The agreement reached last week by Senate leaders to ease procedural brinkmanship and partisan gridlock in an institution that has come to be defined by delay will be tested in coming weeks, as the chamber prepares to confront several divisive issues.
Under the deal reached Jan. 27 by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Republicans promised to resist the temptation to block motions to bring up legislation on the Senate floor in return for a Democratic pledge to allow the minority to offer more amendments to legislation. Sharp ideological divisions between the parties on issues such as health care and federal spending are certain to make it difficult for the two leaders to honor their commitment. The “gentlemen’s agreement” does little to change the usual inclination of the majority to avoid votes on politically dangerous amendments, particularly because 23 Democratic caucus seats are up for re-election in 2012. The pact also does not dampen Republican efforts to oppose President Obama’s agenda. Both tendencies will only intensify as the upcoming presidential and congressional elections edge closer. “This is an unusual and exceptional agreement, and its viability is invariably in question,” said Steven S. Smith, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis
Reverting to Form?
In theory, the agreement could return the Senate to the way it operated in the 1980s, when senators of both parties often offered hundreds of amendments, debated them and ultimately exercised self-restraint by settling on a smaller list for votes in an effort to wrap up consideration of a piece of legislation, said Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a political science professor at George Washington University. Over the last three decades, however, “sheer partisanship and ideological differences have emerged,” and those forces make it hard to envision how the Senate can revert to more free-wheeling discourse, Binder said. Already, the lack of support among Democrats for more substantial rule changes indicates some concern among the majority that the upcoming elections could send Democrats into the minority in 2013, Binder added. Reluctance for more change also is driven by a recognition that Republican control of the House is likely to stop some Democratic legislative priorities, making individual senators loath to give up any of their procedural prerogatives. “Senators of both political parties value the rights and privileges they have under the rules,” Binder said. Certainly, history suggests, comity is hard to sustain. At the start of the last Congress in 2009, Reid was careful not to resort to procedure known as “filling the tree” to block amendments. Because of his initial restraint, the Senate debated and voted on many amendments during the first few months of 2009. At the time, McConnell praised Reid’s flexibility in allowing Republican amendments. “I certainly commend him for the way in which we have operated this year,” McConnell said in a floor speech that March. But by the end of the last Congress, such exchanges of compliments were virtually nonexistent, and Republicans repeatedly complained of being shut out of legislative action. Republicans estimated that over Reid’s four-year tenure as majority leader, he had filled the tree, effectively blocking Republican amendments, 44 times., Democrats complained just as vociferously that Republicans were obstructing Senate business by objecting to motions to proceed to legislation. The Senate voted 26 times in the last Congress to try to overcome such filibusters, Democrats estimated. An early test of the new agreement will be whether Reid allows a vote on the House-passed repeal (HR 2) of the 2010 health care overhaul (PL 111-148, PL 111-152), which McConnell is insisting that the Senate take up. Another trial will come when the Senate takes up a measure to increase the nation’s statutory debt limit. Some Republicans have threatened to block that bill if they are unable to attach provisions aimed at cutting government spending. An open amendment process could drag out debate on a debt limit increase for weeks, and expose Reid to pressure from the Obama administration to shut down debate and pass the bill to avoid a government default on its obligations.
Election Pressure
As the 2012 elections draw closer, pressure also will grow on both parties to engage in procedural fights in the Senate. Conservative activists will urge Republicans to block Democratic legislation, while liberal activists will pressure Democrats to push measures opposed by most Republicans. “The political fundamentals here have not changed,” Smith said. “The electorate is fairly polarized, and there’s an incentive for most Republicans and Democrats to appeal to the activists on each side.” Another reality is that Senate rules empower each senator to object to legislation. This means that the agreement between Reid and McConnell does not necessarily control every senator. Rank-and-file Republicans could still force votes on motions to proceed to bills, and Democratic senators vulnerable to defeat at the polls could pressure Reid to block votes on amendments that could damage their re-election chances. Another rules change, a standing order aimed at ending “secret holds” by forcing senators to publicly announce their objections to Senate consideration of legislation or nominations, also will be put to the test. Senators alert party leaders to their objections to legislation and nominations by placing behind-the-scenes holds on such measures. The rules change (S Res 28), adopted 92-4 on Jan. 27, requires disclosure of the identity of the objecting senator within two days after the senator notifies his or her party leader of an intent to place a hold. This significantly reduces the six days that had to pass after a hold was announced on the floor. Under the new rule, if a senator does not step forward publicly, the hold would be attributed to that member’s party leader or whoever else objected on behalf of the senator on the floor. Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., pushed the change after a previous attempt to limit secret holds in 2007 proved ineffective. Alert to potential loopholes in the new standing order, McCaskill issued a warning on the floor. “If anyone thinks they can figure out a way around this, all of us who have worked on this are not going to give up,” she said Jan. 27.
No comments:
Post a Comment