01-22-2000

CONGRESS: When in Doubt, Find the Cameras and Posture

There are times-especially when Capitol Hill is awash in partisan
bickering and an Election Day looms-when lawmakers decide that their best
political strategy is to pursue proposals that lend themselves to
high-voltage rhetoric. Consequently, this year many of Capitol Hill's
denizens are likely to concentrate on energizing their allies and putting
their partisan foes on the defensive. Of course, such an approach has
little to do with the business of looking after the public good-it's all
about posturing.


"We are going to see a whole host of votes and legislative battles
that are designed not to legislate but to position the parties for the
approaching elections," predicted Thomas E. Mann, an analyst at the
Brookings Institution, in a recent interview. Echoing that sentiment,
Marshall Wittmann, the director of congressional relations-U.S. Senate for
the Heritage Foundation, expects a frenzy of partisan arm-flailing this
year. "Especially as you get closer to the elections, both parties
will try to use the amendment process particularly to score political
points," he said.


Reflecting the acrimony that is deeply ingrained in the Hill these
days-and the slim margins separating the parties, especially in the
House-plenty of high-stakes political gamesmanship was already in play
last year. From gun control to abortion, controversial issues provided
each side with plenty of opportunities to make hay. For example, even as
the impeachment vote colored much of the legislative process, lawmakers
scrambled to develop a response to a series of highly publicized acts of
violence, most dramatically manifested in the mayhem and murder in high
school classrooms. They knew there was little chance that serious gun
control legislation would emerge in the sour atmosphere on Capitol Hill,
especially with the powerful gun lobby taking no prisoners.


But something had to be done to show that members of Congress were not
indifferent to the horrific series of shootings. The problem, most
Republican lawmakers decided, is a steady decline in the country's moral
values. Cultural decay has been setting in, big-time. Eager to do
something, the GOP pushed two high-profile measures in June. Both
proposals appear to have more to do with symbolism and shoring up
political support on the right than with curtailing violence.


First, a Republican-backed measure in the House proposed allowing the Ten
Commandments to be posted at schools and other state-run facilities. The
proposal passed with the backing of more than 90 percent, or 203, of the
Republicans, but was endorsed by only 45 Democrats, just over 20 percent.
The measure may well be unconstitutional, but lawmakers seemed undisturbed
by the prospect of having their plan of action tossed overboard by the
federal courts.


A week later, on June 24, the House cleared a constitutional amendment (as
it has twice before) that would ban any desecration of the American flag.
Again, GOP support was overwhelming, totaling 210 members, or more than 95
percent. Only 95 Democrats, fewer than half of their membership in the
House, favored it. The amendment faces an uphill battle in the Senate.
Even if it were to pass there, it would also need the approval of 38
states in order to be enacted. If the proposal clears all those hurdles,
it will be the first time in history that the free speech clause in the
Constitution's First Amendment has been modified.


The coup de grace on these cultural issues came a few months later, when a
group of powerful GOP leaders moved to resurrect a favorite chestnut: a
constitutional amendment to allow prayer in public schools. "In the
battle for our culture, we all need to understand that you cannot just
stand up for America, you need to kneel down for America," House GOP
Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas said in September, speaking from the
pulpit of Bible Way Temple, not far from the Capitol.


DeLay is a political operator. He counts votes as well as anyone on
Capitol Hill. He also knows how to use his muscle to sway colleagues, as
he so adroitly did last spring when the House wouldn't support NATO's air
campaign in Kosovo against Serbia-its refusal was an embarrassing defeat
for President Clinton. But DeLay and other senior Republicans also know
that no matter how tenaciously they fight for a school prayer amendment,
their chances for success are close to zero. In 1998 the amendment failed
to garner even the requisite two-thirds margin in the House and never
emerged at all for a vote in the Senate.


So why pursue a surefire loser? "What's important is to vote, have a
national debate, so the American people can see who's with `em and who's
agin `em," DeLay said, according to The Fort Worth
Star-Telegram.


Such votes are also helpful because they are rated on scorecards that
interest groups compile and distribute shortly before an election. In
1997, when the Christian Coalition fought for a vote on the school prayer
amendment, Ralph Reed, then the group's executive director, made clear how
it could be used. The goal, he said, was to inundate Capitol Hill with
more than a million telegrams, petitions, and other messages demanding a
vote on the issue before the 1998 congressional elections. And why was
this so important? "So that the American people know where every
member of Congress stands on the issue before they go to the polls,"
he said, according to reports at the time.


Although there was no evidence that the American people were, in fact,
clamoring to know where lawmakers stood on the school prayer issue, Reed
was well aware that the information could generate enthusiasm in the
Religious Right and motivate its members to vote.


Democrats are every bit as aggressive in using the legislative process to
gain tactical advantages. For example, James Jay Baker, the executive
director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative
Action, noted that Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., pushed a bill last year to
eliminate certain bankruptcy protections for firearms manufacturers if
they are sued. Forcing a vote on the proposal, said Baker, would put
vulnerable first-term Sen. Spencer Abraham, R-Mich., in the difficult
position of casting a no-win vote that would alienate potential supporters
in his re-election bid this year.


Levin's proposal would prohibit manufacturers and distributors of firearms
from securing bankruptcy protection to avoid debts incurred as a result of
fraud, negligence, recklessness, or product liability. "He would
treat firearms manufacturers different than any other industry,"
Baker said in an interview. "That has everything in the world to do
with the Senate race in his state. [The goal is to] get Spence on the
record on the other side [of the issue] and then try to beat the hell out
of him with it. It is basically taking a bankruptcy bill and whacking it
around for political purposes."


On a larger scale, Democrats have also actively sought to push red-hot
issues to appeal to their hard-core supporters. They tried to turn the
tables on Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., when he took to the floor last
October in his third attempt in the past four years to end what he calls
the "brutal and barbaric procedure" that he refers to as
"partial-birth abortion." Support for his proposal has grown
from 54 votes in 1995 to 64 in 1998, just three shy of the number needed
to override the inevitable presidential veto.


As Santorum put Democrats on the defensive by fighting to end a procedure
that polls indicate is not viewed sympathetically by a majority of
Americans, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, responded by seeking a vote on a
nonbinding resolution to provide a sense of the Senate on Roe vs. Wade,
the 1973 Supreme Court decision that gave constitutional protection to
abortions. What gives? After all, there was no need for Senators to give
their opinions on a case decided so long ago.


But the vote, which passed, 51-47, on Oct. 21, rallied the pro-choice
constituency that most Democrats rely on heavily as part of their base.
The Democratic gambit also put Republicans in a tough spot. After all, it
is one thing to try to outlaw late-term abortions, but quite another to be
on record opposing the right of a woman to choose an abortion altogether-a
right that has consistently garnered majority support in polls.


Of the debate over late-term abortions, Elliot M. Mincberg, the vice
president and legal director of the liberal People for the American Way,
said, "I'm not saying that there aren't real ideologies and emotions
and principle there, but there is a lot of politics, too."


Some political scientists argue that it is an exaggeration to suggest that
today's gamesmanship on Capitol Hill is much more intense than it was in
the past-or that it is something new. "In the second half of Herbert
Hoover's term, Democrats in Congress, being very hungry for victory after
10 years out of power, viewed their main mission as preparing the way for
the Democratic nominee, so that they stymied what little Herbert Hoover
proposed, and sponsored and passed programs that they knew Hoover would
veto," said Larry J. Sabato, a political science professor at the
University of Virginia. "That's essentially the same thing [that's
happening today] on a very important scale."


Still, the NRA's Baker insists that the maneuvering for political mileage
has "gotten worse every session" since he began lobbying more
than 20 years ago. "In some respects, it's because the margins are
thinner and thinner, and control for the majority in each body is more and
more within [each party's] grasp, and the stakes are higher," he
said. "It's hard to quantify-but it seems to me it has reached a
fevered pitch."


Look for the fevered pitch to reach all-time high (or low) levels in the
coming months. After all, in a year that is likely to be marked by
stalemate, both sides will shift into overdrive to use the process to
boost their prospects in November.


Kirk Victor

National Journal