According to a report from the Politico blog, Live Pulse, the House leadership is considering passing the Senate bill using a procedural maneuver that would allow House members to avoid actually voting for the Senate bill. David Waldman first wrote about this option way back on January 20 in the immediate aftermath of the Massachusetts Senate election. It's called the "Self-Executing Rule," and it may also permit the House to make passage of the Senate bill conditional on the Senate passing the reconciliation bill.
This House Rules Committee explains the procedure here:
Definition of “Self-Executing” Rule. One of the newer types is called a “self-executing” rule; it embodies a “two-for-one” procedure. This means that when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the “self-executed” provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this sort contain customary, or “boilerplate,” language, such as: “The amendment printed in [section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.”
Traditional Use. Originally, this type of rule was used to expedite House action in disposing of Senate amendments to House-passed bills. As mentioned in the precedents (House Practice by Wm. Holmes Brown and Charles W. Johnson), self-executing rules for these purposes eliminate “the need for a motion to dispose of the [Senate] amendment.” Brown and Johnson further state that such resolutions are sometimes called “hereby” special orders “because the House, in adopting the resolution as drafted, ‘hereby’ agrees to the disposition of the [Senate] amendment as proposed by that resolution. If the House adopts a resolution, no further action by the House is required. The [Senate] amendment is never before the House for separate consideration.” “Hereby” or self-executing rules have also been used to adopt concurrent resolutions correcting the enrollment of measures or to make other technical changes to legislation.
Politico explains what is being contemplated for the health bill here:
Under this scenario, the Senate bill would be automatically attached to the reconciliation package, if the House passes reconciliation. In other words, Bill A would just become part of Bill B if the House passes Bill B, and the Senate could then vote on a reconciliation package before sending it to the president. This allows House members to approve the broader measure without actually voting on it.
The same aides who confirmed this process was under discussion quickly noted that party leaders have not yet arrived at a final decision, so it's far from a done deal -- a point House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) made repeatedly Tuesday during his weekly exchange with reporters.
This would allow them to deal with the Senate bill without forcing their members to go on record in support of unpopular items, like the now-infamous Cornhusker Kickback or the so-called Louisiana Purchase, that could be used against them on the campaign trail in the fall.
According to industry lobbyists, the House may take the additional step of further amending the rule to guard against another nightmare scenario -- the Senate's failure to enact a package of fixes through the now-familiar reconciliation process. House leaders could add a caveat to the rule that the Senate bill can only be signed into law if the Senate also passes the fixes.
I've been a supporter of the House going first, mainly because it kneecaps the ability of the GOP to portray the reconciliation fix as controversially "ramming" the comprehensive bill through Congress. Using the self-executing rule as described here would unfortunately allow the bill to be portrayed this way. But it may be worth it if it will keep House members from having to go on the record in favor of controversial items that would be scrubbed by the reconciliation bill. And it could be worth it if it will convince skittish House members that the changes they want made will be made.