Congressional legislative process question - re: energy bill

[salin]

As you might now, I have sorta been following this ugly piece of legislation for going on two years now.

I get the google news alerts and thus get heads-up as things are happening.

The two types of current stories... one = the senate will pull the bill and try to stick parts of it to other bills - one target the current highway bill. two = "slimming the bill down" (re: stripping things out).

If the bill has passed out of conference, and been voted on by the house - what is the process to change it?

Here is my understanding...

Bill goes through house and senate - sometimes start as same or similar bill, but often different. After the hearing process generally they are two different bills. Each bill must be passed by each chamber of congress to move on. If the form of the bill is different (almost always the cost) it goes to a conference committee with members from the house and senate who draft a single compromise bill. {Side note: the energy bill was the first of a series of bills which were highly public where the republicans shut out the democrats from conference and completely rewrote the bill and then gave the democrats a couple of days to read the 1,000+ page bill before the conference committee vote.) The bill then has to pass (by vote) out of conference. It then must be voted on - in the same exact form - by both chambers of congress, before it gets to be signed or vetoed by the president.

So how do they change a bill that has been through conference, passed and voted on by the house? Does it start over? Do they "take it back to conference?" (I didn't know that was a legitimate procedure)... how does this work?

fyi this was the story that launched this question -

Gas pipeline provisions likely to remain in energy bill

By Associated Press


FAIRBANKS

Provisions to help an Alaska natural gas pipeline project should remain part of a national energy bill, even while efforts are under way to pare down the bill, said Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

The Republican senator said Wednesday that she "is not so concerned about the gas line provisions," because they have bipartisan support.

Sen. Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said Monday that the cost of the energy bill will have to be reduced. The rewrite could threaten not just the gas line provisions but also a provision that would spend up to $1 billion on energy-producing projects in Alaska over the next two decades.

more: http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~26794~1937904,00.html

[rfjockey]

1. Good question...

I am also wondering about this. My guess would be that it can be modified again (in conference committee?) and then voted on again by both the house and senate. I recall some discussion when it went down in the senate about the possibility of removing the MTBE protections and re-voting on it, so I would think that some amount of modification is still possible without starting over.
I have also been confused by the two different stories that seem to be coming out....are they breaking it up and sticking parts of it in other bills, or are they modifying the original with the intent of still passing a distinct "energy" bill?

[salin]

2. I have heard several items on each - but both of the transportation bill

stories came from a similar source. Not sure what is happening.

If they do a "do-over" in conference, I am not sure, but I think that it would be highly unusual... perhaps another example of the abuse of power at the hands of todays GOP.

[newyawker99]

8. Hi rfjockey!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[salin]

3. seeing if there is one with an answr this morning...

[salin]

4. one last kick in hopes that someone has an idea

how this works...

[goobergunch]

5. Only way to change a conference report is to either

(1) Start anew, or
(2) Pass the bill and also pass a concurrent resolution making "enrollment corrections".

[salin]

6. wow you continue to amaze me.

Are you sure you aren't a college graduate working on the hill with a boatload of political experience ;-)

I am not familiar with point two - which is why I raised the question - as it is not being described as point 1. Also why the 'put it into other bills', procedurally made sense to me.

So what are "enrollment corrections" ? Does concurrent mean - at the same time as passing the bill (pass a resolution and the bill) or that both chambers do it concurrently? I am guessing that this also means that the house has to revote on the new bill not just the concurrent resolution (though I would guess they would be one and the same.)

Interesting to note - the amount Domenici is proposing to axe out... 12b ... puts the bill at the exact cost it was before they added tons of localized pork that they believed was necessary to get enough votes to pass the bill in the first place.

[rfjockey]

7. modifying the original energy bill

just doesn't make sense to me. The whole reason it turned into such a mess to begin with was because they were trying to come up with enough different special interest things in it so that they could attract enough votes to get it passed. I can't imagine starting over with a drastically changed bill would work any better (or quicker) than the first time around, unless Tom Delay and company were willing to give up on all of their gas and oil company payouts. I would think it much more likely that they would try stuffing some of the stuff in with other budget bills instead to try to dilute the amount of ugliness in any one bill. But what do I know?

[salin]

10. The payouts were in the original 19b

what was added was pork for others to bring them on board. So I agree with you - wouldn't they lose those votes they gained with the pork? But maybe they are putting some of those promises of pork else where (transportation... or even the recently passed omnibus spending bill??) Or perhaps one of two other scenarios (that might blend together)

1) they are so emboldened by their strong arm tactics with medicare that the think they can muscle it through without the added pork (they won't give up on their original payoffs - bush needs that as proof of delivery to keep on track with his massive fundraising).

or

2) they realize they risk losing altogether on the bill and are going for the desperation long lob... before I thought the big push was just about the Supreme Court case (energy task force)... but now there is the info re: iraq and oil plans out there in the O'Niell book (though while folks are making the link to the war... in the press at least... no one is yet linking it to the energy task force and the energy give aways...) and the public sentiment tide that the GOP has gained via "unity around bush" very high public ratings polls are dropping faster than a box of rocks. All said - this could be a "Hail Mary" pass... would they risk it?

[adriennel]

9. it's dead

not sure what that means exactly, but I heard the energy bill was dead and I assumed they were going to start anew. I do know of one program (Clean School Bus) that was originally funded in the energy bill--after that didn't pass, they proposed the same funding for the same program in another manner (maybe the FY2005 budget?) and now I think the $ are coming through. not sure if this helps, as I find it confusing myself.

[salin]

11. I have heard 3 things from news items from the key players

-it is dead
-it is dead so they will break it up into parts and put into other bills
-it isn't dead they are going to slim it down due to budget concerns (which I don't get procedurally - hence this thread)

News items coming out in the past week interchangeably have said each. Its like a moving target.