This is a constitutional crisis.

[onenote]

62. President Clinton vetoed a debt ceiling bill against the wishes of a majority of the two houses

and they actually had voted, whereas here the only way to know if there is a majority that favors a particular version of the CR (or of the debt ceiling) is for them to vote. The only evidence we have of the position of the majority is that a majority of the House voted for the resolution that gave the majority leader the discretion to decide whether or when to call up the Senate's version of the House bill. What would you think if the Supreme Court held that the Senate must vote on the House version? Or that the President can't veto a CR or debt ceiling bill? The only reason that there was no vote by the Senate on the House version is that there was a vote to "table" the House version. Just as there was a vote by a majority of the House to constitutionally carry out its role of determining the rules governing its proceedings.

Its a crappy situation, and one that shouldn't arise when people behave rationally. But there is nothing in the constitution that gives any other branch of government authority to dictate the contents of legislation that either house of congress considers.