|
No confidence in Congress |
|
By John Fortier
|
|
Posted: 06/13/07 06:58 PM [ET] |
Sometimes the Senate is the world’s greatest deliberative body; sometimes it is not. No matter where you are on immigration, the Senate’s debate on that issue was substantive, spirited, and addressed a serious public policy concern. The “no confidence” vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was a waste of time.
For two weeks, the Senate showed its value in our political system. What other institution could allow such open debate on such a contentious issue? The president deliberates in private with his advisers. The House, if it takes up the immigration bill at all, will conduct a structured debate with limited amendments. The Senate, by contrast, was a model of openness.
Some complained that the underlying bill was crafted outside the committee process by a small group of senators. But Senate rules make it impossible for such a bill to be rammed through in the dark of night. The open debate on the floor served as a kind of committee of the whole, with senators marking up the bill with a series of amendments. Moreover, there was no shortage of political maneuvering; opponents of the bill introduced amendments to unravel its bipartisan support.
Proponents responded with their own substitute amendments.
It was a sometimes maddening, but ultimately honest process. Too bad it could not have gone on longer. Majority Leader Reid was too eager to close the debate, especially when it looked as if Republican leaders were close to a deal with their own members to limit debate to a finite number of key amendments. But the beauty of the Senate is that this debate is not dead.
Ultimately, we may or may not get an immigration reform bill, but there is a reasonable chance that the Senate will be back at it this summer.
The end of the substantive immigration reform debate was especially jarring, as the Senate then turned its gaze to the purely political no-confidence resolution on the attorney general.
Technically, Democrats are correct that the Senate has little confidence in Gonzales. Liberals have long disliked him for his role in defending an expansive view of presidential power. Conservatives were ready to mount a campaign to oppose him if he was appointed to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. There has also been a longstanding concern across the political spectrum that he is a “yes man,” having spent his whole public-service career working for President Bush. And of course, there are the current serious charges that he overly politicized parts of the Justice Department and that he was not forthcoming about it. Clearly, the president is not well-served by Gonzales, and there are plenty of solid, experienced Republican lawyers who could fill the post.
Ultimately, though, it is the president’s prerogative to keep or dismiss Gonzales. Congress should exercise its oversight authority of the Justice Department, but a non-binding resolution of disapproval is meaningless and partisan.
The wisest words were uttered by Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who put on his hat as a former majority leader.
His point was that there is much to do, and the hard stuff takes time. Two weeks on immigration is not so long; major bills like No Child Left Behind have taken longer. Immigration, energy and appropriations are all pressing concerns that will require substantive debate.
Even as a political tool, the maneuver was a bust, as vulnerable Senate Republicans were able to put themselves on the record as against Gonzales, while other Republicans could highlight that the exercise was a political circus.
With Congress’s own approval ratings at a low point, here’s a simple piece of advice: Stick to the substance.
Fortier is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. |
