By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
December 25, 2007
WASHINGTON - Democrats running Congress for the first time
in more than a decade faltered at key points this year as they
grudgingly passed important bills opposed by many, or even
most, of their House members. When Republicans were in charge,
they generally avoided a similar fate.
Republican solidarity also forced House Democrats to abandon
a campaign promise to avoid new deficit spending by paying
for new programs with tax increases or budget cuts.
In the Senate, Republicans repeatedly used their filibuster
powers to block or weaken Democratic proposals. Backed by President
Bush's veto threats, the minority party managed to sharply
limit the Democrats' influence on a range of issues throughout
the year.
The Democrats' dilemma was clear in two House votes this past
week just before Congress went on vacation.
The House voted 352-64 on Wednesday to delay an expansion
of the alternative minimum tax. All 64 "no" votes
came from Democrats who wanted the $50 billion cut in anticipated
revenues to be offset, either with spending cuts or tax increases
on wealthy groups. They were dismayed that the party had abandoned
its no-deficit-spending pledge.
The House then voted 272-142 to set aside $70 billion for
the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly twice as many
Democrats voted against the spending as voted for it, because
the measure imposed no restrictions on Bush's war policies.
In all, 174 of the House's 232 Democrats voted against one
or both of the high-profile measures, an obvious setback for
a party that rose to power last year on voters' discontent
with Bush and the Iraq war.
The Iraq spending bill came to a vote only because Speaker
Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., refused to embrace the hardline partisan
philosophy of her predecessor. Former Speaker Dennis Hastert,
R-Ill., allowed major legislation to reach the full House only
if it was backed by a "majority of the majority" — meaning,
in his case, most Republicans.
Hastert invoked his rule most prominently in November 2004
to quash an intelligence bill that he, Bush and most Democrats
supported, but which most House Republicans opposed.
The "Hastert rule" had marginalized and infuriated
Democrats. Pelosi dropped it when she became speaker in January.
Her decision, plus Republican lawmakers' loyalty toward Bush
and his Iraq policies, obligated Pelosi to swallow bitter bills
this year, most notably approving money for the war without
conditions. Unable to override Bush's veto of efforts to force
troop withdrawals, House Democrats in May and December reluctantly
allowed passage of Republican-backed measures that lacked support
from the "majority of the majority."
"That's a reality of life that we have to deal with," Pelosi
told reporters. The public knows where congressional Democrats
stand on the war, she said, even if they could not enforce
their will.
"This is the legislative process," she said.
Pelosi yielded to similar political realities last month on
a less-noticed bill, a free trade deal with Peru. Slightly
more Democrats voted against it than for it when the House
approved the agreement, 285-132.
Democrats' inability to wind down the Iraq war has mystified
and angered their anti-war supporters. But lawmakers and analysts
say a Hastert-like stand by Pelosi might have led to a government
shutdown or similar standoff, with unpredictable political
results.
Even Hastert had to bend his rule at times, although allies
said he never completely broke it. He allowed a vote on federal
money for stem cell research, which most House Republicans
opposed, when it was clear that Bush's veto would keep the
bill from becoming law.
In 2002, Hastert allowed passage of a major campaign finance
bill that most Republicans opposed, but only because a petition
drive was about to force it to a vote.
Democratic majorities in previous Congresses made similar
concessions. The North American Free Trade Agreement passed
in 1993 despite opposition from most House and Senate Democrats,
who then held power. That trade deal was backed by President
Clinton, a Democrat.
Nothing has helped the minority party influence legislation
this year more than Senate Republicans' liberal use of the
filibuster. The obstructionist tactic can be overcome only
with 60 votes in the 100-member chamber, where Democrats hold
51 seats.
The current Senate is on pace to shatter the record for filibusters,
making the once-rare maneuver virtually an everyday threat.
GOP senators used vote-delaying filibusters this year to thwart
House and Senate majorities on efforts to offset the $50 billion
cut in projected revenue from the alternative minimum tax;
allow the government to negotiate Medicare drug prices; impose
new taxes on oil companies; require more use of renewable fuels
in generating electricity; grant congressional representation
to the District of Columbia; and require more rest time from
troops deployed to Iraq.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says little can
be done until and unless more Democrats replace Republicans
in the Senate.
"We need to do more" on numerous fronts, he said
in his party's weekly radio address Saturday, "but time
after time, when Democrats have fought for change, President
Bush and Republicans in Congress have stood in the way."
___
On the Net:
Senate Democrats: http://democrats.senate.gov/
Senate Republicans: http://www.republican.senate.gov
House Democrats: http://www.dems.gov/
House Republicans: http://www.gop.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. BadConcress.com has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is BadCongress.com
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
|
