Just as a quick addendum to this post: The Senate agreed last night to send Sens. Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Judd Gregg (R-NH)–the chair and ranking member of the Budget Committee–and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) to the budget conference committee. There they will hash out all the differences between the Senate’s budget and the House’s.
So what does this mean for reconciliation? Recall that reconciliation is a process that allows Congress to circumvent a filibuster, and, potentially, an avenue for passing major reform with little room for obstruction or debate. It’s a potentially huge deal and, at the very least, a tool that could provide Democrats tons of leverage in their pursuit of health reform through the standard legislative process. The House budget includes reconciliation “instructions”, but the Senate bill does not, and the crucial question–will the final budget include reconciliation instructions?–will be settled in the conference committee.
Conrad and Gregg have made their opposition to the process known (though according to The Hill, “Conrad told reporters that he doesn’t want to use reconciliation rules to pass healthcare reform but that he is feeling pressure to include the option in the budget resolution from House members and the Obama administration”).
But what about Murray?
Murray opposed the Republicans’ use of reconciliation under George W. Bush–but, of course, they were using the tactic to pass deficit-exploding tax cuts and drilling and so on. The question before her now is whether she thinks Democrats should be allowed to revert to the reconciliation process if Republicans don’t get on board with comprehensive health reform efforts by August or September.
It’s not completely clear how important the answer is. Earlier this week, the House appointed its budget chair and ranking member–John Spratt (D-SC) and Paul Ryan (R-WI)–and Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Allen Boyd (D-FL) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)–to the conference committee.
Neither Republican supports reconciliation for anything (except, presumably, tax cuts). Spratt, who wrote the budget, and DeLauro, a progressive, want it in the final resolution. Boyd is a Blue Dog who opposes the idea of using reconciliation to pass cap-and-trade legislation, but he voted for the House resolution even though it contains reconciliation for health care. I’ve placed a call to his staff, and to Murray’s, to get a better handle on their stances, and, therefore, on the overall math.
In any case, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support including reconciliation instructions in the budget, so there’s a great deal of weight behind it. But this is worth keeping an eye on.
Late update: John Cohn at The New Republic says the issue has already been decided.
according to senior Captiol Hill staffers, it’s a done deal: The final budget resolution will include a “reconciliation instruction” for health care. That means the Democrats can pass health care reform with just fifty votes, instead of the sixty it takes to break a filibuster.
The deal was hatched late afternoon and last night, in a five-hour negotiating session at the office of Senate Majoriy Leader Harry Reid. A trio of White House officials were there: Rahm Emanuel, Peter Orszag, and Phil Schiliro. Also present, along with Reid, were House Budget Chairman John Spratt and Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad.
The reonciliation instruction specifies a date. That date, according to one congressional staffer, is October 15. (The original House reconciliation instruction had a late September deadline.)
In other words, the House and Senate each have until that day to pass health care legislation.
