Senate Parliamentarian: House Must Move First (No to reconciliation)

(Biden can overrule the Senate Parliamentarian)

Ryan Grim



The House must pass the Senate health care bill into law before fixes can be made to it through reconciliation, the Senate Parliamentarian told Republican leaders.

"The Senate Parliamentarian's office has informed Senate Republicans that reconciliation instructions require the measure to make changes in law," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Minority Leader Mitch McConell (R-Ky.), confirming a report in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call.

Congress could then amend the law using the majority-vote reconciliation procedure. But at that point, a version of health care reform would be signed into law, lessening the pressure to move the package of fixes through.

The Senate, however, must convince the House that if it passes the Senate version, there will be at least 50 senators willing to support the reconciliation fix. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Rules Committee, quipped last week that the House would require a "blood oath" from the upper chamber.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/senate-parliamentarian-ho_n_495522.html

<snip>

As long as Obama signs the large bill first, the small bill is reconciling it.

Which order the Senate voted on them doesn't determine when it's a law.

The Senate Bill will have to be approved "as is" and then other bills can be brought up to adjust the first bill. It can not happen in reverse order or it would already be done..

. . . based on 'republican sources'. I posted the same thing yesterday and then realized it was just propaganda orchestrated by the republican leadership.

...which I disagreed with, but you were right that it's just Republican spin.

Then, if the House passes the original Senate bill, see what falls out. If necessary, pass the fixes again -- but get senators on record as having supported the fixes the first time, giving them less incentive to oppose any second round.

the letter Reid sent yesterday to McConell.

Even if true (and it seems not to be, see below, the post referring to the Kos and the Politico article), this would not have meant a "no to reconciliation".

..that worked out the differences and then presented a new bill for the House to vote on? Which then would have to be passed by the Senate once again?