THE REACTIONARY PROGRESSIVE PARTY:

Feeling Left Out on Major Bills, Democrats Stall Others: The tactic has infuriated Republicans and contributed to election-year paralysis. (CARL HULSE and ROBERT PEAR, 5/03/04, NY Times)

Senate Democrats, shut out of Congressional negotiations on Medicare and other important bills last year, are blocking House-Senate negotiations on other bills unless they are guaranteed a voice in writing the final legislation.

The tactic has infuriated Republicans and contributed to election-year paralysis as the House and Senate struggle to work out compromises needed to make law. The conflict intensified late last week and almost caused a partial shutdown of the Transportation Department.

Senator Christopher S. Bond, Republican of Missouri, said there was a "complete stalemate" over a highway bill because Democrats were blocking the creation of a conference committee to resolve differences with the House. The bill has bipartisan support, having passed the Senate by a vote of 76 to 21.

The highway legislation is the most visible example of the Democratic strategy. The Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, explained the rationale.

"Without the opportunity for Democrats to participate, Republicans are going to be making very partisan decisions about the level of commitment to highways over the next several years," Mr. Daschle said. "That's wrong."

Republicans say the parliamentary tactic, which has not been used extensively in the past, illustrates the extent to which Democrats will go to block legislation, even bills with bipartisan support. They say Democrats are trying to usurp the power of the Republican majorities in the Senate and the House. Senate Republicans say they will force the issue this week by requiring votes on the formation of conference committees.

"To think the minority can write a predetermined outcome to every bill that comes through the Senate is pretty presumptuous," said Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, the majority leader. [...]

Normally, after the House and the Senate pass different versions of a major bill, it is a routine matter for them to name negotiators to resolve their disagreements.

But it actually involves three steps: the Senate insists on its amendments to a House bill, requests a conference with the House and authorizes its presiding officer to appoint conferees. Each step is subject to extended debate and a vote.

"The three steps are usually bundled into a unanimous consent agreement and done within seconds," said Robert B. Dove, a former Senate parliamentarian. "But if some senators do not want a conference to occur and if they are very determined, they can force three separate cloture votes to close debate, and that takes a lot of time. It basically stops the whole process of going to conference."

Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said: "Historically in the Senate, when we passed a bill, we automatically went to conference. That has changed."

Now, Mr. Santorum said, Republicans have to secure unanimous consent, "or we do not get to conference."

The effects of this change ripple through the daily work of the Senate. Recently, when the Senate was debating a major welfare bill, Democrats demanded a vote on a proposal to increase the minimum wage.

Republicans reluctantly agreed, but insisted that Democrats, in return, allow a vote on passage of the bill, to be followed by the appointment of conferees. The Senate, unable to agree on such an arrangement, set aside the bill. [...]

In a moment of frustration on the Senate floor, Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is chairman of the Finance Committee, said: "It is very unprecedented that Democrats are objecting to appointing conferees. Let me say that more broadly. It is almost unprecedented for the legislative process not to work the way the Constitution writers intended," by working out compromises in conference committees.

As a general rule it's a good thing when government is paralyzed, as for instance with this highway bill which should be killed altogether. But too much necessary legislation, like Social Security reform, and too many appointments, like federal judges, have become impossible to pass without supermajorities or even unanimity. The next Senate is likely to have to rewrite the body's rules to prevent such abuses, which is unfortunate.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 3, 2004 8:34 AM