It looks like the House and Senate will ping-pong the health care bill. I previously said that it would be a betrayal to use the ping-pong method, but now that I see their reasons I understand why they want to do it this way and I’ll have to wait to see the results before I can form an opinion on the merits.
Ordinarily, when the Senate and House of Representatives pass different bills, the differences are worked out by a Conference Committee that issues a Conference Report. This involves the designation of conferees from both houses who hold at least one public hearing. This can be avoided, however, if both houses simply pass identical bills in the first place. If the bills start out the same there is no need to reconcile their differences and, thus, no need for a Conference.
The reason the Democrats want to use the ping-pong method is actually very simple to understand. It would avoid several cloture votes in the Senate, each requiring 30 hours of post-cloture debate, and allow Congress to send a bill to the president before his State of the Union address. Whether or not the actual content of the bill suffers as a result of using the ping-pong method depends on whether liberal members like Tom Harkin, George Miller, and Henry Waxman are shut out of the negotiations. It’s really up to Pelosi to drive the hardest bargain she can with the Senate ‘centrists.’
The Republicans will howl that this maneuver lacks transparency, and it will. But the cost of transparency is needless delay.
The Republicans have brought this about. They will scream to high heaven, but what else is new? They’ve screamed so much already, no one is listening any more.
Making them howl is reason enough to do it…
Let the Republic party howl, Bush was sooooooo transparent with everything, they have the right to howl. 🙂
Wait, I thought the “Ping-Pong” process was where the House made no changes and simply voted on passage of the Senate bill?
If there is still negotiations going on through an informal conference process, and folks like Harkin and Pelosi can still make changes, doesn’t that still require a vote from both houses (and another series of cloture votes for final passage in the Senate)? Aren’t we still, in effect, having a conference process just without formal appointments in the God-forsaken Senate?
You’d be correct, because that’s how ping-pong was previously framed by most blogs. This is why I read other people confused as to why it was called “ping-pong” when the House would simply pick up the Senate bill.
It’s called “ping-pong” because the House and Senate will ping and pong the bill back and forth until differences are acceptable, rather than reconcile them in committee. It’s faster, less transparent, and could result in a worse bill; however, it will avoid obstructionism, and could also result in a better bill due to the momentum (assuming the liberals hold some ground).
This is different than what the Lieberman/Nelson Senators wanted, but it’s also what “ping-pong” truly means.
Thanks for that. And for Boo’s explanation also.
Boo, let us know when Finn sleeps most of a night. They say 10 lbs, but I don’t know.
bah.
the house bill is considered better than the Senate bill, but it looks like the blue dogs prefer the senate bill anyway.
The narrative writes itself. the progressive “caucus” will do it’s trick where it whine and cries, and then they’ll give the blue dogs everything they want.
you can see THAT train coming a mile away.
but of course the gig’s been up since the language changed from “health care reform” to “health insurance reform”.
Update:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/ping-pong-the-house-prepares-to-take-up-the-senate-health
-care-bill.php
the Senate will still have to pass the bill again, but they won’t have to vote on the conferees and there will be no conference report. I think this will make for one cloture vote instead of three, but I am not sure on the exact numbers.
David Waldman says it would have been 4 cloture votes.
I got money on the Wingers playing both the “This is fascism!” card and then using this as proof that the Dems are scared that Scott Brown really will beat Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy’s seat…they have to get the bill passed before the 19th.
And I know exactly who’s going to play it, too…
.
Massachusetts Democrats on December 8 overwhelmingly selected state Attorney General Martha Coakley as their candidate for the U.S. Senate seat that opened with the passing of former Senator Edward M. Kennedy. The seat is currently occupied by interim Senator Paul G. Kirk ’64.
Coakley will go on to face Republican challenger Scott Brown, who crushed primary opponent Jack E. Robinson ’85 nearly nine to one, in the special election to be held on January 19.
A surprising lack of excitement and low turnout characterized the final days of the campaign for the first Senate seat to open up in Massachusetts in over a quarter century. There were estimates that only about 16% of the possible electorate in the Commonwealth – around only 650,000 people out of around five million – showed up at the polls.
Having announced her candidacy soon after the passing of Senator Kennedy, Coakley leapt ahead due to statewide name recognition – she was the only candidate in the race to have run statewide before – and early fundraising success. Coakley managed to raise over $2 million in a single month during one part of the short campaign, much of which was contributed by what her finance director called “the new girls network“.
Some say her chances were boosted by the political organization of women undertaken in the state during now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s run in the 2008 presidential primary. Clinton won the primary in Massachusetts.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I hope Joe Lieberman approves of this ping-pong business!
Thank you for putting “centrists” in scare-quotes.
My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong is that the Senate and House leadership will negotiate a Senate manager’s amendment that is guaranteed to be filibuster-proof by incorporating Senate Democrats’ must have provisions. Expect Nelson’s not Stupak’s provision on abortion, for example. But expect some items from the House bill. Then, the Senate takes the bill first and passes it with the amendments and sends it back to the House, which passes it in short order because a majority of Democrats are already agreeable to the bill. Then on to Obama’s desk. Making it filibuster-proof prevents obstruction in the Senate, and between the Rules committee and having a Democratic majority, obstruction is prevented in the House.
Under a normal conference, the report might not be filibuster-proof on the Senate side or might make changes that undid a majority on the House side.
You have it mostly wrong.
Ping-pong will be an amendment to the Senate bill, but it will still need 60 votes.
But it will only need it once instead of:
Each of those votes would have a 30-hour requirement.
Also, doing it this way allows the House to avoid a Motion to Recommit, which could cause problems.
Senate bill only need 60 votes to pass cloture. Once on the floor for a vote, it will need only 51, but will probably get 60.
I agree that it will need a cloture vote only once if it is indeed ping-ponged.
But other reports are calling the process a quasi-ping pong.
I’m not sure how the House is going to get its agenda in, or whether that is just happy talk but the story is the House will have some input on its stuff.
Seems to be more a work in progress than a decision at this point.
Ping pong doesn’t eliminate the filibuster, it just saves ninety hours of debate time and saves the House the mischief of a motion to recommit vote.
This seems quite startling, coming out of nowhere. Any info on who will be involved in the “informal negotiations” and how they’ll be chosen? Where could pressure be applied on that issue?
I don’t see the downside of this. Is there any reason to think private negotiations would result in less House bill in the mix than Conference Committee? Seems like the real block remains Lieberman and the Dem Asshat 3 or 4 threatening to filibuster with the GOP. Is there any limit to the number of times this could come up in the Senate if there is a filibuster?
This might finally be the ultimate test of Dem leadership in the Senate. Either they bully, cajole, and chop off the hands of any caucus members who filibuster with the GOP or they accept a crappier bill than they needed to. I have to think they’re going to pull out all the stops at last, because failure at this point would clearly spell disaster for them.
This strikes me as good news, at least potentially. Tell me why I’m wrong.
No, THIS is ping pong;
That’s exhibition, not match play. I used to play division 1 competitive table tennis in Ireland – not quite like that though! – although I did see the top Chinese players doing similar exhibition stuff.
The Frog Hop in full effect I see.