Senate Passes Stimulus -- Next Up, The Conference Committee
The Senate has now passed the stimulus plan on a 61-37 vote, with all the Democrats and three Republicans -- Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins -- joining together to pass a package weighing in at $838 billion.
This is not the end of the line, though. Next up, the bill goes to the House-Senate conference committee, where liberals will likely try to restore some of the larger spending increases that were trimmed back in the compromise Senate version, such as education, and to address the Senate package's relatively greater reliance on tax cuts over spending.
Then after that's over, the final version will come up for a whole new round of debate and voting in both chambers. That said, it seems like a safe bet that the stimulus will pass in some form, and that it will happen pretty soon.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Hey guys,
Could somebody do some investigation and reporting on how many votes the conference report will require in the Senate?
I'm totally confused on that point. From one source, I hear that conference reports need 50% of those voting plus 1, from others, I hear 51 votes, from others I hear it takes 60 votes to pass because it increases the deficit, and from still others I hear it takes 60 votes to end debate but only 51 (or 50% plus 1) to pass.
I think its kind of a crucial question in terms of how much freedom the conferees have to make changes to the Senate version.
February 10, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Budget reconciliation cannot be filibustered, but I don't think this qualifies. Thus, it can be filibustered.
As for needing 60 because it increases the deficit, I'd have to research that some more, but given that the bill can be filibustered, it would appear to be moot.
February 10, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I think it goes back to a law from the clintons' era. It requires 3/5ths of the senators because it increases the deficit. Nonetheless, as you point out, as it can be filibustered it is moot. It's not part of the regular appropriations process which is 50 plus 1, which can't be filibustered.
February 10, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
They can be filibustered but not amended. That's important because a filibuster can't be spun as anything but pure obstructionism
McConnell announced that they'd not filibuster. They'd be foolish to filibuster particularly after Obama's tour de force with Charlie Crist in Ft Myers...it was incredible
I hope TPMTv grabs a clip of that last questionner who's worked 4 years at McDonald's and is going to community college
February 10, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good point. Conference committee reports can't be amended. BUT, they can be referred back to the conference committee up until the time either the House or Senate approves it. At that point the conference committee is dissolved and the other body has to either approve or reject it.
February 10, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
By a majority vote
Referring back to conference is even less likely than a fillibuster.
I just hope the House is in a strong enough position with its Blue Dogs to cut out that new homebuyer tax credit bump and/or restore a goodly chunk of the state fiscal relief cuts
Obama's done the House a favor today I think
February 10, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that clear it all up for me, thanks guys.
So what's the consensus?
It can be filibustered, but not amended and it takes 60 votes to pass, not just to end debate?
I don't think the question of whether it takes 60 votes to pass is mooted by the fact(?) that it can be filibustered. We have a number of sitting federal judges who were confirmed by fewer than ten votes but whose nominations got to the floor on a 60+ cloture vote. I can easily imagine some Republicans voting to end debate but voting against the bill to show the base how stalwart and true they are to the Dittodogma.
February 10, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Soooo... it's unlikely that anyone will make major additions to the bill through the reconciliation proceedings, because they are still dependent on the votes of Nelson/Collins etc... Correct?
February 10, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
But the wild cards are the Blue Dogs in the House and Liberal defections
February 10, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know we're pretending to believe in liberal defections for form's sake, but . . .
in reality, this is the biggest expansion of public investment in several decades. I really don't think there's any doubt that it will be passing the House.
February 10, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Theoretically, you can't add anything in conference that was not in one of the two bills. In practice, it can be done, but anyone can object to it as a point of order. Handling the objection differs between the two houses, and it gets murky.
February 10, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who"s on the conference committee?
February 10, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg Sargent's ProPublica has a side by side of the 2 bills
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-stimulus-bills-house-vs.-senate-090210
February 10, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bad
Not Sargent..the hottie's at Propublica
The Marshall Media Empire's getting too big to keep track of
February 10, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder who the conferees will be. I bet (hope) it isn't like the Bad Old Days when the Republicans wouldn't even tell the Dems when the Conf was meeting, if they even bothered to put Dems on the committee in the first place
February 10, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink