The Mysterious Mister Conrad

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) continues to insist on discussing the procedural issues surrounding health insurance reform in a way that breeds confusion. It may not be entirely his fault, but it's getting ridiculous.

Last week it was his flat assertion that the House had to act first by passing the Senate bill that even the Senate doesn't want anymore. This week, it's a Sunday show appearance that's giving rise to stories like this one (from Politico, of course):

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) threw cold water on the idea of using the reconciliation process Sunday during an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"Reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health care reform," said Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "The major package would not be done through reconciliation."

Asked by CBS host Bob Schieffer to elaborate, given that the White House suggested earlier Sunday that they could pass the main bill with a simple majority of 51 votes, Conrad said that reconciliation was not, in fact, an option.

Naturally, Politico insists on hearing and reporting what it wants reported, rather than what Conrad actually said. What he actually said was that, "The major package would not be done through reconciliation." Which is what everybody's saying. It's not the main bill that would be passed by reconciliation, it's just the narrowly tailored package of "fixes." But Republicans (and oh-so-curiously, Politico) insist on confusing those facts and repeating the exact opposite at every opportunity.

Consider the first sentence of the Politico story:

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) threw cold water on the idea of using the reconciliation process Sunday during an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Did he? Not if you can keep straight what is and isn't supposed to go through the reconciliation process, he didn't.

Consider now the last sentence:

Conrad said only "side car" issues could be affected through the reconciliation process.

Ah! All is clear! All it took to get it was... reading every damn other thing the Politico could throw in your way before letting you see that. Thanks, informative media!

Again, the point is that Republicans and a curiously complicit media are confusing people, seemingly on purpose, at every opportunity. Conrad should give them no further opportunities.

Now, as it turns out, although I don't think the confusion over which bills are and aren't eligible for reconciliation isn't necessarily Conrad's fault, things could be a lot clearer with regard to his continued insistence that the House must first pass the Ben Nelson (D-NE) version of the Senate bill -- which even Ben Nelson no longer favors -- before a reconciliation bill to fix it could be considered. Is it a scoring problem, like he told Brian Beutler of TPMDC last week?

He went on to explain his position. He says it's logistically impossible to pass a reconciliation bill, which is meant to amend a separate bill that hasn't passed. "I don't know how you would deal with the scoring, I don't know how I'd be able to look you in the eye and say this package reduces the deficit," he told me.

I asked Conrad why the Congressional Budget Office couldn't treat a reconciliation bill like any other amendment package, and score it together with the Senate bill.

"I don't know the answer to that question."

Or is it a logistical problem stemming from a supposed legal paradox, as Conrad had hinted to Beutler earlier in the week?

The Senate Democrats' top budget guy told reporters today that the Senate can't pass a reconciliation package tweaking a comprehensive health care bill unless the House passes the Senate bill first. And if the House won't do that, he says health care reform is "dead."

"The only way this works is for the House to pass the Senate bill and then, depending on what the package is, the reconciliation provision that moves first through the House and then comes here," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) outside the upper chamber this morning. "That's the only way that works."

You already know what I think, with regard to the supposed paradox issue. As for whether or not reconciliation adds a new wrinkle, we can't really know how to deal with that until Senator Conrad agrees to detail his objection, which I'm beginning to believe he's not doing precisely so that no one can actually examine it.

Is it scoring? Could be. And we know Conrad himself doesn't know all the answers about that. (Who does?) Is it something about reconciliation in particular that creates its own wrinkle in the "paradox" scenario? Can reconciliation really only be used to make changes in current law, as is sometimes claimed? It doesn't appear so on the surface:

§ 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;

I admit I'm no expert in how the relevant authorities in Congress interpret the Budget Act, which is the source of the rules on reconciliation. But it sure looks at first glance like reconciliation is available for the purposes of making changes not just in current law, but also in bills and resolutions still pending. And if I'm reading them right, the Congressional Research Service agrees (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.

The adoption of fall budget resolutions is a practice that's fallen by the wayside in recent decades, with Congress now preferring to adopt just the one resolution, usually timed in the spring. A number of changes to the process have been adopted along the way, including the infamous Byrd Rule, so it may well be possible that current practice differs somehow on the question of whether reconciliation may be used to change pending legislation. But it seems plain that originally, reconciliation did indeed contemplate the necessity of changing pending, as-yet-unpassed legislation, which is exactly what we're looking at here.

Do you think we could get a clarification of the issues, Senator Conrad? It's kind of important, and we'd all just like to be sure everyone's doing everything they can.

Article from Congress Matters read more here