda to impugn Republicans seems to be tainting your mental acuity.
Well, H.R.6049 is in fact a House-originated bill. It was written in the House and passed by the House in May 2008. The fact that it was amended by the Senate, passed on Sept 23 and sent back to the House on Sept 29, without any request for a conference, shows that (had there been time available in this Congress) it was on the more common path of "Motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the House bill" sort of process. That is, it was not on a path to conference committee. Most bills are passed without conference, and it is very common for a House bill to be amended by the Senate, then passed as amended, by the House. That sequence result in both chambers passing identical language.
Riddick's Senate Procedure describes the inter-chamber amendment process, as well as the conditions that trigger and formalities that attach to calling for a conference committee. Small differences that can be worked out in one or two "back and forth" passes aren't subjected to the more cumbersome Conference Committee process.
Not relevant here, but legislation often originates in the Senate, and is subsequently passed by the House and then into law. So your general "it is the House where legislation is written, then it passes through the Senate" is only partially or sometimes true. Hit Browse Public Laws : 110th Congress and scan for items denominated "S.xxx," to see examples.
-- You tried to imply I didn't understand that Senate pork had been passed in the Senate but had not been passed in exact same language in the House. --
Actually, I assumed that to be the case [that you didn't know the pork had been passed as HR 6049 on September 23, and again in HR 1424 on October 1st], and intended to state so directly. Nothing in your original post indicated awareness that the Senate passed the pork twice, about one week between the votes. I thought the fact that the Senate passed the pork twice, once on near unanimity in a stand-alone basis (two Democrats voting against), before being passed as a companion to the bailout, was interesting.
-- Your agenda to impugn Republicans seems to be tainting your mental acuity. --
Your agenda to give Republicans a pass for unanimously approving the pork on September 23 seems to be tainting yours. At least I bothered to review the record, and I think I've presented it in a fairly non-judgmental fashion.
-- I was in fact insulting you with the Begala reference. --
You ought to be ashamed.
I was just rereading your post that I made my first comment in response to, and think that post strongly implies that NO pork (or at least not THIS pork) was passed by the Senate before the bailout came along. That is, the pork measures were NOT available to the House to pass any time it wanted to.
-- Harry Reid Seante was sitting on a pork list they wanted to pass but had no other bill to which they could hang the strips of rotting bacon --
-- Democrat criminal enterprise intended to add the pork cooking in the Harry Reid Senate --
-- Had the House passed the MOnday bill, the Senate could have added layers of pork --
I don't think a reader would be apt to conclude, from those assertions, that the House already had the Senate-passed pork.
Another point necessary for attaching responsibility for the pork strongly (or solely) to the Democrats is the margin and holdouts for Senate passage of the pork bill, HR 6049. What cleaner measure of "who's for the pork and who's against the pork" than a vote on the pork bill standing alone? HR 6049 cleared the Senate on a 93-2 vote, with zero Republican objectors. Both NAY votes came from Democrats.
I didn't and don't mean to get your goat, and in that spirit, I'll stifle any urge I may get to comment in regard to your posts.