Blog - Ping Pong It Is 
OpenCongress Blog
Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds
Ping Pong It Is
January 4, 2010 - by Donny Shaw
The civics-textbook version of what happens next to the health care bill is that Senate and the House leaders sit down in a “conference committee” to work out agreements on all the areas that their versions of the bill differ. Once an agreement is found, the members of the conference committee take a vote on the blended bill they produce and send it back to both chambers for final approval.
But that’s not what’s going to happen with the health care bill. Rather than using a formal conference committee, the Democratic leadership has decided to work out a blended bill through informal negotiations and then, when they have an agreement they think can get 60 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House, send it to the House for passage as an amendment to the Senate bill and then send the Senate bill as amended by the House back to the Senate for a cloture vote and a final vote on passage. This is known as “ping-ponging,” and the Democrats are going to do it with the health care bill not because they are trying to rush the bill through without deliberation, but because Democrats in the Senate don’t want to sit through a hundred more hours of filibustering and procedural votes when passage of the bill is all but guaranteed.
The Senate already went through hundreds of hours of debating day and night on procedural motions leading up to the vote to approve their bill on Christmas Eve. Once the deal was struck in mid December that won the support of every Democrat by dropping the public option, there was never any chance the bill could be derailed. On every single procedural vote leading up to the final vote and the final vote itself, every Democrat voted “yes” and every Republican voted “no.” The Republicans’ filibusters made it into the second longest debate in Senate history. But they had no practical effect besides delaying the inevitable passage of the bill. If the Democrats used the conference committee process now, they would be susceptible to several more Republican filibusters and a lot more time wasted on procedural hurdles (see here).
As David Waldman at Congress Matters explains, the ping-ponging process will, in some ways, be less transparent than the conference committee process would be. Under House and Senate rules, conference committee meetings must be open to the public and at least one of the meetings has to be televised. Also, under the conference committee route, committee members would have to go down on the record in support of the blended bill — also known as a “conference report” — before it can go back to the two chambers. The report would also have to be posted online for 48 hours before the conference committee vote. But as Waldman explains, even when a formal conference committee is used, the meaningful negotiating still happens behind-the-scenes. Most of the important deal-making happens in the proverbial cloakroom before being brought to the committee meeting to be formalized.
Still, the ping-ponging process, even though it’s being used to avoid meaningless delay, could end up blocking opportunities for the bill to be improved. If the Democrats had chosen to go with a conference committee, the Republicans in the committee would have had one more chance to give their input on the bill. Ping-ponging the bill will close them out of the blending process entirely. The process from here on out will be focused on winning the support of a few key swing votes — the Bart Stupaks and Joe Liebermans of the world — at the expense of considering other members’ good ideas, be they Republican or Democrat.
Get Blog Updates by Email
Want a simple way to stay on top of what's happening in Congress?
Subscribe to this blog!Send Us a Tip
-
I've been watching a lot of...
Submitted by Robert Schwartzman on Dec 9
-
Proposed Bill HR-2674 Prote...
Submitted by Mary on Jun 16
-
Amendment No. 601 to the Om...
Submitted by Winifred on Mar 3
You can submit a tip anonymously, or attributed to your own name and e-mail, whichever you prefer. Read more about submitting a tip.
Recent Posts
- #SoTU 2013 February 12, 2013
- Pot Legalization Bills Introduce... February 05, 2013
- Endless Blockade for the Senate ... January 25, 2013
- One Year Ago We Killed SOPA -- H... January 18, 2013
- Senate Democrats Looking to End ... January 08, 2013
Archives
See All ArchivesBlogroll
- A plain blog about politics
- The Baseline Scenario
- Capital Eye
- The Caucus
- CBO Director's Blog
- Congress Matters
- The Corner
- CREW Blog
- Crooks and Liars
- Jamie Dupree
- Election Law Blog
- FDL News Desk
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hot Air
- Irregular Times
- Little Sis
- Naked Capitalism
- The Moderate Voice
- OMB Watch
- Open House Project
- Party Time
- Plum Line
- Political Animal
- Political Wire
- ProPublica
- Real Clear Politics
- RedState
- Secrecy News
- Sunlight Foundation Blog
- Talking Points Memo
- techPresident
- 2chambers
- Unanimous Consent
- The Weekly Standard
Sort By
Comments
Another example of our govt. at work. Nevermind that the vast majority of Americans oppose this legislation. Lets “sneak” it through anyway. Not a very proud time to be a Democrat! God help us! Please.
“vast majority of Americans oppose this legislation”
[Citation Needed]
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
Thanks to aynrand for posting a link to what should be obvious. Let me ask you dsauter, would you like a citation to the fact that the sun did indeed rise today, or will you just take me on my word.
My issue is not with the word ‘majority’ but with ‘vast’.
51%-42% is hardly a “vast majority.”
51%-42% is hardly a “vast majority.”
[Citation Needed]
According to Gallup it’s only a small plurality that opposes it.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124715/Majority-Americans-Not-Backing-Healthcare-Bill.aspx
Also, are you asking for a citation for the definition of “vast majority”?
Mild attempt at humor…skip it.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
Alright, let’s get the damn thing passed already. Then we can finally get started on more effective methods of resistance, i.e. court challenges, nullification, and civil disobedience.
If a majority of citizens support this bill, why have NO legislators announced how many of their actual constituents are in support of it? With over $1 million a year for staff, it should be a relatively easy thing to compile the actual citizens* that have contacted the office in support of the bill, and release this information.
I thoroughly research a major purchase and think the Congress should also.
And for some more “poll” data, as of 1-5-10 here on Open Congress, the bill (H.R. 3590) has 23% support.
The “Baucus Bill” (S. 1796) has 9% support here. The Harkin one (S. 1679) has 25% support.
Having attended public schools and somehow passed before the DOE was created, I was able to deduce that 77% is vastly more than 23%, 91% is vastly more than 9%, and 75% is vastly more than 25%.
*If you have ever tried to email your official, you know you have to provide a lot of information, to prove you’re in their district/state to be privileged enough to possibly get a reply.
This site is heavily biased right in it’s readership. It’s why I like it so much – it’s the only far right site that’s not radical right.
As for your other numbers – note the bias of the readership. I’d look more at the major polling sites to see where the country as a whole is.
Rasmussan as of Jan 3 is 42/52 but they don’t give the +/- on that one. Add to that the fact that this is a known right biased poll organization. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/putting-r-in-rasmussen.html)
MSNBC has it at 41/44 with a 3.1 point margin. They are however as far left as Rasmussan is right. (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/12/16/2153563.aspx)
CNN is 42/56 with a three point margin
Now look at all of these as of late Nov/Mid Dec and you find things like 30ish to 50ish. Support jumped by over 10 points in most polls, even right leaning ones, over the last month.
So no. ‘vast’ is not applicable here in any way.
“Having attended public schools and somehow passed before the DOE was created, I was able to deduce that 77% is vastly more than 23%, 91% is vastly more than 9%, and 75% is vastly more than 25%.”
Perhaps you skipped the lesson where they explained that data needs to be gathered randomly, yet purposefully, from a large cross-section of people to have any relevance to the population as a whole. Relying on results provided voluntarily to a website designed to attract people who enjoy sitting alone and griping to their computers about politics (rather than taking a sample of the population as a whole) produces crazy results.
Spam Comment