Speaking of Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and the reconciliation process, I was just on a conference call with Conrad where he was notably unwilling to disavow the need for a 50-vote process. Asked by a reporter whether Senate Democrats would just adopt reconciliation instructions from House Democrats -- more on that strategy here -- he replied first with the standard caveats. "I don't want to do the negotiation of the Conference Committee through the media," he said. "I've been as clear as I can be, publicly and privately, that I don't think reconciliation is the right way to write health reform legislation. It wasn't designed for that purpose. It was designed for deficit reduction. Using it creates a lot of technical issues." All that, incidentally, is true. But Kent Conrad's normative judgment on reconciliation is less important than whether he will actually obstruct its usage. And his next comment made it unusually clear that he hasn't ruled the process out. "One thing I've said to colleagues is the Budget Act contemplates a second budget resolution with only 10 hours [of debate] on the floor," Conrad continued. "If it proved absolutely essential, if there was no Republican cooperation on writing major health reform, you could write a second resolution. It would only take a day on the floor and you could include reconciliation instructions there." That's rare moment of insight into the backroom strategy sessions Conrad is conducting with his Democratic colleagues. Not only are they discussing reconciliation, but Conrad is developing a variety of parliamentary plays that could reintroduce it into the process. There's not only the option of importing reconciliation instructions from House Democrats, but also adopting a second budget that allows Senate Democrats to write the rules themselves. Moreover, Conrad's comments echo the Democratic Caucus's consensus fairly perfectly: He doesn't want to use reconciliation, but if Republicans won't cooperate on health reform, he'll be left with no choice. In other words, don't make Kent Conrad angry. You wouldn't like him when he's angry. In response, a reporter asked why his language wasn't stronger. It sounded, she said, like Conrad was ready to support reconciliation if it emerged in Conference Committee. The calculated passivity of Conrad's response was notable. "I'm Scandinavian," he laughed. "What can I tell you?" Then his voice lowered again. "I don't control the outcome of the conference. I'm a participant, but I don't control the outcome. I've stated my preference not to have reconciliation. I will argue that in conference. But I can't control the outcome." Related: A reconciliation primer.
