While much of D.C. focuses on today's testimony by the Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve chairman, Congress is diving into a fierce battle over the budget -- and we know where both the House and Senate officially stand.

The House is adding "reconciliation" language that would shield health care reform from filibusters, but only if the two parties can't reach a deal under normal terms by August. The Senate's budget outline, by contrast, has no filibuster protection.

But why would the House add reconciliation to its budget when the tactic is largely relevant only to Senate procedure? Sen. Judd Gregg (NH), the Budget Committee's senior GOPer, theorized today that Democrats are playing "Hide the Reconciliation Ball." Here's how.

If the Senate passes a budget without reconciliation, and the House goes through with its plans for a time-sensitive filibuster-proofing of health care, the two chambers then must unite their budgets into a single conference report -- which should be passed by the end of next month, but also can't be filibustered. So if Democrats wanted to be sneaky, they'd go with the House-passed reconciliation language during conference talks, thus depriving Republican senators of their ability to reject.

As Gregg told reporters today, that's a concern for the GOP:

[T]here's no reason why the House should have reconciliation instructions [in their budget] unless there's a game going on here. And the game is "Hide the Reconciliation Ball." And basically, [they would] put it in the House vehicle where they know they can pass it, not have it in the Senate vehicle so none of their Democratic senators have to vote for something as outrageous as "reconciliation" being used on a massive expansion of the government in the area of health care, or carbon tax, or national sales tax on electric bills.

And then come back from conference with a reconciliation instruction that affects both bodies.

He has a point -- and that would be a crafty move on Democrats' part. But it's also not likely, given Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad's stated preference to avoid reconciliation outright. Filibuster-proofing climate change, as opposed to health care, is another decision entirely ... which has been answered with a no.