The New York Times today writes about Democratic concern that Ted Kennedy will make a bad deal on immigration. The article describes how Republican and Democratic Senate leaders - including John McCain, Ted Kennedy, Bill Frist and Harry Reid - arrived at a compromise on amnesty provisions
[McCain and Kennedy] managed to bring other influential senators on board and presented a comprehensive plan that provided part of the framework for legislation approved by the Judiciary Committee. Though that plan met resistance from Senate Republicans who viewed it as amnesty for those who had entered the country illegally, the Senate announced a tentative agreement that embraced a version of the Kennedy-McCain approach. But it lasted only hours. Mr. Frist, confronted by angry members of his party, insisted on the opportunity to allow consideration of some amendments. Democrats balked.
In a meeting Thursday evening in Mr. Reid's office, Mr. Kennedy argued for moving ahead with the bill, confident that the votes were there to beat back objectionable changes and that the debate could build momentum for the measure. Mr. Reid and his leadership team countered that the amendments were meant to derail the bill. They feared that without some assurances by Mr. Frist on negotiations with the House, the bill could be hijacked by Republicans. Mr. Kennedy lost.
So the goal of Senate Democrats on this topic is to get a deal on amnesty that they can support, and then make sure that:
1) Senate Republicans don't have an opportunity to amend it; and,
2) That it is not changed in negotiations with House Republicans.
What defenders of Democracy and the rule of the majority!
This is a far cry from what the Democrats' call for open debate when the House considered its immigration bill. In fact Alcee Hastings, one of the Democratic leaders debating the bill, complained that Republicans were trying to shut down the debate:
This restrictive rule blocks all but a select few from offering amendments to the underlying legislation. The chairman of the Rules Committee was in here a minute ago and said that they have made more Democratic measures, speaking of the entirety of the session, in order than Republican measures. Well, that does not hold for this particular party in part B, a very confusing process, I might add, which even the majority leader recognized.
Republicans are again allowing important and critical debates to happen behind the closed doors of the Republican Conference rather than on the House floor in the eye of the public.
Seems like Congressman Hastings would have a real problem with the actions of Harry Reid. Are there any other Democrats who might have trouble with Reid's effort to close off debate? Well, I found a Senior Senate Democrat who recently said this:
...That is why we have an amendment process in the Senate. The junior Senator from Wisconsin has tried to offer a small number of relevant amendments that I believe would make this bill even better. I am disappointed that he has been denied that opportunity by a procedural maneuver known as “filling the amendment tree.”
This is a very bad practice. It runs against the basic nature of the Senate. The hallmark of the Senate is free speech and open debate. Rule 22 establishes a process for cutting off debate and amendments, but Rule 22 should rarely be invoked before any amendments have been offered. There is no reason to truncate Senate debate on this important bill in this unusual fashion.
In case you're wondering, the Senate Democrat who said this was one Harry Reid of Nevada, protesting the efforts of Senate Republicans to limit amendments to the Patriot Act. It comes from all the way back in February.
It seems that Congressional Democrats support open debate when it is politically expedient, and want to squelch debate when it suits them politically. In fact, Ruben Navarette charges that they favor cutting off debate for political gain, even if it means surrendering legislative victories. But they only do that if they think they can get away with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment