Senate moderates feeling squeezed

Sunday, November 21, 2004

WASHINGTON POLITICS: Bart Jansen

Senate Republicans changed their rules Wednesday in a way that moderates such as Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins both warned was a "mistake" that would be used to reward supporters and punish recalcitrant members.

The change approved on a 27-26 vote sounds innocuous because it simply allows the caucus leader to make committee appointments, rather than having members choose their assignments based on their seniority in the chamber. But in practice the switch will allow the leader to reward supporters or promising candidates with plum assignments, while blocking moves of lawmakers who don't toe the party line.

"I just think it's a mistake," Snowe said. "And there's only one reason for that change. It's to punish people."

The move was part of a consolidation of power by conservative Republicans who bolstered their majorities on Election Day with four more seats in each house of Congress.

House Republicans voted Wednesday to dump a rule that required leaders to step down if under indictment. Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, faces a criminal investigation in his home state in which three of his associates were indicted in connection with fund raising for state candidates. DeLay's supporters called any potential charges politically motivated.

"Republicans sold their collective soul to maintain their grip on power," said Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the second-ranking House Democrat.

CHANGE FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE

Meanwhile, Senate Republican leaders are discussing a parliamentary maneuver that would abolish the filibuster for judicial nominees. Ten nominations are blocked by unlimited debate, which requires a 60-vote supermajority to stop, and another five nominees are threatened.

Republicans are talking about interpreting Senate rules to ensure a 51-vote simple majority to approve judges. The stakes are high because vacancies are expected on the Supreme Court, where Chief Justice William Rehnquist is being treated for thyroid cancer.

Narrowing the majority required to approve judges is considered so incendiary that it's called the "nuclear option" in the Capitol because of the animosity it would spark among Democrats. So far the strategy is just talk.

But on Wednesday, Senate Republicans voted to change the committee assignments. Under the change, the Republican leader will be able to name his own choices to the first two vacancies on any committee. The rest would be filled as they are now, based on the seniority of lawmakers who want a given seat.

"I think it raises concerns about people constantly jockeying for position or worrying that their votes are going to be used against them," Collins said.

She served on the committee that studied rule changes, but she and another committee member, Sen. Dick Lugar, R-Ind., both opposed this change in particular.

Nobody could lose a committee assignment. But, for example, anyone who wanted to move from the Banking Committee to the Appropriations Committee, which decides where the federal government spends its money, would have to please the caucus leader.

Because few seats on coveted committees change hands during each two-year election cycle in Congress, the change will allow the leader to largely decide who serves where.

"One scenario I don't think that people have thought enough about is a case where there's a contest for the leader's position," Collins said. "In a case like that, you can be sure that the candidates are going to be trading committee assignment promises for votes."

Sen. Trent Lott, a former majority leader in the Senate, advocated the change as a way to reward supporters while still holding something over their heads on votes that might go against their home-state constituencies. He noted that Snowe, who served as his chief deputy whip in the House when he was the second-ranking Republican, got on the Budget Committee and on the Intelligence Committee with his help.

"In fact, that's the way you get a moderate to vote with you. You reward them. It's not punishment," said Lott, R-Miss. "You give them something they want, you help their region. Then when you need them when you need them, you say, 'I've got to have you.' "

UNDER FIRE

The move comes against a backdrop of conservative pressure to block Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., from becoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He's the most senior committee member, so his ascendancy is expected when the formal decision is made in January.

But he sparked outrage after winning re-election by saying the Senate probably wouldn't approve judicial nominees who oppose abortion rights. Advocacy groups such as Focus on the Family and the Christian Defense Coalition are lobbying against him becoming chairman. Specter spent the week meeting with various groups of Republicans to solidify his position.

The rule change for membership on committee doesn't come into play for his chairmanship. When asked about whether the change would be used to punish moderates, he disagreed.

"I don't think so, no," Specter said. "I would say not."

Snowe argued vehemently that it would. She said she wouldn't be hurt because she already has good committee assignments. But it would allow current and future leaders to shape committees more to their liking.

"It's not a benign issue," Snowe said. "It's not just moderates, it's anybody who has a dissenting view. That is held as a weapon. There's no question."

After spending 16 years in the House minority, Snowe said her party won the majority in 1994, when she won her Senate seat, because it was seen as the party of ideas and innovation. She argued that changing rules to punish dissidents at a time of growing majorities is a sign of weakness, not of strength.

"Are we going to punish people who don't stand in lockstep?" Snowe asked. "Are we going to punish people who have diverse views within our party?"

Staff Writer Bart Jansen can be contacted at 202-488-1119 or at:

bjansen@pressherald.com

To top of page