The New Republic is reporting that the Democrats may bypass the conference committee as the means by which to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bill (EXCLUSIVE: Dems ‘Almost Certain’ to Bypass Conference):

According to a pair of senior Capitol Hill staffers, one from each chamber, House and Senate Democrats are “almost certain” to negotiate informally rather than convene a formal conference committee. Doing so would allow Democrats to avoid a series of procedural steps–not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate–that Republicans could use to stall deliberations, just as they did in November and December.

[…]

“I think the Republicans have made our decision for us," the Senate staffer says. "It’s time for a little ping-pong.”

“Ping pong” is a reference to one way the House and Senate could proceed. With ping-ponging, the chambers send legislation back and forth to one another until they finally have an agreed-upon version of the bill. But even ping-ponging can take different forms and some people use the term generically to refer to any informal negotiations.

Now, this will doubt result in howls of “foul!” from opposition politicians and bloggers.¹  However, this is not an illegitimate or unusual reconciliation process.  Rather, it is one of the options that are always available to the Congress in these circumstances.²  My only question about the report is exactly how informal the negotiations are going to be. And just as the minority has every right to use whatever rules work to their advantage to delay (if not defeat) a given bill, so too does the majority have the right to use the rules that will help them pass legislation.

One of the things that I always find amusing about political commentary on legislative processes is that people often think that because it is the first time that they have heard of something, that it must be a new and nefarious procedure cooked up recently, when in fact these things typically are long-standing processes that people normally ignore.

I know that the typical US government textbook diagram of the legislative process makes it seem like conference committees are both the only means to reconcile a bill and run of the mill, but yet neither is true.

I would note that whether one likes it or not, the Republican strategy has been to be in lockstep opposition to the bill and to therefore self-exclude from the deliberative process.  For them to now argue that they are being excluded is disingenuous at best.

Share on Facebook

1. Indeed, a quick trip to Memeorandum gives us the following examples:  Michele Malkin, The death of deliberative democracy, Pt. 9,997, Hot Air, TNR: No conference committee for ObamaCare,  and  Dr. Melissa Clothier,Suprise! Democrats Not Going To Conference On Health Care Bill–UPDATED [↩]
2. If one is interested in the legislative process, I would recommend the following: Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process

   And for a great general text on Congress: Congress And Its Members [↩]

9 Responses to “A Conference Committee is not Required”

1. Max Lybbert Says:
   January 4th, 2024 at 1:37 pm

   I’ll agree that a conference committee is not required, and I’m perfectly fine with Congress writing its own rules of order. However, this does seem to violate a certain promise that all aspects of health care reform would be publicly debated on CSPAN.

2. Steven L. Taylor Says:
   January 4th, 2024 at 1:40 pm

   I would be shocked if all aspects of health care reform have to date been debated on CSPAN. (Indeed, such a promise would have been silly–not that I am saying it wasn’t made).

   There also seems to be a misconception that the conference would do everything in public, which is not typical.

3. Quote of the Day, Legislative Process Edition | Heretical Ideas Blog Says:
   January 4th, 2024 at 3:03 pm

   [...] “One of the things that I always find amusing about political commentary on legislative processes is that people often think that because it is the first time that they have heard of something, that it must be a new and nefarious procedure cooked up recently, when in fact these things typically are long-standing processes that people normally ignore.” – Steven Taylor [...]

4. MSS Says:
   January 4th, 2024 at 3:08 pm

   Conference committees are actually one of the worst features of bicameral legislatures. They almost always are entirely secretive, and their reports go back to each chamber’s floor under the equivalent of “fast track” (i.e. no amendments permitted once introduced, and then an up/down vote).

   Of course, as Steven notes, even without a conference the majority party leadership will work out differences in secret (shock of shocks: not everything about politics is televised!). However, a key difference is that under “ping pong” (or the navette, meaning shuttle, as it is usually known in comparative politics) is that there is the possibility of the houses continuing to pass different versions, and thereby making public the areas of disagreement, while working out their differences. I am not suggesting this will happen in this case, but the nature of ping pong is that there is no rules-required stopping point, as there is with a conference committee.

   Therefore, those who care about transparency should always prefer the navette (ping pong) over a conference committee.

5. Chris Lawrence Says:
   January 4th, 2024 at 6:27 pm

   On the choice of books, I tend to prefer the treatment by Sinclair (Unorthodox Lawmaking).

   I made much the same point, albeit with a more negative spin, at OTB last week.

6. Steven L. Taylor Says:
   January 4th, 2024 at 6:53 pm

   I think I have that book on the shelf back at the office…

   I agree with the basic tenor of your OTB post–the system is a mess. Still, it always seems like the actual process in a shock (a shock, I say!) to whomever it is being gored by it at the moment.

7. Max Lybbert Says:
   January 5th, 2024 at 2:18 am

   The quote from candidate Obama (2008) was “We’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN” ( http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/07/president-obama-where-are-those-c-span-cameras/ ). I didn’t believe that pledge any more than the pledge that he would post any bill online for a few days before signing it into law.

8. Max Lybbert Says:
   January 5th, 2024 at 2:19 am

   Better link at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/517/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/ .

9. A Conference Committee is not Required | The Moderate Voice Says:
   January 5th, 2024 at 12:34 pm

   [...] Cross-posted from PoliBlog. [...]