There’s currently a proposal in the US Government for an Economic Stimulus Package. More details here, but most of those details are totally irrelevant to my question. The part that confuses me is that the House of Representatives has passed one version of this stuff, and now the Senate is going to begin debating a different version.
Which one becomes law?
What I learned in elementary school is that when both houses pass a bill, that’s how it becomes law. Maybe I was in dreamland or something, but this is the first I’ve heard of them working on different versions. Suppose the Senate passes their version. What happens? Does it go back to the Representatives, in hopes that they will agree to the New and Improved version?
What if the final version from the two groups differs? Do the common portions become law? That could get very messy and even paradoxical or counterproductive, depending on which parts are identical, so I’m guessing that nothing happens unless the final versions are totally the same. But in that case, why are they bothering with a different vesion to begin with?
See what I’m asking? I’m very confused, and rather ashamed that a guy in my age-bracket is finally asking such a basic question. … Ah, the never-ending battle to fight ignorance…
If the House and the Senate pass different versions of a bill, a joint Conference Committee meets to negotiate the differences. The newly-unified bill is then sent back to each chamber for another vote.
It can be seen that way, but looking at it another way, it’s the rare piece of legislation that is perfect from its first draft. If the two chambers were required to have an up-or-down vote on every bill that came before them, it’s highly unlikely that anything would ever pass.
In theory, the two house system was meant to prevent hasty lawmaking in the heat of passion. Our youngsters are taught to think of pouring hot tea into a saucer to let it cool enough for drinking. I suspect the analogy was made up long after the constitution was written.
Either house can also take a bill passed by the other house and pass it again in order to send it to the president.
For example, let’s say the Senate passes a bill to improve our nation’s ketchup. The House takes up the bill and amends it to improve our nation’s catsup. The bill is then sent back to the Senate.
The Senate has the option of asking for the formation of a conference committee (described above) or passing the bill amended by the House and thereby immediately sending it to the President. The Senate could also take up the bill yet again and amend it to make it a bill to improve our nation’s tomato-based condiments, and send it back to the House one more time. The House could then decide if they want to request a conference committee, pass the bill as amended by the Senate, or make further amendments.
Of course you are correct. But it’s not the “first draft” that they voted on. And it’s not the second or third draft either. They have all sorts of committees and groups working on the text, adding this and editing that, until all the various factions feel it is likely to get a majority vote.
My problem is that it seems like such a waste that so much effort will go down the drain when the bill passes, and then a whole 'nother group of people will begin to put their own touches on it. Wouldn’t it be more efficient if the committees who draft the bill would be composed of both senators and congressmen, and not merely one or the other?
On rereading my last post, it has occurred to me that I may have moved the discussion into Great Debates territory. My original question was about how the two houses work, and that has been answered. Then I went to complaining about how inefficient it appears to me.
So, to get the thread back on track: Is there an objective answer to WHY the second house bothers to rewrite the bill? I would think that the standard procedure would be to vote on the exact same bill in the interests of efficiency. (And if the second house doesn’t like the bill that was given to them, then that should inspire them to have worked on it together with the first house to begin with.)
Actually, they often are. And then, sometimes they are not.
Representatives have different agendae than senators. Senators represent whole states, and have somewhat more public face. Representatives have a smaller geographical constituency (unless they are from Wyoming , etc.) and also don’t have as much public face at stake. So the pressures in the House may well be different from the pressures in the Senate.
This legislation may be a classic example. Members of the House want something done quickly, so they can go to their consituents and say, “SEE!? We ARE doing something!” Senators, on the other hand, are much more focused on being able to say, “SEE!? WE did something, and aren’t just the lackeys of the Administration on this issue.” Then Senator Pompus Windbag can claim in the next Presidential election cycle that they were the savior of the nation when it came to the economy. Because they aren’t so beholden to the individual voters (in a state like California, for example, you can’t expect Barbara Boxer or DiFei to be particularly attuned to individual voters), time isn’t such an important factor.
But on other bills, say, for example, an omnibus crime bill, the initial bill might well come from the joint work of a number of senators and representatives. Such a bill might well sail through both houses with limited amendments, if at all, and it might well be the case that a conference committee would be unnecessary.
Bills aren’t drafted by committees. That comes afterward, when they are heard by a committee. A bill is introduced by a single Senator or Representative (though often others indicate their support by then signing on to the bill). In fact, they usually are actually written by one or more staff members of that Legislator, often after consultation with others. But it’s still a single Member of Congress who introduces the bill.
Actually, some bills are drafted by a committee, but they generally represent a very small fraction of the number of bills introduced in a given year. Like you say, normally a senator introduces a bill on some subject and it is referred to a committee for hearings and possibly a markup (amendments and committee approval).
However, some bills are drafted by committees as original bills. For example, all appropriations bills are drafted by the committees on appropriations. That means that a bill is not introduced and then referred to the appropriations committee; instead, the committee drafts and approves the bill and then it is introduced.
I actually like this part of the system, because each house can put forth their proposals and then frank and honest discussion will lead to the best result (maybe).
But in any event, both houses must pass the EXACT SAME BILL before presenting it to the President…
And Appropriations bills have to originate in the House, and then be sent to the Senate. So these ones do not start with 2 different versions to be reconciled – the Senate just gets the House bill. But if the Senate amends it, then it has to go to a conference committee with the House.
No, it’s bills for raising money which must originate in the House, not bills for spending money. Appropriations bills do usually bear H.R. numbers, but this is a matter of custom, not a requirement. Per the Senate Appropriations Committee,
Briefly, you’re incorrect. The Senate does indeed consider original appropriations bills that were not sent over from the House. However, when the Senate Appropriations Committee does report an original bill, the companion House bill is usually taken up on the floor and then the text of the original Senate measure is amended into the House bill.
If you look at this page, you’ll see that the Senate Appropriations Committee reported 9 original bills.
Addendum: the House has traditionally viewed origination of appropriations bills as its prerogative. If the Senate were to send the House an original Senate bill, the House would attach a blue slip to it and send it back to the Senate without considering it. That doesn’t prevent the Senate from doing it, it just means the House will not accept the Senate’s work.
, etc.) and also don’t have as much public face at stake. So the pressures in the House may well be different from the pressures in the Senate.