Why the Senate likes to egangf around those divisive issues
By David A. Fahrenthold, Saturday, May 7, 2011
The U.S. Senate has a gang problem.
To tackle immigration, senators formed a Gang
of 12. On energy policy, they tried a Gang of 10 (
which became a Gang of 20). Now, under pressure to lower the national debt,
Congress is waiting for a bipartisan plan from a Gang
of Six.
Those are the gangs. This is the problem: Often, they donft work.
The gangs of 12, 10 and 20 all failed. So did the Senatefs last
Gang of Six , which sought bipartisan agreement on health care in 2009.
These informal groups are intended to create breakthroughs, in a Senate
paralyzed by odd rules and polarized parties. But they usually fizzle out,
because the Senate is paralyzed by odd rules and polarized parties.
This week, the newest gang was already dragging its feet. So the Senate may
be on the verge of re-learning a lesson that it never seems to remember.
gItfs soothing to believe that these seemingly intractable problems can be at
least addressed by people of goodwill, working togetherh in gangs, said Ross
K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University.
gEven though they canft be,h he said.
The current Gang of Six — three Republicans and three Democrats — has been
working together for months. Its goal is to to forge a compromise on the most
divisive issue in todayfs Congress: how to reduce the deficit and the ballooning
national debt.
On Thursday, gang member Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman
of the Budget Committee, said the groupfs talks remain on hiatus while another
member, Sen. Tom Coburn
(R-Okla.), is out of town tending to a family emergency.
Conrad is one of the Hillfs most committed gang members. He participated in
the Gangs of 10 and 20, as well as the Gang of Six on health care. But he said
he was gquite optimistich that this group could succeed where others had
faltered.
gThere have been mixed results, thatfs for sure,h he said in a telephone
interview. But Conrad said the circumstances demanded forming a new gang (Conrad
calls them ggroupsh). He said the debt demanded a real solution — and in a
divided Congress, a solution could only come from a bipartisan agreement.
gTherefs a growing consensus that failure is not an option,h Conrad said.
While his group works, House Republicans and President Obama have already
proposed their own separate budgets, and Vice
President Biden is leading another bipartisan work group of legislators.
Gangs like this one are a product of the Senatefs independent ethos. The
House functions like two choirs: party leaders pick the music, and their members
generally line up and sing. The Senate, on the other hand, acts more like 100
soloists, each feeling free to make his own alliances.
A ggangh is usually an alliance focused on a specific issue, which forms
outside the Senatefs party structures. The media nickname for these groups is
new, taken from the gGang of
Fourh that helped rule China in the 1960s and 1970s.
But the idea is an old one. In 1860, for instance, a bipartisan gCommittee of
13h senators set out to find a compromise that would stave off the Civil
War.
gAnd they failed,h said Don Ritchie, the Senatefs official historian.
Not that there havenft been successful gangs. In the 1980s, there was the Gang
of Five, Republican senators who pushed President Ronald Reagan toward more
environment-friendly policies by threatening to vote with Democrats.
And in 2005, a bipartisan Gang of 14 defused a Senate
showdown over some of President George W. Bushfs judicial nominees. The gang
members said they wouldnft vote for extreme measures planned by Republicans or
Democrats: They forced a compromise in which some judges were confirmed.
But it has been far harder for gangs that want to produce, not just block.
They often seek to make back-channel connections between the two parties,
circumventing committee chairmen and party bosses who are too caught up in
partisan fighting.
The problem is that when theyfre done, the chairmen and bosses and partisan
fighting are still there.
gThe very reason that theyfre necessary,h said Steven Smith, of Washington
University in St. Louis, gis the same reason why itfs unlikely that theyfll
succeed.h
In 2007, the Gang of 12 tried to fashion a grand compromise on immigration.
Their plan died after bipartisan opposition. In 2008, the Gang of 10 was working
on an equally grand compromise on energy: It might have included expanded
offshore drilling (for Republicans) and limits on oil industry tax breaks (for
Democrats). The group grew to 20, but their plan was shelved during
election-year battles over high gas prices.
In 2009, Sen. Max
Baucus (D-Mont.) convened a bipartisan Gang of Six on health care. After
months of meetings, it became a gang of nobody; the members couldnft agree.
Baucus released his own plan, and the debate dissolved into bitter partisan
fighting.
So why do they keep trying?
gThese smaller groups do work. Even though they donft work, in a formal
sense,h said Sen.
Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), a veteran of the 2009 version of the Gang of Six. He
said gangs provide a more intimate setting to discuss policy ideas, and that
some of the gangfs ideas survive and make it into law. gYou can get a lot more
done than you can through a formal hearing process.h
Political scientists see other, less flattering rationales. They say that
serving in a gang looks good, even if the gang goes nowhere: it makes a senator
appear to float above the unpopular clatter of partisan bickering.
Most members of the current Gang of Six — Coburn, Mark Warner (D-Va.),
Richard J.
Durbin (D-Ill.), Michael D. Crapo
(R-Idaho) and Saxby
Chambliss (R-Ga.) — declined to comment this week about why they chose to
join another gang.
The task theyfve chosen now is one that makes even the Senatefs most hardened
veteran gang members leery.
In the past six years, Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) a
conservative Democrat, has joined gangs of 10, 14, 16 and 20. But, looking at
this gang from the outside, he wonders if the debt is just too vast a
subject for any six senators to tackle on their own.
gThat may be too big for Congress in general,h Nelson said, gnot just a
gang.h
© The Washington Post Company