Will Conrad Use The CBO To Kill The Health Bills?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 11:42:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Greg Sargent reports that Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) says that is a possibility:

Conrad said that under Congressional rules, for a reconciliation fix to be “scored,” it’s not necessary that it become law, but it is necessary for it to have passed both houses of Congress before getting fixed. “For the scoring to change it has to have passed Congress, and that means both houses,” he said. “The only thing that works here is the House has to pass the Senate bill,” Conrad continued. “Then the House can initiate a reconciliation measure that would deal with a limited number of issues that score for budget purposes.” After that, the Senate would pass the same reconciliation fix, Conrad explained, because even on the fix itself the House must go first because the lower chamber must initiate “revenue bills.”

(Emphasis suppied.) Conrad is full of crap imo. He says "reconciliation rules" dictate this. He cites no provision of the rules for this nonsense. And indeed, it is not in the rules. David Waldman explains:

[I]t can't possibly make any difference how the reconciliation bill is scored after it's passed both houses, at least with respect to whether or not the reconciliation process can be used to pass it. That'd be completely illogical. So that can't really be what he's talking about, can it? Because by the time a reconciliation bill is passed by both houses, all the decisions regarding its eligibility will have been made already. If the scoring helps decide a reconciliation bill's eligibility for the expedited process, the score after it's passed can't have any bearing.

The reconciliation bill will have a standalone CBO score. Will that score reflect reality? Of course not. The CBO apparently will not take into account the Senate passed bill. But that has nothing to do with whether reconciliation bills can be passed.

Another thing Conrad is full of crap on is that the reconciliation bill must originate in the House. As the Senate amply demonstrated in passage of its health bill, the Senate can grab any House passed bill with revenue measures and strip it out and write its own bill.

Now why does this mean that the CBO could kill the health bills? Because I believe theHouse simply will not take the hard votes to pass the Stand Alone Senate bill, or even a reconciliation bill on trust that the Seante will act. The Senagte is utterly untrustworthy. No one trusts them and no one should trust them.

If Conrad plays this game, I think the current health bills die. Any Village Dems concerned about that?

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Harkin: I Will Vote Against PO But I Am PO Supporter >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Will Conrad Use The CBO To Kill The Health Bills? | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Maybe its just me (none / 0) (#1)
by Left of the Left on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 11:57:02 AM EST

But the entire "House must pass Senate bill." stuff is being pushed really hard this week.

Conrad may be spouting nonsense (none / 0) (#2)
by Anne on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 12:03:19 PM EST

in terms of the whys and wherefores of the process, but there does seem to be a plan to vote on the plan. Is the Conrad maneuver designed to make sure the bill dies even if it passes? Who the heck knows anymore...

About the only thing that has become glaringly obvious is that the Senate is so dysfunctional as to be utterly useless.

Making it up as he goes along (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 12:11:11 PM EST

Sanctimony over invented procedure. Just like Roland Burris's election certificate.

Why do Democrats always do this?

Indications are that the House (none / 0) (#4)
by MO Blue on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 12:14:14 PM EST

has agreed to pass the Senate bill and trust that they will pass the reconciliation bill later.

A leaked Democratic memo burning up the Internets suggests the House may move first to pass the Senate bill, and the reconciliation bill happen after the Senate bill is already signed into law:

According to [a] Democratic memo, the timeline may be: Step one: The House passes the Senate's health reform bill by March 19. The bill then goes to the president for signature without going through conference....After the Senate bill becomes law, the House then amends the Senate bill through a reconciliation bill, to be passed by March 21. That bill would be the only opportunity to amend, add or strike provisions in the Senate bill. Step three: The Senate begins debate on the reconciliation bill by March 23. Debate is limited to 30 hours. Votes begin March 26, the first day of Easter recess... link

Show me the votes (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 12:17:57 PM EST

Don't exist.

This is "politics by inevitability." That works sometimes.

Not this time.


Maybe yes. Maybe no. (none / 0) (#6)
by MO Blue on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 12:25:39 PM EST

You can tell that the House is gearing up to pass something with respect to health care, because the Democratic media shop has floated to the AP some names of possible vote-switchers on the bill, which would be needed to move forward.

Ten House Democrats indicated in an Associated Press survey Monday they have not ruled out switching their "no" votes to "yes" on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, brightening the party's hopes in the face of unyielding Republican opposition.
In interviews with the AP, at least 10 of the 39 Democrats -- or their spokesmen -- either declined to state their positions or said they were undecided about the revised legislation, making them likely targets for intense wooing by Pelosi and Obama. Three of them -- Brian Baird of Washington, Bart Gordon of Tennessee and John Tanner of Tennessee -- are not seeking re-election this fall.
The others are Rick Boucher of Virginia, Suzanne Kosmas of Florida, Frank Kratovil of Maryland, Michael McMahon of New York, Walt Minnick of Idaho, Scott Murphy of New York and Glenn Nye of Virginia. Several lawmakers' offices did not reply to the AP queries. link

How many, "we have the votes" (none / 0) (#7)
by Buckeye on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 01:17:51 PM EST

or "we will have this by so and so day" or "we have worked out a deal" has there been in this health care dilemma? This story is just another one IMO.

If the house had any ability to pass the senate bill without first having a fix bill in place, they would have done it months ago.


: As Pelsoi says (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:07:21 PM EST

when you have the votes, you take the vote.

The problem is on the other side of the ledger (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 01:27:31 PM EST

Pre Scott Brown, Jason Altmore was enthusiastic about voting for the Senate bill. More recently he's been quoted as saying that there are a number of yes votes in the House likely to flip the other way. And then there's the undefined Stupak bloc.


Full of crap Donald (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:05:45 PM EST

"Traditionally," the Senate takes any bill with a revenue measure that originates from the House, strips it and writes its own bill.

Indeed, as THIS POST EXPLAINS< that is precisely what the Senate did with its health bill.

Your comment is pure nonsense.

: Oh BTW Donald (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:06:39 PM EST

when there was going to be a conference report, no would said anything like you are saying, because it is pure BS.

: That's not true (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 03:03:18 PM EST

Passage of a bill does not make it law.
they can pass the reconciliation bill first and then the Senate bill.
It becomes law when the President signs it.
You are spouting falsehoods.

Art. I Sec. 7 (none / 0) (#15)
by rea on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 06:12:15 PM EST

Bills "for raising revenue" must originate in the House of Representatives. That's not just tradition--it's the Constitution. If I recall correctly, at least one of the changes that need to be made to the Senate bill involve raising revenue.

I think BTD and David Waldman are both misunderstanding Sen. Conrad's somewhat inarticulate explanation. When Conrad says, "for a reconciliation fix to be 'scored,' it's not necessary that it become law, but it is necessary for it to have passed both houses of Congress before getting fixed. 'For the scoring to change it has to have passed Congress, and that means both houses,'" the "it" he is talking about is the Senate bill, not the reconciliation bill.

I agree with your reading of Conrad (none / 0) (#16)
by beowulf on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 10:25:45 PM EST

He's talking about the Senate bill has to be passed by both Houses before a (reconciliation) fix of said Senate bill can be scored.

In other words, the House can either pass the Senate bill first and watch Reid and Baucus double-cross them; Or they can drop the Senate bill entirely and pass a standalone reconciliation bill (e.g. Medicaid expansion, Tricare buy-in) that make no reference to the Senate bill. Put the monkey on the White House's back to find 50 Senate votes for it.

Since the Hyde Amendment already applies to Medicaid and Tricare, even Bart Stupak would go along with that.


Art I Sec 7 (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 06:48:15 AM EST

How can the House pass the Senate bill is the House is supposed to originate revenue raisers? Can you folks keep your lame talking points straight?


: Hey, I'm on your side BTD (none / 0) (#19)
by beowulf on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:48:36 PM EST

I think the House should kill the bill and pass a reconciliation-only HCR bill (which necessarily means Medicaid, Tricare or Stark's Americare).
They'd be idiots to pass anything until the Senate has. And you're right, the Constitution says revenue bills must start in the House, however the Senate gets around that by taking an unrelated House bill that's been passed, gutting the text and plugging in their own bill language.
Its shady, and the House could grow a spine and vote to "blue sheet" (that is refuse to consider) the Senate Healthcare bill because its amending a non-germane bill. On the flip side, if the Senate passed and sent over an agreeable reconciliation bill that had started out as a non-germane House bill, well I'd let that one slide. :o)

: Sorry, "blue slip" (none / 0) (#20)
by beowulf on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:51:29 PM EST

Its blue slip, not blue sheet--- I guess I shouldn't talk on the phone as I type. :o)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip

For crissales (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 06:47:23 AM EST

Then the Senate health bill means what to you?
