Why is there so much spin on reconciliation? (updated)

[ProSense]

First everyone was clammoring for Democrats to use it, pointing to how easy it was for Bush to get his tax cuts through using it. Now that Democrats are seriously considering it, some people are trying to frame it as the most complex and dangerous thing ever.

Procedural Clarification: Reconciliation Does Not Require 60 Votes

<...>

But if the House passes the Senate bill alongside a package of changes through reconciliation, the Senate does not have to muster another 60 vote super-majority. The Wonk Room spoke to former Senate parliamentarian Robert Dove, who clarified that nothing in the reconciliation process requires 60 votes. Here is how it works:

1) House and Senate budget committees must include a “reconciliation directive” in the budget resolution. (They did.)

2) The Senate Finance and health committees send the changes to the Senate Budget Committee. The House Ways and Means, Education and Labor and Energy and Commerce Committees report their changes to the House Budget Committee. There are no time limits on markups and Republicans can bombard the committee with amendments.

3) The Budget Committees incorporate the changes into an omnibus budget reconciliation bill, but cannot accept any amendments. “Under the budget resolution, each committee’s portion of the bill must lead to a net reduction of the deficit of at least $1 billion over five years.”

4) The bills then move to the floor. In the House, “the House Rules Committee can waive all points of order against a bill, if backed up by a simple majority vote of the House.” In the Senate, any grouping of 41 senators can knock out any provision in the reported bill that violate the Byrd rules. A provision that (a) has no budgetary impact (b) increases the deficit by any amount over a 5 year or 10 year period, (c) increases the deficit by more than $10 billion in any one year before 2014 unless fully offset over a five-year period, or (d) makes any change to title II of the Social Security Act can be stricken from the package.

Debate in the Senate on any reconciliation measure is limited to 20 hours (and 10 hours on a conference report) and amendments must be germane and not include extraneous matter. However, at the conclusion of the 20 hours of debate, “Senators can still offer an unlimited number of amendments, which must then be voted on immediately, without debate.” “All of those amendments must meet each of the Budget Act and Byrd Rule restrictions that the base bill met, or they would require 60 votes, not 51 votes, for adoption. In addition, amendments must be germane to the bill.”

5) If the House and Senate bills are approved, they are sent to a conference of House and Senate negotiators to be melded into a single piece of legislation. That final conference report is then approved by both chambers and signed by the president.

Dove stressed that the reconciliation process was messy and explained that Republicans can exploit quorum calls, offer numerous amendments and insist that their amendments be read in full. In other words, they can delay the process, but if Democrats stick together, they can’t derail it.

On edit: In fact, the way this reads, reconciliation could turn out to be a nightmare for Republicans.

Updated to add:

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

Final Senate vote:

Yea
Republicans 48
Democrats 2
Total 50

Nay
Republicans 3
Democrats 46
Independents 1
Total 50

Vice President Dick Cheney(R): Yes




edited typo

[kristopher]

1. "but if Democrats stick together"

Like that is going to happen.

Thanks for the information, though. It is the most succinct account I've read.

[vaberella]

11. Exactly. n/t

[Skink]

2. Let's end the filibuster while we are at it.

[timeforpeace]

3. Reconciliation is intended for budget bills, not HCR.

[DailyGrind51]

5. "Medicare for All" could have qualified for reconciliation.

[niceypoo]

6. So what

Nobody cares about the process, only the end result.

[ProSense]

7. Health care is budget related.

There are aspects of the health care bill that are completely linked to the budget. That is the reason this happene:

"1) House and Senate budget committees must include a “reconciliation directive” in the budget resolution. (They did.)"

The parts that will be passed through reconciliation are those related to the budget.

[DailyGrind51]

8. They could pass portions of it through reconciliation, doing the non-budgetary items via subsequent

amendments.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

13. You sound like that senate purist Feingold.

Really, what do you care? Because of the precedent? I'll clue you in, the pukes have and will do these in the future so we may as well too.

[DailyGrind51]

16. Reconciliation IS reserved for budgetary items!

"Created in a budget resolution in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process, the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution..."

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/bud_rec_proc.htm

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Thanks for posting this n/t

[Phx_Dem]

9. 60 votes are required to overturn an objection ruling.

So, the bill has to be written in a way to withstand any objection from Republicans. Isn't that what Obama is reported to be doing with his proposal -- writing it in such a way that it could get though the reconciliation process (presumably without an objection ruling)? I may have misunderstood, but that was my initial understanding.

Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the presiding senator. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling.

Byrd Rule

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

-if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
-if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
-if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
-if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
-if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
-if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the presiding senator. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

[recadna]

10. Say we do it with 50 votes, what will happen if

Repukes take over WH/congress in future? Can they roll it back with a simple majority? Will they pass many bad bills?

Please remember the only way we prevented Dubya from screwing Social security was filibuster. I am not a fan to get round it. What goes around comes around.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

14. Wow, so let's only make laws that take into account assumptions about what

the pukes might do in the future. Fucking brilliant.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

12. How the fuck does this get unrecced below zero?

DU needs a serious house cleaning.

[DailyGrind51]

15. I just "rec'd" to at least bring it up a notch!

[Truth2Tell]

17. Just to be clear,

The "some people" who are out there framing this as complex and dangerous are generally not the same people who have been clamoring for it's use.