correct, the permitting bill can't be in reconciliation, that's why I believe it refers to an entirely separate piece of legislation. I'm not saying I know all of the details, but the commitment in Schumer's joint statement was to "pass comprehensive permitting reform legislation before the end of this fiscal year," and Manchin's statem…
correct, the permitting bill can't be in reconciliation, that's why I believe it refers to an entirely separate piece of legislation. I'm not saying I know all of the details, but the commitment in Schumer's joint statement was to "pass comprehensive permitting reform legislation before the end of this fiscal year," and Manchin's statement said that Pelosi/Schumer/Biden had "committed to advancing" permitting legislation.
This is all to say, I believe, and am hopeful, that your original statement that "Manchin has made it clear that his vote is contingent upon passing a separate piece of legislation" is incorrect. He secured assurances, and I do not think Pelosi/Schumer would back out of those assurances, but it does not appear to be a precondition that permitting be sequenced first, eliminating the incentive you theorized Republicans would have to block permitting.
Well, just to be clear, not my statement, just quoting what was in the WSJ. :-) If you're correct, then I'd love to know what Manchin is thinking. If he only asked for and received a promise to "move the permitting bill forward," does he think that bill could clear the fillibuster? Or did he just make the deal knowing that if it didn't, he could throw up his hands and say, "I tried," and blame the Republicans for blocking something they'd otherwise support. He doesn't strike me as someone who would agree to the overall package if he had the latter view (assuming in fact he doesn't have a companion bill commitment). Hmm.
correct, the permitting bill can't be in reconciliation, that's why I believe it refers to an entirely separate piece of legislation. I'm not saying I know all of the details, but the commitment in Schumer's joint statement was to "pass comprehensive permitting reform legislation before the end of this fiscal year," and Manchin's statement said that Pelosi/Schumer/Biden had "committed to advancing" permitting legislation.
This is all to say, I believe, and am hopeful, that your original statement that "Manchin has made it clear that his vote is contingent upon passing a separate piece of legislation" is incorrect. He secured assurances, and I do not think Pelosi/Schumer would back out of those assurances, but it does not appear to be a precondition that permitting be sequenced first, eliminating the incentive you theorized Republicans would have to block permitting.
Just my 2 cents.
Well, just to be clear, not my statement, just quoting what was in the WSJ. :-) If you're correct, then I'd love to know what Manchin is thinking. If he only asked for and received a promise to "move the permitting bill forward," does he think that bill could clear the fillibuster? Or did he just make the deal knowing that if it didn't, he could throw up his hands and say, "I tried," and blame the Republicans for blocking something they'd otherwise support. He doesn't strike me as someone who would agree to the overall package if he had the latter view (assuming in fact he doesn't have a companion bill commitment). Hmm.