By: Marci Harris
With news that the House has requested a conference with the Senate on a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), we brushed off an old Quora post about how the process looks from a staffer's perspective. Things have changed a bit over the years (leaks probably come more quickly via tweets rather than CongressDaily reports) … but they haven't changed that much.
The following was written as a tongue-in-cheek look from the inside, originally published in 2011:
Am sure there are lots of good textbook answers, but my observation is that it depends on the issue, the bill, the committees, the majority composition in either chamber, how involved the White House is, how active outside groups are, etc. These are some cold generalizations from watching a few from varying distances. Am not bashing or endorsing any of it, just trying to give perspective:
After two related but different bills pass both houses, everyone goes for margaritas and then set an appointment to get the staffs together in one big room and "start hammering it out."
- Staff from both chambers (usually committees of jurisdiction and Leadership) go through the bills to make a list of areas of agreement/disagreement/& must-haves of certain key Members so that they know what has to be worked out. (Staff swear not to release the list until Members can be briefed.)
- Those staffers go "run it up the flagpole" back to their bosses (chairmen/women, Leadership) to make recommendations,get feedback, establish priorities and schedule a meeting for the next day to brief committee Members. Chairmen/women & Leadership will start to test the sensitivities of their colleagues. (Lobbyists & media try to figure out what is on the list/where the pressure points are. Someone will leak the list. Copies from "downtown" will start to be forwarded from staffer to staffer. The contents of the list will be on the cover of Congress Daily the next day.)
- Committee Members will show up to the caucus with the Congress Daily article. The Chairman will explain the situation, allow staff to brief and go around the room and discuss concerns and potential points of conflict or compromise. There may be impassioned speeches, quotes from back home, quoted from newspapers, think tanks. Analysis from the Congressional Budget Office will play a starring roll. Votes may be taken, seniority asserted. (If you are an advocate with an issue on the chopping block* — i.e. in that Congress Daily article– it should come up here. You should have done enough along the way to assure that some member of the Committee of jurisdiction has you on his or her list of priorities.)
- Leadership will take the pulse of the Caucus as a whole to test sensitivities and start counting potential votes or defectors. Can those who voted for the first version vote for the next version? Smaller caucuses will start writing letters and drawing lines to say what they will and won't go for. (Previous parenthetical applies here.)
- *NOTE: "Issue on the chopping block" is different from an "issue that never made it into either bill." If your** issue didn't make it into either bill, GAME OVER. Go build some good karma with your allies. Don't go waste your resources and those of your members/funders/clients/whomever trying to tell them that you are going to get a new provision in a combined bill. (Except in super rare, crazy cases — which, of course, happen all the time in Congress.)
- **NOTE: If "you" happen to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, these rules MAY not apply. Same if you are one of only a few minority Members indicating possible support for the bill.
- Bipartisan talks? Probably determined by whether the majority thinks there is any chance that there will be minority support on the eventual bill. If no one in the minority voted for the bill to begin with and are publicly saying that they will not vote for a compromise version, then they will probably not be invited to the proverbial "table." If one or two Members of the minority party indicate that he/she might vote for the bill, they will be welcomed with open arms, fanned softly and fed grapes.
- Staff will gather feedback and compare notes with counterparts in the other chamber to see if agreement is getting any closer.
- After all the groundwork, there may be a public conference that follows all of the textbook steps on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uni…(To the question on this – Leadership and Committee of jurisdiction staffers would have been the lead on all that had happened up until this point. Conferees usually come from Committees of jurisdiction, but in the rare case that is not true, a staffer for the conferee would be at the table when staff meet during conference.)
- There may not be a public conference – the bill language could be crafted through this back-and forth process and versions passed around for comment until Leadership in both Houses get language they think can pass.(In practice that means bicameral staffers going through their part of the bill line-by-line with their counterparts to reach agreement on language based on what their bosses' have said they would agree to.)
- Then the battle over who goes first begins. The Senate frequently wins because of their crazy calendar (though if it has any "revenue raisers" the bill must "originate in the House," meaning have an H.R. number. The House may pass something, kick it to the Senate, then some amendment is made on the Floor and then the House has to vote on it again. This can go on forever until they pass the same bill, usually when they "smell the jet fuel." (Meaning, flights are scheduled for some get-out-of-town recess or holiday that has everyone staring at a deadline.)
Read Quote of Marci Harris' answer to How does merging legislation work in conference between the US House and Senate? on Quora
