Though we learned yesterday that using a conference committee to harmonize the House and Senate version of a bill is not so rare as I had originally thought, it's not quite the Schoolhouse Rock preference it ought to be, for a variety of reasons. According to Democrats in the Senate, conference can be hard because Republicans frequently block unanimous consent agreements needed to appoint conferees, unsurprising given the majoritarian nature of the process. So why use it in this case? Talking to congressional staffers, there is an unspoken recognition that drawing out this process will continue to highlight Republican opposition to these reforms, including mutliple votes on specific provisions and perhaps one final vote on the whole conference reform. But there generally three more substantial reasons:
- Legitimacy: With so much public concern over financial sector lobbyists and bailouts, making the process as transparent as possible -- especially the multiple recorded votes on different amendments -- should give the process more legitimacy. "We went to the taxpayers and said, you guys gotta cough up $700 billion to rescue our economy, the Republican president ask the Democratic congress to do that," Conference Chair Barney Frank's spokesperson Steve Adamske says. "My boss feels we owe it to the American people to have an open process so they understand that we are fixing the issues that culminated in September 2008."
- Complexity There are a lot of moving parts in this bill, and unlike health care, where last minute political shifts lead the Democrats to focus exclusively on taking the bill to the floor as quickly as possible, the politics of financial reform allow members to work through the bill. "When you have such a complex deal, to spend several weeks ping-ponging it back and forth where you have 60 vote thresholds and a GOP rhetoric machine that's out of control, let's sit in the room and work these things out," Adamske says.
- Institutionalism. "[Senate Banking Committee Chair Chris Dodd] and Frank think its an important bill and they want it done right," Dodd's spokesperson, Kirstin Brost, e-mails. "Barney's an institutionalist. He's been around this business for a long time," Adamske says.
Conveniently enough, John Sides had just asked "What makes a Senator an 'institutionalist'?" A member of Congress is an institutionalist -- both Dodd and Frank are -- when they are committed to long-term career in Congress, not running for another office; act to protect the prerogatives of Congress vis a vis the other branches of government; and pay special attention to protecting the traditions of Congress and, when it doesn't conflict with those traditions, the legitimacy of the chamber as well. As senators, Evan Bayh, Barack Obama and John Thune are not institutionalists; Mitch McConnell, Carl Levin and John Kerry are institutionalists.
Interestingly, the clubbiness of the institutionalists often brings out some the worst in Congress -- the entitlement, the casual corruption, the elevation of the deal over policy -- and the best -- pragmatism, a willingness to do the work necessary to craft legislation, and a long-term vision.
-- Tim Fernholz
