For Their Next Trick . . .
The latest example of violating principles of
transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative
victory.
Look for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to
try to circumvent the traditional conference committee process by which the
different versions of health care reform passed by each house will be
reconciled. If so, it will be the latest example of violating principles of
transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative
victory.
Conferences involving members from both houses are messy things. They are
usually conducted in public and often televised, and can produce a compromise
version of the bill that leaves rank-and-file members tempted to vote against
the final version. That could be perilous in the case of health care since it's
likely to pass without a vote to spare in the Senate and the House's version
passed by only five votes.
North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, chair of the Budget Committee, has already
warned that if the final bill "isn't close to the Senate bill, there will be no
way to get the 60 votes here" to shut off debate and pass the final product. But
many House members, led by Michigan Rep. John Conyers, are insisting on major
changes in the Senate's version.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi would love to come up with a way to bash heads in
private and skip any public discussion that further reveals just how incoherent
and unworkable both the bills are. Luckily, there is a subterfuge readily
available that wouldn't require the House to swallow the Senate's bill unchanged
but also ducks the traditional give-and-take of the conference committee.
When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they increasingly did not send
bills through the regular conference process. "We have to defer to the bigger
picture," explained Rep. Henry Waxman of California. So the children's health
insurance bill passed by the House that year was largely dumped in favor of the
Senate's version. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and other
Democrats complained the House had been "cut off at the knees" but ultimately
supported the bill. Legislation on lobbying reform and the 2007 energy bill were
handled the same way -- without appointing an actual conference.
Rather than appoint members to a public conference committee, those measures
were "ping-ponged" -- i.e. changes to reconcile the two versions were
transmitted by messenger between the two houses as the final product was crafted
behind closed doors solely by the leadership. Many Democrats grumbled at the
secrecy. "We need to get back to the point where we use conference committees .
. . and have serious dialogue," said Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama at the time.
But serious dialogue isn't what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are
interested in right now. Look for the traditional conference committee to be
replaced by a "ping-pong" game in which health care is finalized behind closed
doors with little public scrutiny before the bill is rushed to the floor of each
chamber for a final vote.
Home | Articles | BLOG | Quotes | Photo Gallery | Favorites | Stupid Frogs Game | Store | Feedback | Search | Subscribe | About Us
|