Senate Republicans: Do they have the guts to force Democrat
filibusters?

By Margo Carlisle 
web posted November 18, 2002						

Republicans are today appropriately applauding President Bush
for his remarkable "expenditure of political capital" in pursuit of
the congressional victories needed to provide legislative support
for his policies. While public understanding of that truism is
unimportant as long as the White House understands it, another,
more apropos truth is widely misunderstood.
 
The political capital myth is just that, a myth. It is impossible for
political capital to be "expended" (if expended means decreased
or depleted) any more than can a supply of courage, love, or
power be diminished by use. In Washington especially, power
applied is power augmented. Power, or to go back to current
terms, "political capital", which goes unused, dwindles and
evaporates. Power unused is power forgotten.
 
So much for the first, a pre-election misunderstanding. 

The second is a post-election, worrisome mistake. Americans
seem to think, now that the President has a majority in both
houses of Congress, that he has no excuse for failing to achieve
his objectives. Beyond homeland security, the budget, tax cuts,
and the whole agenda will be able to sail through Congress.

Not so. 
 
A simple majority in the House of Representatives does indeed
guarantee passage of the party in power's program, but only in
that body. The Senate is different. A majority there assures
certain things and leaves others undetermined. One can count on,
for example, the Judiciary Committee, under the chairmanship of
Orrin Hatch (R-UT), to report out any judges sent up by the
administration.

This indeed represents a sea change from the days of leadership
by Tom Daschle (D-SD), who forbade committees to report any
nominations or legislation not specifically requested by the
Democrat majority; i.e. Tom Daschle. This is because he feared
Democrat cooperation with Republicans on a number of issues.
 
Daschle was the real reason for the stalemate in the Senate. So
what has changed? Next year the Committees under their
Republican chairmen, will be able to report, that is, send to the
Senate floor, any nominations it chooses and next year's majority
leader, Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), can schedule such
nominations for a vote. It also means that the Senate can
schedule debate on any measure sent over by the House of
Representatives.

Floor debate is thereby ensured, but passage is not. In the
Senate, an arcane requirement called Rule XXII, means that if a
measure is filibustered, sixty votes are required to shut off debate
and vote the matter up or down. Therefore, a Democrat minority
will still be able to stop any legislation or nominee for which they
can muster forty-one votes, a number not difficult for a party
known for its discipline and one which has forty nine members
from which to seek votes.

So filibusters then, again, become the issue. Historically there
have been two ways to filibuster. In the old days, Senators
strapped on a catheter and prepared for twenty-four hours of
talking, until someone collapsed. Yes, it tested physical
endurance, but it certainly focused the country's attention on the
measure in question. The recent practice could be called the
"assumed filibuster." One needed only to announce opposition to
specific legislation and claim forty votes.
 
Next year, Senate Democrats will still have the numbers to stop
any legislation, or nomination, they choose to filibuster. But
Republicans have the choice of making it easy or making it
difficult, of helping the Democrats hide their filibuster or of
exposing it. A real, old fashioned, all night, talkathon is
impossible to conduct inconspicuously. But Republicans will
have to do more than announce that a given measure is under
filibuster. They will have to force the event.

This may mean keeping the Senate in all night, or all of several
nights.

In the old days of Democratic preeminence, it was easy. Then-
Majority leader, Sen Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), enjoyed
legislative action more than anything else in life. Trent Lott,
prefers to be home for dinner. This is a good thing. We have just
seen a senator go down to defeat for ignoring the family values
which elected him. But surely that fine patriot, Tricia Lott, would
give up an evening or two with her husband in order to make
clear how vigorously he is serving the nation.
  
The other necessity is for the President, this determined and
politically savvy leader, to announce over and over that he could
pass, say the tax bill, if only three or six or nine Democrats could
join him. If they refuse, Karl Rove could threaten to send Ralph
Reed to their states in two years.

Margo Carlisle was director of the Senate Steering Committee,
director of the Senate GOP Conference, chief of staff to Sen.
Thad Cochran (R-MS) and an Assistant Secretary of Defense
during the Reagan Administration.

Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com