Dec
21

A Poisioned Primer on the Conference

By Tom Sullivan

A jaundiced look under the hood of the conference committee process from Matt Taibbi’s The Great Derangement:

The mechanism of the conference committee is a special voodoo all unto itself, a monstrously complex bureaucratic maze whose diabolical scheme is known to a select few congressional practitioners. But for the moment, only two facts are important.

The first is that the bill can again be completely rewritten here, rewritten from top to bottom, rewritten even so that it has a completely opposite meaning from the bills that passed the two houses – in a word, rewritten in such a fashion as to render the whole process up till now meaningless.

The second is that a majority vote of conference committee members, called “conferees,” is not even required for passage. Again, the conference committee chairs are the key players here. Whatever the top dogs from the House and Senate want generally occurs. They redo the bill according to whatever swinish commercial dynamic happens to govern this back-room deal (for the conference hearings are almost always conducted out of the public eye), then send the final version to a vote, again giving the members just a few hours’ notice before they make an essentially blind decision on the by-now completely revised legislation.

Industry lobbyists figured out long ago, Taibbi writes, that it’s cheaper to buy a couple of key conferees than a majority of the Congress. Don’t expect Matt’s Bush-era description of the process to change when the health care bills go to conference.

Given how tight the health care votes were in both the House and Senate, most bets are on the Senate bill being the governing document. That and the urgency the leadership feels to get this bill off their plates argue against the kind of wholesale changes the process described above suggests is possible. Howard Dean believes the bill could improve if some of the bad provisions get taken out, but doubts that the excised good stuff can be put back.

Keep a close eye out for who gets appointed to the conference committee. Leaning on those officials will be your last chance to influence the final details of the health care bill.

13 Comments

1

How is that the supposedly linked provisions of “mandated universal coverage” and SOME form of public option got spun loose, and all that remains is the federal requirement that we ALL must pay whatever the private insurers want to charge us, with no public option, no Medicare buy-in, nothing?

I haven’t been able to find out who will be on the Conference Committee, or even how/when this is decided.

Russ Feingold is urging the conferees, whoever they might be, to add a public option & dare the traitors, sorry, insurance company stooges, sorry, Senators Leiberman & Nelson & the Blue Dog CongressCritters to try to torpedo it. That would be better than letting the Senate bill come crashing down on us…

Rate this comment: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

3

Barry, from my days on the hill, I think I remember that The Conference Committee is typically made up of senior members of both the House & Senate Appropriations Committees. Tom? Doug?

Nice avatar, by the way ;)

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

4

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/leadership-obama-style-an_b_398813.html

Ouch. He’s right. I hope Obama reads this & fires Rahm Emanuel & comes back Jan. 1st & says: “Hey guys. Mind if I sit in on the Conference Committee? I have some thoughts…”

MM: “Nice avatar, by the way”

Oh, this old thing?

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

5

Michael,

I believe that you’re pretty much right – except that it would probably be the chairmen of all the committees that had a hand in drafting the bill.

So that means Obey, Waxman, and um, someone else on the House side, and Baucus and um, Dodd (or would it be Harkin?) on the Senate side, though Reid and Pelosi can really appoint whoever they’d like. Ideally, you’d have a representative in there from anyone else you’d like to get buy-in from, but that’s not how Obama does things, apparently.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

6

I think those are good guesses about some of the players, but I have no idea how many total players there will be.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

7

I just caught my spelling error in the title. What a maroon!

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

8

Yeah, we’ve just been smiling at you, as you are unaware of the spinach in your teeth…

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

9

Tom Harkin will be one of the conferees, but suggests he will not try to re-insert a public option. Instead, he will try to bring it up later next year in a separate bill. Good luck with that…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/key-dem-the-public-option_n_399608.html

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

10

Just read the woodshed article. It’s dead on.

I left a message for Obama here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/ which I have on my browser’s “speed dial.”

I said, in essence, that I didn’t vote to re-elect Ford, and “I won’t vote to re-elect you if you keep governing to the right of Ford.”

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

11

Tom,

That ‘oisio’ looks so harmonious that it brought to mind some favorite palindromes –

Do geese see God?

I’m a lasagna hog. Go hang a salami.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

12

Speaking of palindromes, I fell in love with my fourth grade teacher when she wrote A man a plan a canal, Panama up on the blackboard. I still think that’s cool all these years later.

Tom, did you say something about macaroons?

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

13

There was a parody of the Panama one that someone wrote:
A dog, a pant, a panic in a patna pagoda.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0