Republicans Halt Ethics Legislation Senators Sought Virtual Line-Item Veto By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, January 18, 2007; A06 Senate Republicans scuttled broad legislation last night to curtail lobbyists' influence and tighten congressional ethics rules, refusing to let the bill pass without a vote on an unrelated measure that would give President Bush virtual line-item-veto power. The bill could be brought back up later this year. Indeed, Democrats will try one last time today to break the impasse. But its unexpected collapse last night infuriated Democrats and the government watchdog groups that had been pushing it since the lobbying scandals that rocked the last Congress. Proponents charged that Republicans had used the spending-control measure as a ruse to thwart ethics rules they dared not defeat in a straight vote. "It's as obvious as the sun coming up somewhere in this world that they tried to kill this bill," a furious Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said last night in an interview. "And all 21 Republican senators up for reelection are going to have to explain how they brought down the most significant reform ever to come before this Congress. They brought this baby down." But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said insistence on a line-item-veto vote was proof that the GOP is serious about passing the toughest possible overhaul of the way Congress conducts its business. Efforts to give Bush power to strike individual items from spending bills have been struck down by the Supreme Court, but Senate Republicans insist that the latest version will pass constitutional muster. The bill was to be the Democratic-controlled Senate's first piece of legislation, a statement of bipartisanship and a break from the scandals that helped return the party to power. Instead, a measure that began with Reid and McConnell as co-sponsors was chased from the floor in a partisan showdown when Republicans prevented the Democratic leadership from bringing it to a vote. The 51 to 46 vote was nowhere close to the two-thirds majority needed to break the Republican filibuster. Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said he hopes "this is just going to be a bump in the road," but, he added, "this is going to be a long road over the next two years and this is not a good start." The bill matched the rule changes approved earlier this month in the House, banning meals, trips and gifts from lobbyists. But it went beyond those internal alterations to effect legal changes that would have reached far beyond Capitol Hill. Democrats pushed amendments that would have forced lobbyists to publicly divulge the small campaign contributions they collect from clients and "bundle" into large contributions. Lavish gatherings thrown by lobbyists and corporate interests at party conventions would have been banned. And interest groups would have had to reveal the money they spend on campaigns to rally voters for or against legislation, a provision that had raised the ire of conservative activists such as Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform as well as the National Right to Life Committee. Proponents of the provision said it would combat activities brought to light during the Jack Abramoff scandal. Abramoff, a once-powerful Republican lobbyist now in federal prison, channeled millions of dollars from Indian gambling clients through nonprofit groups run by former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed and Norquist to fund campaigns against rival tribal interests. Opponents of the provision waged a backroom campaign against the bill, but ultimately its undoing came on an unrelated measure. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) demanded a vote on a measure long-sought by Bush that would allow the president to submit to Congress a list of spending items the White House wishes to strike from congressionally passed spending bills. Congress would then be forced to vote on whether to sustain or accept those rescissions. Democrats argued that the measure had nothing to do with ethics and lobbying reform, but Republicans said their efforts were no different from the gambit that Democrats took last year, temporarily derailing a weaker ethics bill by demanding a vote against the takeover of U.S. port management by a Dubai-owned shipping company. Reid and McConnell worked to reach a compromise that would have brought the Gregg bill to a vote in the coming weeks, but that pact could not overcome the objections of Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), an opponent of the line-item veto. Government watchdog groups did not think that the fight had anything to do with spending authority and everything to do with the ethics bill. "Whatever they're saying, Republican votes tonight were votes to prevent the Senate from enacting major lobbying and ethics reforms to deal with corruption scandals in Congress," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the watchdog group Democracy 21. "I don't think anyone's getting away with anything here."
Why should anyone be surprised? The Republican Congress is corrupt. That's a large part of why they lost in November, and it will be a large part of why they will lose even worse in '08. D&D. Garbage Stinks.
I feel for you. Apparently not. This ploy is so incredibly transparent. To compare it to the Dubai vote is rediculous. D&D. The Ice is Dripping.
According to Gregg, the amendment provides that the president can send up to 4 rescission packages per year. Congress would be required to fast track the President’s recommendation within 8 days. Also, unlike a line-item veto proposal that was defeated in Congress in 1996, Gregg's amendment today requires congressional affirmation of the President’s rescission package. Savings from rescissions passed by Congress must be used for deficit reduction. The authority sunsets after 4 years – giving Congress the ability to evaluate merits of rescission authority after President Bush and his successor have had the opportunity to use it. Reid doesn't want the Senate to vote on the Gregg amendment, which has 30 co-sponsors, including senators from both sides of the aisle. Yeah, this sounds like a horrible piece of legislation. I'm truly shocked that 3 of the porkiest politicians around - Reid, Durbin, Byrd - are against it. How does amending a reform bill to *make it stronger* = killing the bill? Why is Reid not allowing a *vote* by the full Senate on the amendment? Where was the outrage in here about Harry Reid trying (and failing) to block serious earmark reform earlier this week?
Forgive me if I don't want a proven failure as a President, in my opinion, to obtain a line item veto. And don't pretend that this was nothing but an effort to kill the lobby reform bill. That's exactly what it was. D&D. Waterloo Ice House describes my House and Yard.
Its a fair point, though. If Democrats are so opposed to that line-item veto, they could simply bring it up for a vote and defeat it. Even if it passed, the President only gets line-item veto power with the approval of Congress each time he vetos something. The fact that they let this kill ethics reform is disappointing. Its just more playing politics. Let things come to a vote - if they are so bad, they'll get defeated.
I disagree. Bring a line item veto up for a vote as a bill. Don't attach it to a reform bill to kill it. D&D. It's Melting!
Fair enough. But given that Republicans connected the votes, why not have the vote? Is it better to scrap ethics reform than to just allow the vote on the other bill? If the purpose of the GOP was to kill the ethics bill, then the Democrats just allowed them to do it - when they could easily have stopped it by allowing the other vote. That said, according to the article, they did compromise on that. Byrd killed it: Reid and McConnell worked to reach a compromise that would have brought the Gregg bill to a vote in the coming weeks, but that pact could not overcome the objections of Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), an opponent of the line-item veto.
Except that's not why Sen. Gregg attached it to this bill, as Major pointed out. “Despite reaching a good-faith agreement with the Democratic leadership that my fiscally responsible amendment, A Second Look at Wasteful Spending, would be taken up at another time, I was disappointed to learn that objections from another Democratic senator effectively blocked that agreement. I fully support ethics reform – in fact, I offered my amendment to strengthen the ethics reform package – so will continue to push for a vote on this reasonable proposal to reduce wasteful federal spending. I cannot support ending debate on this bill until the Senate has had a chance to fully debate and vote on a proposal to improve the government’s stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle to achieve that goal.” - Sen. Judd Gregg
it was absent. "reform" is only important if democrats are pushing it, and then only on their terms. [rquoter]Democrats argued that the measure had nothing to do with ethics and lobbying reform, but Republicans said their efforts were no different from the gambit that Democrats took last year, temporarily derailing a weaker ethics bill by demanding a vote against the takeover of U.S. port management by a Dubai-owned shipping company. Reid and McConnell worked to reach a compromise that would have brought the Gregg bill to a vote in the coming weeks, but that pact could not overcome the objections of Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), an opponent of the line-item veto.[/rquoter]
Or how about my post in the minimum wage thread that went ignored which stated that Nancy Pelosi exempted part of her own district from the new minimum wage? Oh yeah, Pelosi has a (D) after her name, so it's OK.
BS. He attached to kill. He knew that Byrd would veto any line-item bill (which fwiw is likely not constitutional anyway). Why didn't Gregg push this through while his party controlled both Houses? Maybe since his party does not want it passed. Maybe since all Repub pork is good by definition but Dem pork is the end-all of evil. Anyway equating "reducing wasteful federal spending" with "ethics reform" is a stretch. This is just Politics (like the Dubai bill). I don't know which is sadder .... expecting better behaviour from Congress or their actual behaviour.
If it is anything like the one proposed last year by the Republicans, it is a horrible piece of legislation... The questions raised are troubling ones not just for the budget, but for the balance of power in our Federal government. I was not able to find a detailed account of the Gregg Amendment to S.1, but I suspect it contains very similar provisions. If you can show that between last year and now these concerns were mitigated in a bipartisan fashion... perhaps hearings or some other form, then your argument has some legs. If what Gregg put forth is anywhere close to what this article documents, it is clear that the Republicans knew the Dems would not stand for such a thing. What's troubling is that you shouldn't have to be Dem or Repub... this is a bad bill that changes the structure of our government for the worse. I should also note that although the President currently has the ability to identify wanted recissions, President Bush has not utilized this tool once during his Presidency.
It wasn't attached. They were two separate votes. They negotiated a vote on each item completely separately. Byrd wouldn't even allow the GOP measure to a vote and was willing to sacrifice the ethics bill to do it. That's a load of crap.
The question could also be put this way... Why didn't the Republicans just vote for the Ethics Bill and fight this fight another time? Why were these two inextricably linked? If you want to blame Dems for not compromising on a terrible piece of legislation in order to get the Ethics Bill passed, you also have to be critical of the Republicans who refused to allow the Ethics Bill to come to a vote because of their attachment to this horrible piece of legislation. The fact is the Republicans were the ones who voted against Cloture and thus doomed the Ethics Bill. Period. Poison pill all the way.
Because Democrats are in charge, and I support Democrats because I expect more out of them that Republicans. This is only way minority parties ever get their bills considered. It's not surprising, nor particularly a big deal. And Republicans *were* willing to negotiate and, in fact, DID negotiate a separate vote on it. Byrd killed that. If Democrats are just as pathetic as Republicans, then what's the point? There was no attachment. It was a separate bill. There would have been separate votes would have been on two completely separate pieces of legislation. This is the same crappy blame game Republicans used to blame failures on the Democrats the last six years. It's childish and results in exactly nothing getting done. Democrats could have put the bills to a vote and passed ethics reform and voted down the line-item veto if its a bad idea. That had full control of that and they didn't do it.
First, they didn't really want the bill considered. If that were true, they could have brought it before the Senate when they were running things. Second, I'm glad it was killed... it is a bad bill that changes the structure of our government and was proposed by Republicans not in the interest of better government, but to score political points... no doubt it would have been defeated and no doubt the Republicans would have painted the Dems as big spenders for voting against it. Further, a bill like that shouldn't even be considered... Really, what next? Perhaps a bill that supports the American Family by repealing a women's right to vote? It would be insane to bring that up for a vote... same principle here. Third, you ask "What's the point?" Well, if there is no difference, why the need for an ethics bill and why didn't Repubs try to pass one? At least the Dems got it on the table. Of course there was an attachment. If not, why this thread? Repubs knew that Byrd would not stand for a bill that undercuts the Senate, so they tied it to the Ethics Bill, which they did not want passed. If there was no attachment, then why didn't the Repubs allow a vote and fight the Veto fight later? To claim that the "compromise" was in force and at the same time claim that there was no attachment is ridiculous. Here's a clue... They don't have full control of that until they get 61 seats... the Ethics Bill wouldn't have been allowed to be voted on even if the Dems acceeded to the Repubs demands... there would have been another Repub Senator stand up and say "What about my idea? We should vote on that too!" They would keep doing this until they found something the Dems wouldn't compromise on. That they found it on the first try gives Repubs something to be proud of I guess.
