A conference committee primer
Wednesday, Jun 19, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Rep. Elaine Nekritz’s spokesman sent this explanation to reporters today about how conference committees are formed. I thought you might like to see it as well…
The Senate calls for a vote on a motion to non-concur on the House version of Senate Bill 1. If that is approved, the bill heads back to the House, which then votes on a motion to refuse to recede from its version. If that is approved, then the conference committee is created at either chamber’s request. If for some reason either of those votes fails, then the bill remains in limbo in the chamber in which it’s currently sitting.
I figure the House will try to do a voice vote on the refuse to recede motion today. We’ll see.
* From the House Rules…
The conference committee shall consist of 5 members from each chamber of the General Assembly. The number of majority caucus members from each chamber shall be one more than the number of minority caucus members from each chamber.
(c) Each conference committee shall be comprised of 5 members of the House, 3 appointed by the Speaker and 2 appointed by the Minority Leader. No conference committee report may be filed with the Clerk until a majority of the House conferees has been appointed. […]
No conference committee report shall be received by the Clerk or acted upon by the House unless it has been signed by at least 6 conferees.
If the conference committee determines that it is unable to reach agreement, the committee shall so report to each chamber of the General Assembly and request appointment of a second conference committee. If there is agreement, the committee shall so report to each chamber. […]
No conference committee report shall be adopted by the House except on a record vote of a majority of those elected,
* Mark Brown looks at the history of conference committees today…
Joint House-Senate conference committees, such as the one Quinn wants convened to end the stalemate between House Speaker Mike Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton, were once the norm in Springfield. […]
Usually, conferees met in secret, if they met at all. It was common for lobbyists to not only draft the conference committee’s report but then also circulate the report among its members to collect the required signatures for approval.
In this manner, a bill to increase the state speed limit could land on legislators’ desks for a vote at the 11th hour—magically transformed via conference committee report into an earmark-laden road-building program.
While that sort of change would never escape everyone’s attention, it was common for more obscure changes to emerge unnoticed in this same manner and “quietly” become law — sometimes by mistake, more often intentionally. You’ll notice that we reporters always talk about something “quietly” becoming law when we failed to catch it at the time.
The death knell for conference committees, I’m told, may have come when, in the midst of the Legislature abolishing “study commissions” that served as little more than patronage havens, a particularly crafty legislator slipped through a conference report creating three new study commissions.
As hard as it may be for some to believe, Madigan’s move to eliminate conference committees some 15-20 years ago was generally regarded as a significant procedural reform.
Of course, as with many such reforms, this one suited Madigan’s purpose of maintaining tighter control over all legislation moving through the House.
Madigan and his leaders and staff hold meetings on every bill, every amendment, every motion. He keeps control that way. There were just too many conference committee reports to read, so they’re gone.
* Related…
* Lawmakers expected to use special session to punt pension reform to committee
* Quinn, lawmakers plan another pension session for July
* Illinois pension fix headed to legislative conference committee
* Quinn, Madigan and Cullerton agree to form bipartisan group to negotiate a pension fix
* Editorial: Lawmakers, check your egos at the door - Conference committee might just work
* VIDEO: We Are One Illinois’ Mike Carrigan says Illinois’ public sector unions do not want to negotiate on pension reform any longer.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 10:10 am:
The old practices were really wild. Hard to believe they lasted as long as they did.
- Robert the Bruce - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 10:15 am:
With 3 conference committee members presumably loyal to Madigan and 3 presumably loyal to Cullerton, the 4 republicans, if unified, could make for a strong voting block.
Or maybe Madigan and Cullerton have already worked out a compromise for their 6 committee members to push.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 10:17 am:
===the 4 republicans, if unified, could make for a strong voting block. ===
Doesn’t matter. The conference committee report still has to be voted on by both chambers. They’re gonna need a resolution favored by all four caucuses to get this done.
- low level - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 10:23 am:
CCs are rarely used on the Federal level anymore either. For instance, the Affordable Care Act HR3590 in 2010 originally passed the US House as a measure for veteran’s home tax credits. After that, the Senate inserted the ACA language and the House concurred.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 10:25 am:
Would love to be a mouse at the conferences …
- Property Owner - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 10:35 am:
In January 2012 four lawmakers, from both parties and from both parties, were named by Gov. Pat Quinn to a pension reform panel. The goal of the governor was to try to make good on his plan to push a meaningful overhaul of the state’s pension system through the Legislature in 2012. Now in mid 2013 one needs to ask if another panel with members of both chambers and of both parties will come up with anything better this time? What has changed to suggest that the new panel will come up with a workable solution?
- Property Owner - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 10:38 am:
Slight typing error. “from both parties and from both parties” should read “from both chambers and from both parties”.
- Dinosaur - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 10:42 am:
Maybe they could steal the SURS plan. Although it will be challenged, it seems reasonable if it makes it through.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 10:42 am:
=== As hard as it may be for some to believe, Madigan’s move to eliminate conference committees some 15-20 years ago was generally regarded as a significant procedural reform. ===
“Reform?” More like “unneeded” because you have such complete control over the process why bother with the paperwork. “Eliminated,” clearly not because the process is still in the rules. I agree that conference committees were abused and hated them as a liaison, but let us not pass out accolades when the result of complete control of the legislative process was the disuse (not elimination) of an abused practice.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 10:42 am:
Property Owner
Since certain parties have made it such a big issue, they need to show activity. Note I said activity, not progress.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 10:51 am:
When asked if Madigan was appointing himself to the CC, he said, “I’ll let others have the glory.” I heard this on Public Radio this morning…
- archimedes - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 10:55 am:
To make progress over the current stalemate, the committee has to create a compromise that recognizes Culerton (Senate) values and Madigan (House) values. As stated earlier - the Speaker’s goal is to reduce pension costs to a level that makes the budget impact almost half of what it is now and tales away future volatility. Cullerton wants to reduce the cost as much as possible within the framework of constitution (without exercising police power).
I don’t see how the committee can get there - any deeper cuts crosses Cullerton constitutional line. The reduction from SB1 can be softened, maybe - but getting it all the way to where it is constitutional (without poice power) and satisfying the budget hawks is impossible.
The union endorsement of SB2404 is a big deal for any court case. It is powerful evidence that the consideration in SB2404 is realistic (a large population of the contract parties have agreed), making the pension reduction within the framework of the consitution.
- Ghost - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 11:15 am:
I believe a conference committee designed the first camel…..
- Langhorne - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 11:29 am:
As a young staffer in the late 70s, i drafted a few committee reports. More than once another staffer and i had to literally hole up away from our offices to draft the report wout lobbyists barging in. One time we realized our instructions lacked a key element. So we drafted two reports–one that addressed it and one that didnt, to give members a choice.
- Joe M - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 11:36 am:
The Nekritz spokesman’s explanation only uses the House version SB1 as an example that the Senate votes to non-concur. That example makes it look like the conference committee will be all about the House version of SB1.
Does the same type of motion to non-concur have to happen in the House on the original SB 2404 to make that bill part of the conference committee?
Or doesn’t it make any difference whether or not the House votes to non-concur Cullerton’s SB 2404? Since the descriptions of both bills used the phrases “more un-constitutional” and “less un-constitutional” perhaps the conference committee should start from scratch?
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 11:40 am:
I read the Trib’s editorial about the conference committee, in which it says a deal can be reached that “everyone can accept.” It then goes on to support a Madigan-like plan and calls the Senate dissenters “obstructionists.”
In Trib-world, compromise can only be done when everyone accepts its position.
The editorial board mentions a four-part editorial at the end of this article, called “The obstructionists,” naming those directly responsible for blocking pension reform.
- Andrew Szakmary - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 11:45 am:
Dinosaur,
I am on the verge of retirement, and the SURS plan diminishes the present value of my pension benefits by a minimum of 16.7%. It diminishes the pensions of employees 10-15 years away from retirement by at least a further 20-30 percent. Would you call a bill that reaches into your 401k account and takes away 15-40% of the accumulated balance reasonable? Would you call a bill that cuts Social Security benefits by 15% for those currently receiving benefits, and by 40% for today’s 50-year-olds reasonable?
- Ghost - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 11:55 am:
Andrew your missing the point, its reasonable becuase it doesnt impact Dinosaur. Now if you wanted to tax Dinosaur to pay for it, then he would be opposed. Its easy to support harming others as a solution, because we assume that they will not come knocking on the door looking for us.
Just look away when they come for your neighbors, so long as they are not coming for you…..isnt that good governemnt?
- Bobbysox - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 12:36 pm:
Archimedes is spot on. Offer, acceptance, consideration. The Unions’ acceptance of the changes as adequate consideration is a key component of why SB2404 is likely constitutional. That is why moving away from that, whether in a conference committee or not, would likely result in an unconstitutional outcome.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 1:50 pm:
Ghost, I’ve heard the Pontiac Aztek was designed by a conference committee of GM designers.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 1:53 pm:
Whoops.
To the post, more or less, anyone who thinks that Universities plan is a good idea should read it line for line. If you still think so, I don’t know what to tell you other than no one outside academia wants anything to do with it.
- Ghost - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 3:18 pm:
AA, that would explain a lot! (about the Aztek)
- Just Me - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 3:55 pm:
For those of you saying it has been 15-20 years since the last CCR, I went back and found a CCR for one of my bills in 2002. They were becoming rare, but they weren’t unheard of by then.
I remember my counterpart drawing up the language on his own, and going to all the Members and telling them it was agreed language when in fact it wasn’t. I never trusted that staffer again.
- Decaf Coffee Party - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 4:19 pm:
I heard Biss say the amount of savings is one area of negotiation. Why, if the pension problem is estimated to be $100 billion, would there need to be a plan to extract $187 billion — almost twice the size of the current problem — from employees and retirees?
- Raymond - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 4:44 pm:
From the governor’s press release today: “As he has for almost two years, the governor again made clear that he will not approve any legislation that does not erase the pension debt and provide 100 percent funding for the systems.”
Umm, nobody, except maybe the kooks at IPI, is talking about any plan that would “erase” $100 billion in unfunded pension liability.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 5:13 pm:
Bobbysox @ 12:36 pm:
The unions have zero, repeat, zero legal authority or authorization to speak for the retirees …
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 5:16 pm:
Decaf Coffee Party @ 4:19 pm:
I think the difference depends on how you do the counting; current value today if you had the cash to pay it or what all the payments over time would be.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 5:19 pm:
From the governor’s press release today: “As he has for almost two years, the governor again made clear that he will not approve any legislation that does not erase the pension debt and provide 100 percent funding for the systems.”
Guess he must be on board for the Martire plan and its’ associated revenue changes, since that’s the only proposal to do what the Gov wants.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 5:27 pm:
–“As he has for almost two years, the governor again made clear that he will not approve any legislation that does not erase the pension debt and provide 100 percent funding for the systems.”–
By what theory of fiscal responsibility would “100 percent funding for the systems” be desirable?
It’s crazy. You’d take, in the here and now, the hard-earned dollars of the taxpayers, park them in the stock market, bonds and God knows what — where they could lose value or be wiped out — to fund 100% of liabilities 30 years down the road?
So today’s taxpayer and services takes a hit to let Wall Street and the Stu Levine’s and Bruce Rauner’s of the world play with your money now and collect fees to cover payouts in 30 years?
That’s lunacy. And that’s what debate about this “crisis” has degenerated to.
- G'Kar - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 6:51 pm:
To AA @1:53–as an academic, I have no desire to be part of the Universities Presidents’ proposal. I suspect that there are few academics who do support it.
- walkinfool - Wednesday, Jun 19, 13 @ 9:05 pm:
Interesting mix of members for CC.
Raoul is excellent at finding compromise.
Senger, Nekritz, Holmes, Biss, are all good with the numbers, and tough-minded enough to face complexities and come to a hard conclusion.
Tracy and Zalewski have different smarts and technical skills, which might be helpful to the committee’s work.
Turner is politically astute and intelligent, but relatively untested.
Murphy and Brady both have deep leadership experience, but are likely considering higher office right now. They might shy away from any tough, complex compromise that’s not easy to explain in a primary campaign. Both have tended to outline general problems, but avoid detailed solutions, in previous campaigns. Simple solutions are not to be found here.
Just one man’s opinion. Let’s hope for the best.
- Dinosaur - Thursday, Jun 20, 13 @ 8:11 pm:
Andrew and Ghost, I am affected. I have been retired from teaching for three years. The SURS plan SOUNDED good. Obviously there is more to it than has been published. My point is that if they’re going to get us, let’s make it reasonable, not something they just throw together.