|
Disclosure: I'm advising Open Left in a paid capacity on procedure with regard to the Wall Street reform bill.
By now you're all aware that the conference has concluded, and you're probably anxiously awaiting your first look at the final product. Just by way of making a few transparency notes, I think it's worth mentioning that while most of the "rules" were adhered to (i.e., the meetings were open and televised), the reality was that the last and most critical details were worked out in the wee hours of the morning, when most sane observers had long since given up and gone to bed. So the meeting was open and televised, but how many people saw it? And if you didn't, was that really just your own fault for not wanting to stay up?
And what's up with not having the final text available to review? Well, that's just one of the physical limitations of working on paper. Or even virtual paper. Someone's got to type this up.
As for the substance of the agreement, there'll be no shortage of analysis from people who actually know what they're talking about. No sense in my cluttering the InterTubes with my take. My job here is to talk about what happens next in the process.
You'll recall that the Senate entered the conference in possession of the "papers," which means that the House takes them over at the conclusion of the conference, and will consider the conference report first. That's the first thing worth noting.
The second is that conference reports are privileged, and can be brought up in either house under expedited procedures. In the House, where things run by majority rule, that's not reallly a problem. In the Senate, it means the motion to proceed to consideration of the conference report is non-debatable, which in turn means that motion can't be filibustered. The actual conference report can be, but not the motion to begin debate on it.
Third: the conference report is not subject to amendment. It represents a final product that essentially needs to be accepted or rejected as a unit.
Well, sort of. For one thing, any items included in the conference report that may be subject to a point of order can, if the points of order are raised and then not waived, be excised from the text.
Second, the first house to act on the conference report has available to it the option to recommit the report to conference, just as you'll often see the House Republicans try to do with bills. The reports can be recommitted with or without instructions, and those instructions can call for changes in the agreement, though like other committee instructions, they are not technically binding. But again, this option is only available to the first house to act. Once one house has adopted a conference report, the conference committee is dissolved, there being no technical state of disagreement as regards that house. That leaves the second house without a conference committee to recommit the report to. It's straight up or down from there for the second house.
No such complications are expected at this point, the conference having concluded on time (that is, before the President meets with the G20). I'm taking that as a sign that they're not anticipating serious problems going forward, since this thing could easily have stretched into the weekend, as I thought it very well might.
So that's the path forward. How the report ought to be received, I'll leave to others for the time being. But once we start seeing that analysis of the substance, you'll know what options are available (and/or what hurdles might have to be cleared) before we can close the books on this one.
Other entries on this subject:
|
STATE BLOGS
