Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Okay, if a conference bill in the senate requires cloture...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:03 PM
Original message
Okay, if a conference bill in the senate requires cloture...
Edited on Mon Oct-19-09 12:23 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter
I had been thinking, perhaps erroneously, that a conference bill proceeds under different order and that debate on a final conference bill could be ended with a simple majority. I accepted that view because a lot of folks I respect (like Howard Dean) seemed to be arguing on that basis in drawing a bright-line distinction between senate procedure regarding an original bill versus a conference bill.

Some smart folks here have said that a conference bill is subject to the same unlimited debate with a 60 vote cloture thresh-hold.

If that is the case and regular cloture must be achieved on a conference bill in the senate then I'm not sure why we have we had months of people (sometimes highly placed people, not just internet chatterers) talking about adding a robust PO in conference as a magic bullet to circumvent regular senate order.

What's the deal? What is the procedure?

(I am hoping to generate a compact discussion of the actual procedural issues involved because there are some smart people here who can probably shed some light.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. They're deluded.
That's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Who is deluded?
I am hoping to generate a compact discussion of the actual procedural issues involved because there are some smart people here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. People who believe that we can add the public option in conference.
If the public option is left out of the "merged" bill that goes to the Senate floor (as is likely), then the Republicans and Blue Dogs will filibuster any attempt to put it back in, meaning either a Senate bill with no public option, or no bill.

If the public option is left out of the final Senate bill but put back in during conference, then the Republicans and Blue Dogs will filibuster the conference report, killing the bill.

If the public option is left out of the final Senate bill and left out of conference, the House will kill the bill.

The only hope to get a public option would be to have it in the "merged" bill that goes to the floor, where it would then take 60 votes to REMOVE it, which there aren't. But as soon as we let the Baucus bill out of committee, then we guaranteed that the option won't be in the "merged" bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Gotchya. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. Wishful thinking that no Democrats would vote against cloture on a conference bill on healthcare.
Edited on Mon Oct-19-09 12:12 PM by Mass
I do not quite understand why they would on first passage, but not on conderence, but it seems to be the reasoning of people who think the PO not being on the Senate bill, but being on the Conference bill makes sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I accepted Howard Dean's characterization of a few weeks ago
Edited on Mon Oct-19-09 12:19 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter
He seemed to think there was a substantive difference and I accepted that without much skepticism.

I agree with you that if cloture must be achieved on a conference bill then this whole process is bizarre. There are not going to be 60 votes for cloture on anything but a weak bill, for the senate bill or for a conference bill.

For 60 you need either Snowe or Lieberman. That means w-e-a-k.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Lieberman said he might vote for cloture even if he voted against the final bill
It might come down to what type deal he cuts for himself in return for that trade off. With him, who knows what pay off he may settle for. Or what threat he might respond to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
19. He has done that before
except he has done so in regards to Bush policies--vote against a Dem filibuster and then against the underlying bill, which of course passes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scarsdale Vibe Donating Member (228 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. Given Lincoln's poll numbers I'd put her up there with Lieberman for betrayal on cloture.
If Lincoln wants to remain a Senator she might have to pull a Spector, and the most impactful time to do that would be near the end of the legislative process on health care reform. If Snowe stays with the bill, the pressure on conservative Dems to betray the Democratic caucus is reduced tremendously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
4. I dunno, but here's a guess
Some might believe that it could placate some Democratic Senators and/or their voters if they got to go on record as initially approving health care reform without a public option in the legislation they pass in the Senate. Then they could claim that the House negotiators forced inclusion of some type of P.O. into the final conference bill under threat of it not passing in the House without it. Then some Senators could very reluctantly "accept" a watered down P.O. rather than have the entire health care reform effort fail. Something like that. Personally I think that is a recipe for either no Public Option or one so compromised as to ultimately discredit the entire concept, assiming they don't go with a rigged "trigger" that never gets pulled instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. That goes along with everything I've heard and read as well....
And here is Orrin Hatch's take on it (he doesn't sound very optimistic which is a GOOD thing)

Republican senators powwowed in the Capitol on Thursday, after the Senate Finance Committee voted to move forward on the health care bill. GOP members were trying to devise a strategy to slow down the socialized medicine express train. The Senators gave a grim forecast of Republicans' ability to prevent passage, despite manifestly declining approval of the measure in the polls.

Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah tells me: "It will be hard to stop this from happening. Democrats have decided they have to pass a bill no matter how unpopular it is." He thinks Senate Democrats will pass Obamacare with the smallest possible margin out of the Senate and predicts that a House-Senate Conference then will make the bill "much worse."

The next step will be the key cloture vote to cut off debate in the Senate. This takes 60 votes, but Mr. Hatch and other Senators I talked to think that Senate Democrats won't break ranks with the leadership on "a procedural vote." Once the cloture vote is out of the way, however, Democrats will pass the bill itself with 51 Senators, "giving a pass to some of the Democrats in conservative states," says Mr. Hatch.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704500604574483381524927994.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
8. The motion to proceed to consideration of the conference report...
Edited on Mon Oct-19-09 12:27 PM by Davis_X_Machina
...is privileged, and cannot be held up by a filibuster, but the motion to approve the conference report is an ordinary motion, and subject to filibuster.

Or so I seem to recall.

18 page pdf from the Congressional Research Service, "Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate", available. here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Thank you. That is useful and explains the source of some confusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
9. Food for Thought: What sort of sociopath unrecc's a procedural question?
Seriously... the OP is an invitation to DUers to share their expertise on a matter of legislative procedure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. One who thinks a procedural question on the greatest page is a fish out of water?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
13. I think we need to fight FOR the public option now
and the fact that every House bill has a public option, as well as the HELP bill, is the ammunition to useto fight for it. There will be one in conference so the Senate Dems need to accept it and put one in the final bill in the Senate. And fighting FOR a public option does not mean attacking any Senators or the White House. The attacking has got to stop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mohc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
14. Are you sure he was not referring to reconciliation?
I know there has been some confusion between the conference process and the reconciliation process but they are quite different. If the bill is constructed under the reconciliation process then it would not be subject to the filibuster, but objections could be raised on the basis of parts of the bill being not germane to the budget. Reconciliation bills must be strictly related to budgetary changes. The conference report, on the other hand, is subject to the filibuster like any normal bill but obviously can contain non budgetary changes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. How Conference Committee reports work
Edited on Mon Oct-19-09 07:28 PM by TayTay
Congressional Research Service
http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/96-708.pdf">Report 96-708
Conference Committee and Related Procedures: An
Introduction
Elizabeth Rybicki, Government and Finance Division
November 6, 2007 Thank you Wikileaks!

The Senate usually considers a conference report by unanimous consent although, if necessary, a
Senator can make a non-debatable motion to consider it. The report may be called up at any time
after it is filed, but it is not in order to vote on the adoption of a conference report unless it has
been available to Members and the general public for at least 48 hours before the vote. (This
requirement can be waived by three-fifths of Senators duly chosen and sworn, or by joint
agreement of the Majority and Minority Leader in the case of a significant disruption to Senate
facilities or to the availability of the internet.) Under Senate rules, a report is considered to be
available to the general public if it is posted on a congressional website or on a website controlled
by the Library of Congress or the Government Printing Office.

When considered on the Senate floor, a conference report is debatable under normal Senate
procedures; it is subject to extended debate unless the time for debate is limited by unanimous consent or cloture, or if the Senate is considering the report under an expedited procedures established by law (such as the procedures for considering budget resolutions and budget reconciliation measures under the Budget Act). Paragraph 7 of Senate Rule XXVIII states that, if time for debating a conference report is limited (presumably by unanimous consent), that time shall be equally divided between the majority and minority parties, not necessarily between proponents and opponents of the report.

A point of order may be made against a conference report at any time that it is pending on the
Senate floor (or after all time for debate has expired or has been yielded back, if the report is
considered under a time agreement). If a point of order is sustained against a conference report on
the grounds that conferees exceeded their authority, either by violating the “scope” rule (Rule
XXVIII) or the prohibition against “new directed spending provisions”(paragraph 8 of Rule
XLIV), then there is a special procedure to strike out the offending portion(s) of the conference
recommendation and continue consideration of the rest of the proposed compromise.9

Under the procedure, a Senator can make a point of order against one or more provisions of a
conference report. If the point of order is not waived (see below), the presiding officer rules
whether or not the provision is in violation of the rule. If a point of order is raised against more
than one provision, the presiding officer may make separate decisions regarding each provision.
After all points of order raised under this procedure are disposed of, the Senate proceeds to
consider a motion to send to the House, in place of the original conference agreement, a proposal
consisting of the text of the conference agreement minus the provisions that were ruled out of
order and stricken.10 Amendments to this motion are not in order. The motion is debatable “under
the same debate limitation as the conference report.”11 In short, the terms for consideration of the
motion to send to the House the proposal without the offending provisions are the same as those
that would have applied to the conference report itself.

If the Senate agrees to the motion, the altered conference recommendation is returned to the
House in the form of an amendment between the houses. The House then has an opportunity to
act on the amendment under the regular House procedures for considering Senate amendments
discussed in earlier sections of this report.

Senate rules also create a mechanism for waiving these restrictions on conference reports.
Senators can move to waive points of order against one or several provisions, or they can make
one motion to waive all possible points of order under either Rule XXVIII or Rule XLIV,
paragraph 8. A motion to waive all points of order is not amendable, but a motion to waive points
of order against specific provisions is. Time for debate on a motion to waive is limited to one
hour and is divided equally between the majority leader and the minority leader, or their
designees. If the motion to waive garners the necessary support, the Senate is effectively agreeing
to keep the matter that is potentially in violation of either rule in the conference report. The rules further require a three-fifths vote to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair and limit debate on an appeal to one hour, equally divided between the party leaders or their designees. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that either method by which the Senate could choose to apply or interpret these rules, through a motion to waive or through an appeal of the ruling of the Chair, requires a three-fifths vote of the Senate (usually 60 Senators). A simple majority cannot achieve the same outcome.

In the House, the conference report cannot be considered until three days after being filed, and
then only if the report and the joint explanatory statement have been printed in the Congressional
Record for the day it was filed. Copies of the report and the statement also must be available to
Representatives for at least two hours before they consider it. These availability requirements are
sometimes waived by a rule reported by the Rules Committee, and they do not apply during the
last six days of a session. Typically, the House calls up a conference report under the terms of a
special rule that protects the report against one or more points of order if the Rules Committee
reports and the House adopts a resolution waiving the applicable rules.

The House debates a conference report under the one-hour rule, with control of the hour equally
divided between the two parties. However, if both floor managers support the report, a
Representative opposed to it may claim one-third of the time for debate. At the end of the first
hour, the House normally votes to order the previous question, which precludes additional debate.
If Representatives could make points of order against a report, sometimes the House first
considers and agrees to a resolution, recommended by its Rules Committee, that protects the
report by waiving the points of order.

Conference reports are not amendable. Each report is a compromise proposal for resolving a
series of disagreements; the House prevails on some questions, the Senate on others. If the House
and Senate were free to amend the report, they might never reach agreement. At the end of
debate, therefore, each house votes on whether to agree to the report as a whole. However, the
house that considers the report first also has the option of recommitting it to conference. But
when one chamber agrees to the report, it automatically discharges its conferees. As a result, the
other house cannot vote to recommit because the conference committee has been disbanded.
If the House and Senate agree to the conference report, the bill is enrolled (printed on parchment
in its final form) and presented to the President for his approval or disapproval.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mkultra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-19-09 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
17. some people are uninformed and the same are often very vocal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 05:15 AM
Response to Original message
20. Adding a PO in conference
really just delays the hard part,as the conference report can be filibustered. The logic is, you pass a bill out of the senate that is less controversial, avoiding the need to worry about cloture the first time, and then put the PO in the conference report. Then, the WH and Democratic activists swoop in and convince all 60 dems and allies to support cloture, regardless of how they vote on the underlying bill.

(THAT is the REAL value of having 60 senators on the dem side. If we had 58 or fewer, we would have absolutely no prayer of passing ANY bill OR conference report out of the senate because of a Republican filibuster. Only Snowe and or Collins might be persuadable if you had 58 or 59--but it would probably come at a price, i.e. a really weak PO if any. The other Rs believe that they will benefit in 2010 a la 1994 if they just band together to kill any sort of reform.))

I have faith that this strategy will work. Votes on cloture are obscure enough to go over most people's heads; they will concentrate on the senator's vote on the underlying bill. So hopefully concern about backlash from a conservative constituency in say, Nebraska, will be nonexistent.

If the strategy does NOT work, the blame should fall on those dems and allies (*lieberman*) who vote NO on cloture. However, these people need to understand that supporting a R filibuster will mean a backlash from the liberal base. We need to have a primary challenge to anyone who supports a R filibuster.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
21. Here's the deal with regards to procedure.
Edited on Tue Oct-20-09 06:46 AM by BzaDem
Technically, there is no difference in the vote threshold between final passage of a normal bill and a conference report on that bill. The required number is 60 to end debate on both.

There is a slight difference in the debate of the bill and the conference report. The normal bill can be amended, while the conference report can't. So for the final bill, moderate Dems can claim to refuse to vote for cloture until their wishes are taken into account (in the form of amendments). But a conference report cannot be amended. There is no incentive for a real Democrat (who wants some form of healthcare reform to pass) to threaten to not vote for cloture on the conference report, since it is too late at that point to change the bill. It is also harder to make a case to keep debate going. While a Ben Nelson might be able to argue that debate needs to be kept going for the original bill (since it might be changed), there is less of a case to perpetually argue a bill that will never change.

The problem is of course, Senators that actually don't want healthcare reform to pass (Lieberman) or who only want very weak healthcare reform to pass (Snowe) aren't affected by the differences in debate between the original bill and the conference report. They would probably vote against it both times unless it was very weak.

So that brings us to what Howard Dean is talking about, which is reconciliation (the procedure that ties healthcare reform to the budget, limits debate to 20 hours + votes on amendments, and only requires 50 + Biden to pass). Dean thinks that eventually, both houses will pass a reconciliation bill, which will then go to conference and eventually come out of conference and again only require 50 + Biden to pass.

The problem with Dean's logic is that he seems completely ignorant of the limits of the reconciliation process. Any provision that isn't directly tied to revenues or expenses can be stricken from the bill by the Senate parliamentarian (on the motion of any Senator), and it takes 60 votes to waive that rule and keep the provision. The main provision that will be stricken is the provision banning discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Almost everyone who knows anything about reconciliation essentially conceeds that this will be stricken under reconciliation (unless Lieberman and/or Snowe decide to waive the rule for that provision). Once that rule is stricken, healthcare reform starts falling down like a house of cards. The subsidies won't be adequate for anyone who is sick, and the public option won't work unless they start discriminating themselves on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Reconciliation would be a horrible process that would end up passing legislation that could possibly be weaker than Lieberman's dream bill (at least if the goal is to insure everyone).

So basically, we need 60 votes. Either to pass a bill and its conference report, or to waive the budget reconciliation limiting rules. Or we end up getting inadequate reform that certainly can't cover everyone or close to everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-20-09 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
22. It will be harder to vote against the final bill than an earlier bill for Democrats
Edited on Tue Oct-20-09 07:31 AM by karynnj
This is just my opinion and I can't back that up.

My reasoning is that in earlier votes, a Senator can argue that the bill is not as good as it should be and that there is a chance that some decisions will be reconsidered if it loses. (ie - think Kent Conrad) The latter bill is health care reform or not health care reform. At least for Democrats, a "no" vote is a "no" against all the things in that bill and to use Snowe's comment, it means they did not answer history's call. For them, imagine their next primary and how devastating the charge that he/she worked against the possibly best chance in a generation to get HCR. Countering that with wonky comments like "a co-op" would be better" won't cut it. Not to mention, I would like to see someone run in a primary saying "it wasn't bipartisan."

As to the procedural issue, I have seen many cloture votes on bills out of conference. One of our only victories in the dysfunctional 109th Congress was filibustering an appropriations bill to which Stevens added a provision to allow drilling in ANWR. Here is a story the day before when it was close - http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/336033/senate_democrats_optimistic_about_blocking_anwr/ . Here is the vote - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00364

For your amusement, that filibuster was high drama with Ted Stevens threatening to resign from the Senate if it passed. He also spoke of there being Democrats who he would never be friendly with again. He bizarrely criticized Kerry and Cantwell, saying that he and Tsongus and Magnuson had an agreement and Kerry, as the current holders of those seats should honor that agreement. For your amusement, here is one DU thread - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2329282 .

Sorry for the diversion, but this is an example of us successfully filibustering a conference bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC