Apparently the Rules committee is in Chaos over whether or not the house can vote on an amendment to non-existing law (the Senate bill). I have brought this point up a few times in comment threads, but I haven't read any articles about what seems a very obvious point:
If the Senate can't start reconciliation until the Senate bill is law (since reconciliation must amend existing law according to the parliamentarian) then how can the House start reconciliation on something that isn't law? In fact, they are trying to start reconciliation on a bill that hasn't even passed the house.
What they want to do is amend a bill and vote on an amended bill, which happens all the time. But doesn't that require 2 votes: a vote on the amendment and then a vote on the final bill? And in that case doesn't the amended bill have to go back to the Senate?
Where is the House parliamentarian and how can the house parliamentarian make a ruling that is inconsistent with the Senate parliamentarian?
AND HOW COME NO REPORTERS OR COMMENTATORS HAVE BROUGHT UP THIS PROBLEM YET?
According to Byron York's linked post, it seems like the rules committee hasn't even realized this problem until today.