Is the latest dispatch about reconciliaton from Tokyo Rose McConnell accurate?

[ProSense]

Republicans have all the reconciliation luck!

by David Waldman

The latest dispatch from Tokyo Rose McConnell comes via subscription only Roll Call:

The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.

The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.

It's amazing that the parliamentarian, who does not talk to the press,
is reported by anonymous Republicans to have verbally told Republicans
exactly what those Republicans wanted Democrats to hear.

Could it be true? Sure.

But it's also the opposite of what former Senate parliamentarian Bob Dove said, and he said it on the record:

Dove says the Dems' planned use of reconciliation is highly unusual. "I've never seen a two-bill strategy" where reconciliation is used to fix another piece of legislation, he says. "It's permissible, I've just never seen it."

Why would he say that? Because the law appears to say so, too:

§ 641. Reconciliation

(a) Inclusion of reconciliation directives in concurrent resolutions on the budget
A concurrent resolution on the budget for any fiscal year, to the extent necessary to effectuate the provisions and requirements of such resolution, shall—
(1) specify the total amount by which—
(A) new budget authority for such fiscal year;
(B) budget authority initially provided for prior fiscal years;
(C) new entitlement authority which is to become effective during such fiscal year; and
(D) credit authority for such fiscal year,
contained in laws, bills, and resolutions within the jurisdiction of a committee, is to be changed and direct that committee to determine and recommend changes to accomplish a change of such total amount;

As does the Congressional Research Service (PDF):

Congress and the President could use reconciliation procedures to quickly make any adjustments in existing law or pending legislation that were required to achieve budget policies as they changed between the adoption of the spring and fall budget resolutions.

Could the current Senate parliamentarian just see things the exact opposite of the way the former parliamentarian sees it? And opposite the way the law appears to read? And opposite the way CRS reads it?

more

Repeat:

Congress and the President could use reconciliation procedures to quickly make any adjustments in existing law or pending legislation that were required to achieve budget policies as they changed between the adoption of the spring and fall budget resolutions.

[Jennicut]

1. In other words, are the GOP "sources" totally lying about this? Might be.

I want to hear from Frumin himself.

[johnnyplankton]

3. GOP? LIE?

I've Never Heard of Such a Thing!

[kjackson227]

2. Yep, they're throwing everything up against the wall...

and hoping it sticks. They're running scared and will say and try to do whatever it takes to block the HCR. But, I'm beginning to think that we're going to be pleasantly surprised.

[butterfly77]

4. As far as republiCONS are concerned...

Reconciliation=Armeggedon

When Democrats use it.

[harkadog]

5. They are not opposite statements in any respect.

He said it was unusual and he had not seen it done before. He is reported to have said the Senate bill would have to be passed first and signed by Obama for reconciliation to be applied. Those are not opposite at all and in fact are very compatible.

[ProSense]

6. It's the exact opposite.

"It's permissible..."

Claiming that something can't be done is completely different from saying it's unsual. Claiming it can't be done is the exact opposite of saying it's permissible.

And with the law and CRS statement right there, what exactly needs to be clarified?

[harkadog]

7. You are not reading it which coming from you doesn't surprise me.

He said he has not seen it done but is permissible. He says if you are going to do it you have to pass an sign the Senate Bill first. You can't do both the bills at the same time. Try the english version next time.

[ProSense]

9. "He said he has not seen it done but is permissible."

How exactly is that different from saying it's permissible?

How is that the same as saying it can't be done?

[harkadog]

14. Pelosi agrees with me per the news today.

Now you will have to backtrack on yet another topic.

[ProSense]

18. What? n/t

[harkadog]

19. Her quote today.

"The bills that have passed, ours with 220 in the House, theirs with 60 in the Senate, we’ll be acting upon the Senate bill with changes that were in the House bill reflected in the reconciliation. So in order to have the Senate bill be the basis and build upon it with the reconciliation, you have to pass the Senate bill, or else you're talking about starting from scratch. So we will pass the Senate bill. Once we pass it, the President signs it or doesn't, it’s - people would rather he waited until the Senate acted, but the Senate Parliamentarian, as you have said, said in order for them to do a reconciliation based on the Senate bill, it must be signed by the President.”

[ProSense]

21. Link? Here is what she said yesterday:

To remind, 75 percent of the House and Senate bills are similar. The President says 90 percent — so let’s split the difference. In that, the Senate bill was passed by 60 votes in the Senate and in the House our bill was passed by 220 votes. We will now be addressing just the changes. And you’ve heard me say it over and over: they will relate for affordability to the middle class, where we believe the House bill was better, accountability of the insurance companies where we believe the House bill was better, closing the donut hole — and I’m learning that some of you young people don’t know exactly what that means or maybe I should explain that for seniors this makes purchasing prescription drugs more affordable — and equity for the states — correcting the Nebraska agreement fix, whatever you want to call that, but having more equity for the states. And this is really important because we don’t want to have unnecessary burdens on the state and this legislation comes closer to what the House had in mind on that score.

In addition to that, that’s with the investments — on the pay-for side, as you know, again and again, we talked about the so-called “Cadillac plans.” And Nancy-Ann discussed with the Members, Nancy-Ann DeParle, with the Members what the change would be and that is that 80 percent of it would be removed from the bill and that’s a real victory for the House. And she discussed further how that is represented in the bill and what is used instead as a pay-for, which is a Medicare tax on unearned income for the bulk of it.

So it was very productive in terms of hearing directly from the White House what the President’s proposal was at a time when we have a better idea of what CBO is talking about, although not final. And having the Administration hear the concerns of Members once again, in case there’s any room within reconciliation.

But again, and I’ll close with this, reconciliation is a very narrow discipline. And that was emphasized to the Members this morning. Unless a provision is central to the budget, it cannot be considered. And again, we have to abide by our Parliamentarian, and the Congressional Budget Office, the Senate Parliamentarian, the Byrd Rule, all of this was discussed this morning.

link

[harkadog]

22. Link

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/03/12/HP/A/30620/House+Speaker+Rep+Nancy+Pelosi+DCA+Weekly+Legislative+Briefing.aspx

[ProSense]

23. You know, given that the law states otherwise and Pelosi said

So we will pass the Senate bill. Once we pass it, the President signs it or doesn't, it’s - people would rather he waited until the Senate acted, but the Senate Parliamentarian, as you have said, said in order for them to do a reconciliation based on the Senate bill, it must be signed by the President.”

Appears to have based this statement on media reports. Now comes this:

Dems Confident That Senate Parliamentarian Was 'Misinterpreted' On Reconciliation

Nowhere does it say that a bill has to be signed before it's reconciled.

Thing about it: when a bill goes into conference, stuff gets stripped and added all the time. This bill is in conference. They are simply agreeing to the terms of proceeding. The Senate has opted to proceed using reconciliation.

None of Bush's bill had to be signed into law before a reconciliation vote took place.

This simply sounds like misinformation.

[Cha]

11. Quit barking.

[harkadog]

15. So that is what bringing facts to the table is called now.

[vaberella]

8. The GOP lies all the time. n/t

[harkadog]

16. Except that Pelosi confirmed it today.

[Clio the Leo]

10. It's highly unlikely that the GOP is simply making this up...

.... as it would be fairly easy for Leader Reid to disprove them (because the parliamentarian DOES speak with him.)

But two things .... Joe can override the parliamentarian (dont ask me Joe who!!! JOE!!!!) .... I doubt that's the primary strategy, but it could happen.

And more importantly, this is only a problem if the Dems let it be. There is NO REASON for the Senate to go ON RECORD (as Harry did officially today in his letter to McConnell) using recon. if they aren't willing to do it.

The House needs to suck it up and get this done.

[annabanana]

12. I KNEW that story sounded hinkey!

Now I know WHY it sounded hinkey.

[whistler162]

13. You do realize that either the article insulted the woman

labeled Tokyo Rose, Iva Toguri, or complimented McConnel.

Iva TOguri was caught in Japan and survived by broadcasting along with others while trying to help, supplying food, to POW's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iva_Toguri_D'Aquino

Interesting woman and a idiot writer!

Now calling him Lord Haw Haw McConnell that would have been accurate.

[ProSense]

17. Actually

no.

[whistler162]

24. Bummer...

I doubt the author will ever learn!

[BlueIdaho]

20. We must be close now.

The republican'ts have turned the rhetoric knob up to eleven - they and their paid media operatives have become shrieking harpies of doom. Promising HCR will lead to everything from the death of the Democratic party to hair loss and the end of civilization as we know it.

If McConnell is busy warning Democrats about an impending disaster of biblical proportions we must be on to something - and we must be very close indeed.

[Igel]

25. Quibble.

"Could" = past tense of 'can'.

"He said, 'Don't think I can lift the boulder.' But he could."

"Could" = conditional of 'can'.

"Could you please lift the boulder? 'Yes, of course.'"

"Two of the most significant changes in reconciliation procedure involved
advancing its use to the spring budget resolution and extending its time frame from
one year to multiple years (paralleling the changes in budget resolution scheduling
and time frame). As originally framed, the 1974 act required the adoption of two
budget resolutions each year. The first budget resolution, to be adopted in the spring,
set advisory budget levels for the upcoming fiscal year. The second budget
resolution, to be adopted on September 15, just before the start of the new fiscal year
on October 1, set binding budget levels for the year. Reconciliation was established
as an adjunct to the adoption of the second budget resolution. Congress and the
President could use reconciliation procedures to quickly make any adjustments in
existing law or pending legislation that were required to achieve budget policies as
they changed between the adoption of the spring and fall budget resolutions. Action
on any required reconciliation legislation was expected to be completed by
September 25.

"In the early 1980s, the House and Senate abandoned the practice of adopting a
second budget resolution, choosing instead to adopt a single budget resolution in the
spring of each year (although the schedule often slipped, sometimes markedly). This
change in practice formally was incorporated into the 1974 act by the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Title II of P.L. 99-177;
December 12, 1985; 99 Stat. 1037-1101)."

Does the historical practice of reconciling legislation when there's a different budget resolution governing the budget process apply to other instances? There's a question. But your out-of-context quote speaks about what they were able to do under a specific circumstance and doesn't actually assert that the same process would be able to be used now.

Similarly, your first rather large blip concerns the use of concurrent budget resolutions and reconciliation directives that are included in the budget resolutions. The budget resolution is past. I think HCR was included, in some way, in the budget resolution. But the authority for how it's used would derive from that resolution, not from text that governs the production of that resolution.