Hopwin wrote:
I thought the House passed a bill as did the Senate so all that remains is to send it to committee to match up the two bills and vote yes or no on the changes that come through as a result.
No, doing it that way would require sending both the House and Senate bills (which are substantially different) to conference committee to create a single, blended version of the two, then having both chambers vote on the result. That would result in another Senate filibuster. What the Dem leadership would like to do instead is have the House scrap its own bill and simply pass the Senate bill as-is. If they do that, the same bill will have passed both chambers and can go straight to the President for signing with no need for a conference or subsequent Senate vote.
However, the more liberal members of the House are refusing to do that because they think the Senate bill is too conservative, and some of the pro-life Dems are refusing to do that because they think the Senate bill leaves a loophole for abortion funding. So, to get the liberal and pro-life members to vote yes on the Senate bill, the leadership is trying to use the reconciliation rules, which allow for changes to a bill
after it's already been voted on, provided both chambers then approve those changes. So, another Senate vote would be required, but the key is that reconciliation changes aren't subject to the filibuster. The controversy in that approach is that reconciliation is supposed to be only for budgetary changes, not substantive ones, and it's a stretch (and then some) to say the changes the Dems are considering are strictly budgetary.
The added wrinkle that Uncle Fester is pointing out here is that some Dems in the House don't want to go on record voting for the Senate bill, so the leadership is considering using a procedural tactic that allows members to vote on the reconciliation changes directly and have that vote carry over to the underlying bill. Basically, it allows the reluctant Dems to answer criticisms of the underlying bill by saying, "Hey, I just voted to
improve the thing!"
It's slick, and I imagine pretty self-defeating as a public relations ploy, but that's really all it is. At the end of the day, the Dems have a clear majority in both chambers, both chambers will vote yes on the bill that goes to the President's desk, and the President will sign it. The Constitutional requirements will be satisfied. All this drama is just a result of the crappy procedural bullsh*t the House and Senate have set up for themselves. Which is why I think they should reform their procedural rules to avoid all this craziness and just do things on straight up-or-down votes with no supermajority requirements beyond those demanded by the Constitution itself.