MoreWhat Matters: Little Gems
It is good to share those gems we find along the way. This one does not represent any sort of epiphany or great awakening. But it is a reminder of what three Republican Senators might have achieved if not for political maneuvers which made little sense in light of the great risk placed on this nation by foolish legislation.
Who are the three you ask? To be of assistance to readers who may have forgotten (wink, wink) the Senators Three are Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. They caved to the wishes of the opposition party with the lame excuse of being bipartisan. Considering Collins and Specter are on the Appropriations Committee that seems unlikely. Bipartisanship can generally be defined as requiring more than a small percentage of either party to seek a consensus. This was not unlike the few Democrats who opposed this legislation in the House only for fear of being defeated in their next election due to conservative opinion in their respective districts.
True bipartisan efforts would have seen the majority offer genuine opportunity for the minority party to participate in forging this legislation. The gem below expresses what would happen then. Something that may reflect good governance rather than political options that taint the process and fail to effectively represent constituents or discharge the duties of members of Congress.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
From the earliest days, differences on legislation between the House and Senate have been committed to conference committees to work out a settlement. The most usual case is that in which a bill passes one Chamber with amendments unacceptable to the other. In such a case, the Chamber that disagrees to the amendments generally asks for a conference, and the Speaker of the House and the Presiding Officer of the Senate appoint the “managers,” as the conferees are called. Generally, they are selected from the committee or committees having charge of the bill.
After attempting to resolve the points in disagreement, the conference committee issues a report to each Chamber. If the report is accepted by both Chambers, the bill is then enrolled and sent to the President. If the report is rejected by either Chamber, the matter in disagreement comes up for disposition anew as if there had been no conference. Unless all differences between the two Houses are resolved, the bill fails. (From “Our American Government”, H. Doc. 108-94, p. 34)
February 19th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
just redistribute the wealth..thats all we need to know..blech!
February 19th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
It’s really disappointing when public servants miss an opportunity to do things right. Killing the conference and starting over would have been a good example. Hmm, politicians not doing the right thing. That never happened before did it?