Posted by Pete Davis
"Reconciliation" is getting a lot of attention in Washington lately. Most understand a reconciliation bill can pass the Senate by majority vote after 20 hours of debate, but that's often where the understanding stops. Reconciliation originated in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 as an optional means of changing (mostly) entitlement spending, but not Social Security, and taxes to achieve the deficit target set forth in the budget resolution. Because a reconciliation bill has a high likelihood of becoming law, it quickly became a magnet for extraneous amendments, which Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) deterred in 1985 with the Byrd Rule, now Section 313 of the Budget Act, which lays out six criteria for determining what is extraneous. Implementing these rules in the Senate has become so complicated that no one can be entirely sure of what will emerge until the Senate Parliamentarian has ruled.
So how would this affect health reform? Any section of the bill that doesn't change budget authority, outlays, or revenues would be knocked out. Out would go definitions, administrative provisions, abortion spending prohibitions, insurance reforms that lack direct budgetary effects, and etc. Out would go any provisions that boost the deficit in the five years after FY14, unless their overall effect from FY09 through FY19 was to reduce the deficit. Out would go any provisions outside of the jurisdictions of the Senate Finance and HELP Committees. To me, that would leave remnants of health reform that couldn't be properly implemented or interpreted the way Congress intended. However, my friends on the Senate Finance Majority staff, who are far more knowledgeable than I, tell me that they have found ways to draft around these impediments to produce a health reform bill that can be implemented. House Democratic leaders have drafted a reconciliation bill as well. All that remains is to pass them, work out a compromise, pass the conference report in both houses, and send it off to the president.
Reconciliation may not be that easy because enough Democrats in both houses of Congress may oppose ramming a bill through which contains provisions they oppose and lacks a public insurance option. Republicans have long threatened to shut down the Senate if the Democrats "go nuclear" with reconciliation to pass health reform. Like most intense conflicts, there will be no clean victories, only bloody confrontation with mixed results.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Peter, You wrote this blog
Peter,
You wrote this blog entry as if Congressional Democrats are planning to pass the entirety of the health reform bill through reconciliation, which is incorrect. What they are planning to do is instead have the House pass the Senate bill, and then pass compromises worked out between the House and the Senate through reconciliation.
The President's 11-page summary of changes to the Senate bill to make it acceptable to the House seems tailored to the reconciliation rule. That is why you do not, for example, see state-based exchanges replaced with one national exchange in his compromise piece -- because such a provision would not survive reconciliation.
It is possible that your blog post is based upon this understanding; however, its wording makes it very unclear to a person who may be less familiar with the process by which health care reform is working its way through Congress.
Reconciliation
Correct. The reconciliation bill would modify the Senate bill. I should have made that clear. Thanks.
The VP, not the parliamentarian makes the ruling
First, the Democrats will bring a bill to the floor with mutiple provisions that violate the Byrd rule.
Next the Republicans will challange these provisions citing the Byrd rule.
Third, the parliamentarian will uphold the Republican challange.
Fouth, the VP as presiding officer of the Senate will rule the provisions are allowable despite the finding of the parliamentarian.
Fiveth, the Republicans will appeal the rulling of the presiding officer but fail to get the 60 votes neccessary to sustain the appeal.
Finally, the provision will be included in a final bill passed under reconciliation.
These procedures will be repeated multiple times for each provision that violates the Byrd rules.
The parliamentarian, if he has any integrity, will at some point resign in protest and the whole process will make a mockery of the rules of the Senate and but that is a small price to pay in order to Rahm through HCR.
It will be interesting to hear and read the apologetics put forward by those who have pretended to defend the traditions of the Senate as the VP crushes them one by one. They may find it difficult, but in the end they will put their politics above their principles,
Interesting note
It should be interesting to note that when the parliamentarian ruled against Republicans when they pushed through bills under their watch under Bush, they FIRED him. I find it interesting how their supporters have such a double standard.
Even more interesting
They made no move to overturn Robert Dove's rulings before, during or after the termination process and replaced him wiht his predecessor who had been the parliamentarian under the Democrats and continues in that role today. Dove had generated some respect for his final rulings but great frustration for their inconsistency with preliminary advisories used to craft legislation that could meet the rules. Frumm, a Democrat, was respected not only for the legal soundness of his rulings but also for his consistency; a respect he retains to this day.
So yes, the final straw that cost Dove his job was his ruling on the inclusion of $5 billion in inergy funding in a budget bill; but the long term cause was the inconsistency of his rulings and he was replaced with a Democrat.
Pete, Would an individual
Pete,
Would an individual mandate have to be excluded for reconciliation, or could it be included because it affects revenues in the sense that there is a penalty on an individual if he does NOT purchase health insurance.
Without the individual mandate, guaranteed issue and community rating (regardless of pre-existing conditions) would not seem viable (because the adverse selection for insurers would drive them out of the individual market), right?
reconciliation
I believe an individual mandate could be drafted to satisfy the Byrd Rule, but we'll have to wait and see how the Senate Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, rules.
Remembering what Democrats used to think of reconciliation:
Obama, Reid, Schumer, Feinstein, Biden, Hillary, etc, all tell us what they think of reconciliation, back when Bush was president and they were the minority and feared the Republicans try it, using strong words.
On video. Enjoy.
Comparing what they said then to what they are saying today ... it's hard to reconcile!
It's enough to make one actually think that in one case or the other, either then or now, they were fibbing!
(You always gotta love Joe Biden: "I pray God that when we Democrats return to power we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing".)
Good to point out, but
Good to point out, but demerits for your selective prosecution. While you're at it you should probably dig up the corresponding quotes of Republicans defending reconciliation at the time. As I always say, both parties constantly accuse each other of hypocrisy (vs. a previous time when the shoe was on the other foot), and they're both right.
A question
The side-car reconciliation bill will almost certainly increase the deficit relative to the Senate bill, yes? (presuming the Senate bill becomes law before the side-car is considered) If so, how does that fit under the Byrd rule? Can specific subcomponents that increase the deficit be challenged? (e.g., the increase in the size of subsidies for those under 200% FPL)
Can they pass measures that will increase the deficit as long as the instructed committee is compliant with its instructions? (I am assuming yes since that is how tax cuts were done in reconciliation)
What are the applicable instructions in this case?
Any non-partisan clarification on these points would be welcome.
reconciliation
The reconciliation bill would have to meet the instruction, $1 billion of net deficit reduction from each of the Senate Finance and Senate HELP Committees FY10-FY14, and it would have to avoid adding to the deficit in FY15-FY19. As you say, within these constraints, it is possible to raise the deficit.
Nuclear Option - Please get the history straight
Brooks, the 'nuclear option' was to destroy the fillibuster, *not* to use reconciliation. I know that the GOP can't keep such things straight, but others can.
Barry, Please get the
Barry,
Please get the INDIVIDUALS here straight. I didn't refer to the "nuclear option".