Full Version: In The Dark
QUOTE(WaPo)
Democrats promised Tuesday to introduce legislation to reverse concessions made to the health insurance industry in a budget bill, claiming GOP lawmakers changed the bill behind closed doors.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., said Republicans had caved in to powerful health insurance companies during talks on the five-year, $40 billion budget cut at the expense of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
At issue is an obscure provision in the budget bill slated for a final House vote next week aimed at keeping health insurance plans participating in the Medicare program from obtaining inflated payments from the government. Such payments come when doctors and insurance companies perform a service but exaggerate the extent of the care when billing the government...
A senior GOP aide to the Senate Finance Committee involved in the negotiations said Republicans disagree with CBO's analysis of the provision. The aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Medicare's overseers at the Health and Human Services Department would retain authority to address the overpayments problem.
- Democrats Vow to Reverse Insurance Victory
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., said Republicans had caved in to powerful health insurance companies during talks on the five-year, $40 billion budget cut at the expense of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
At issue is an obscure provision in the budget bill slated for a final House vote next week aimed at keeping health insurance plans participating in the Medicare program from obtaining inflated payments from the government. Such payments come when doctors and insurance companies perform a service but exaggerate the extent of the care when billing the government...
A senior GOP aide to the Senate Finance Committee involved in the negotiations said Republicans disagree with CBO's analysis of the provision. The aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Medicare's overseers at the Health and Human Services Department would retain authority to address the overpayments problem.
- Democrats Vow to Reverse Insurance Victory
Several times over recent years I’ve read stories about the House keeping a floor vote open for hours giving Hastert enough time to wring a crucial yes vote, about Democrats being kept out of debate, and votes in the “middle of the night.” So I wonder:
How does the former Democratic majority compare to today’s GOP as far as keeping committee members in the dark about making changes to bills?
Legislatures appear increasingly comfortable about acknowledging their aides are in regular contact with lobbyists and more legislatures/aides are taking lucrative jobs as lobbyists. Is an eroding wall between lawmakers and interest groups partially or mostly to blame when we hear about legislation being changed in secret? And, whatever the reason, is cutting deals in such a manner the best way lawmakers can represent their constituents?
Lesly, could you provide any links to examples of what you are asking about?
The links you provided were not to anything resembling "pulling the wool" over committee members eyes or secret changes to bills.
The links you provided were not to anything resembling "pulling the wool" over committee members eyes or secret changes to bills.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jan 25 2006, 11:03 AM)
Lesly, could you provide any links to examples of what you are asking about?
Here is the original Washington Post story that Lesly is referring to which I believe will provide what you are looking for.
QUOTE
House and Senate GOP negotiators, meeting behind closed doors last month to complete a major budget-cutting bill, agreed on a change to Senate-passed Medicare legislation that would save the health insurance industry $22 billion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Bills are made behind closed doors all the time. That certainly isn't anything new.
Most legislation is written by one or a few Congressmen. They may get others to sign up as co-conspirators--I mean, co-authors-- but it is exceedingly rare that bills are bi-partisan.
Most legislation is written by one or a few Congressmen. They may get others to sign up as co-conspirators--I mean, co-authors-- but it is exceedingly rare that bills are bi-partisan.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jan 25 2006, 02:03 PM)
Lesly, could you provide any links to examples of what you are asking about?
Sure. Here's how committees are supposed to handle modifications made to laws: Consideration by Committee (Public Hearings and Markup Sessions and Committee Action) before it reaches the floor for a vote. The committee rules may've changed over time.
Here's an example of adding a provision after legislation passed committee, or "keeping [some] committee members in the dark":
QUOTE(Letter to Dennis Hastert from Henry Waxman)
I am writing to draw your attention [to] a provision in the Energy Conference Report that raises serious procedural and substantive concerns. At its essence, this provision is a $1.5 billion giveaway to the oil industry, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas. The provision was inserted into the energy legislation after the conference was closed, so members of the conference committee had no opportunity to consider or reject this measure.
The provision at issue is a 30-page subtitle called “Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources.” This subtitle, which was taken from the House-passed energy bill, was mysteriously inserted in the final energy legislation after the legislation was closed to further amendment. The conferees were told that they would have the opportunity to consider and vote on the provisions in the conference report. But the subtitle was not included in the base text circulated to conferees, and it was never offered as an amendment.
Instead, the new subtitle first appeared in the text of the energy legislation only after Chairman Barton had gaveled the conference over. Obviously, it would be a serious abuse to secretly slip such a costly and controversial provision into the energy legislation.
- Government Reform Minority Office
The provision at issue is a 30-page subtitle called “Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources.” This subtitle, which was taken from the House-passed energy bill, was mysteriously inserted in the final energy legislation after the legislation was closed to further amendment. The conferees were told that they would have the opportunity to consider and vote on the provisions in the conference report. But the subtitle was not included in the base text circulated to conferees, and it was never offered as an amendment.
Instead, the new subtitle first appeared in the text of the energy legislation only after Chairman Barton had gaveled the conference over. Obviously, it would be a serious abuse to secretly slip such a costly and controversial provision into the energy legislation.
- Government Reform Minority Office
I'm going to guess that Waxman was being petty about some procedural mumbo-jumbo.
The section he seems to object to in that letter was contained in the original bill submitted as HR6: HR6: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
It was in a different section (Subtitle F, Chapter 2).
That section did not appear in the Senate version of the bill. History of HR6
It was reinserted into the conference version of the bill is my guess.
So we have that section being included and agreed to by the House, it not appearing in the Senate, the House making sure it was in the final version of the Bill, and then both the House and Senate approving that particular section.
Much ado about nothing in my view.
The section he seems to object to in that letter was contained in the original bill submitted as HR6: HR6: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
It was in a different section (Subtitle F, Chapter 2).
That section did not appear in the Senate version of the bill. History of HR6
It was reinserted into the conference version of the bill is my guess.
So we have that section being included and agreed to by the House, it not appearing in the Senate, the House making sure it was in the final version of the Bill, and then both the House and Senate approving that particular section.
Much ado about nothing in my view.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.