THE PLANK SEPTEMBER 16, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Max Baucus finally unveiled the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill today, meaning that all five congressional committees with jurisdiction over health care reform will soon have proposals on the table. So what happens then? Who decides how to merge Baucus's conservative plan with its more liberal counterpart, to create the official Senate bill that will receive a vote in the full chamber?
After the Finance committee votes on the plan, it's all up to the Senate leadership. According to congressional expert Norman Ornstein, Harry Reid is empowered to combine the Senate proposals using whatever method he considers most likely to attract a minimum of 51 votes and avoid a filibuster. Reid could designate a formal committee to mesh the bills, or he could assemble the final product in a closed room that includes the leadership and a few important senators.
The Senate leadership will want to maintain control, says Ornstein, so it will probably adopt a more informal process overseen by Reid. He will likely be joined by Senators Richard Durbin (the majority whip), Chris Dodd, and Max Baucus, with significant input from Kent Conrad. Although Reid is "unlikely to knock heads together and make things happen," Ornstein says, he is a former whip and knows what will work to get the necessary votes. The White House will have input as well, most likely conveyed during visits from Joe Biden or Rahm Emanuel.
Several of these meetings will probably be done in a public fashion, so as to make a big show of the statesmanlike efforts of senators involved. But there might be a few events that the leadership tries to keep out of the press, particularly when they are courting votes from more hesitant congressmen. Those could be held anywhere in the Capitol--they may be in Reid's offices or in locked backrooms.
For its part, the House of Representatives has already worked out a draft bill using what Nancy Pelosi's office called a "Tri-Committee," including representatives from all three relevant House committees--especially the influential Henry Waxman--and members of the House leadership. Emanuel was probably present as well, Ornstein says, “just outside the room, or in the room."
One benefit of this whole procedure is that it may actually strengthen the legislation. In the Senate, the leadership will be able to take into account the actions of Republicans on the Finance committee--none of whom ultimately supported the bill. By asking for concessions and then refusing to back the final product, they may be perceived as having pulled a "bait and switch"; the leadership could rescind their concessions during the combination process.
Correction: This article originally stated that, after the combination process, the Senate Rules Committee could restrict the number of amendments to the Senate health care bill. In fact, this only occurs in the House. We regret the error.
5 comments
This was helpful. I'm still curious how reconciliation would work. Right now there are MAYBE 56 votes for a strong co-op plan. The Dems would probably lose 3 votes in an attempt to break a filibuster...and since Kennedy is dead, that's 56. You might get Pryor, but you won't get Lincoln. She (wrongly) seems to believe that its in her best interest to oppose the President (granted, Arkansas residents are barely sentient, but this is a midterm election, and she'll need base turnout from racist Dems who loved Hillary and love big government...they'll be pissed if she votes against healthcare reform). And you won't get Nelson on ANY bill. I'm convinced of that. And you might lose Landrieu... It looks like Snowe won't vote for ANYTHING. Not co-ops. Not a trigger. Nothing. She's obviously under heavy pressure from GOP party strategists who see obstruction of a potentially popular government program as their only viable option. So there you have it - in my opinion, they could get 56 votes (at best) on a cloture vote for a strong(ish) co-op plan. 56 votes = No Healthcare = GOP landslide in 2010. My point is that there's no healthcare without reconciliation. You can put in an amendment to the bill that requires all illegal immigrants to be shot, and the GOP would still (reluctantly) vote against the final bill. But no one seems to be explaining how reconcilliation would work exactly. I've heard that parts of the bill could be passable using reconcilliation. That makes sense to me. Break the bill apart. Pass a public health plan (or a co-op plan) using reconcilliation. Let your moderate dems vote against that and let the GOP vote against that. The public plan is deficit neutral. Then hold another vote on the popular parts of the plan (including the no pre-existing conditions/insurance reform components). Dare the GOP to vote against pregnant mothers switching insurance. Dare them to vote against abuse victims being able to switch insurance. Dare them to vote against that. Of course, that package stills contain some controversial provisions. Subsidies and funding vehicles to pay for those subsidies. We'd have a big debate about "cutting" Medicare, the Sacred GOP Program that they will DEFEND WITH THEIR LIVES from "government intervention". Until they try to destroy it 6 months after this debate is over. Anyway. Kind of a rant. But I'm curious how the reconcilliation process would work. Thanks for this post, which is a reminder of how much power the majority party has in Congress.
- Virginia Centrist
September 16, 2009 at 7:32pm
Actually...I doubt they'll do reconcilliation. They'll probably just pass some aggressive insurance reform (preexisting conditions, etc). The GOP would have to do some soul searching on that one. The insurance companies don't care about a public option or co-ops. They're really terrified of the insurance reforms that are popular. So they're fighting the entire package and hoping that it all goes down in flames. Would the GOP vote yes or no on aggressive insurance reforms? Would they really vote against the pregnant mother who is forced by her insurance company to stay in a crappy job? Would they vote against the cancer patient who can't find coverage? That's a tough one. These are some evil bastards, but they can read 90-10 poll numbers that issues like that produce. Well - some of the southern Republicans can't read. But I'm sure someone can read it to them.
- Virginia Centrist
September 16, 2009 at 7:38pm
Max Baucus funds his political career: Lawyers/Law Firms $1,608,823 Securities & Investment $1,480,535 INSURANCE INDUSTRY $1,190,463 HEALTHY PROFESSIONALS: $1,032,276 PHARMECEUTICAL/HEALTH PRODUCTS $751,605 Baucus IS the fucking system. He embodies every fucking thing the "Senate Finance Committee" represents in sustaining it. Why in the world is Elise Foley going on and on about Baucus and Reid and Dodd and all the bullshit parliamentary con games these bought and paid shills for the healthcare industry play in Congress? It's embarassing to read this stuff sometimes from otherwise intelligent and perceptive journalists. There's this great big gigantic elephant in the rooms [and in the blogs] and on and on they go about who said this to cut that deal from someone else who cut another deal from someone who came up with a different way to say the same thing. How much more surreal will it all get before the "signing statement" in the White House where Obama praises the legislation as though it bares even the slightest resemblance to what he and all the other Democrats campaigned for. They all should be ashamed of the part they play in this sham. Instead, because so few American citizens have any in depth understanding of how this all unfolds out in the real world, they can rest assured that virtually none of it will ever really come back to haunt them....to keep them from getting reelected by being funded down the road by the self-same players. Look at that resplendent grin on Pelosi's face. She knows how all this will end, doesn't she? Yet how dare Joe Wilson suggest the president was lying about something that pales next to the lies he told about all this out on the campaign trail. george walton d/a
- iambiguous
September 16, 2009 at 9:20pm
O.........K...........
- Virginia Centrist
September 16, 2009 at 10:30pm
Wow Elise, your description of reconciliation reads like a chapter from the di vinci code with all the references to what rooms members will meet in. First of all, before the Finance Committee markup the bill would have to be designated as a reconciliation bill or a bill under regular order. This is critical because if it is a reconciliation bill it must be in compliance with limitations in the budget resolution that was enacted this year which allows reconciliation. Secondly, when the bill moves to the Senate floor it will be open to many points of order under the Byrd Rule. This is a very complicated subject, but the even Senator Conrad has said on several occasions that the resulting bill could look like a piece of swiss cheese. Suffice it to say that any bill passed would sunset after five years. But the more important issue which a Congressional expert like Norm Ornstein should be concerned about is what this process would could unleash in this political environment. In this context, reconciliation would fracture the political/collegial fabric of the senate. I think it also is absolutely the wrong process to use when public opinion and the august recess has shown that at the very least the public is divided, confused, and fearful about the health care proposals. Finally, the House still doesn't have a bill which could get 218 votes. If they did, they would be on the floor tomorrow.
- lawphd
September 16, 2009 at 11:12pm