FAYETTEVILLE — President Ricardo Martinelli of Panama recently visited the University of Arkansas, of which he is a graduate. The Panamanian leader’s visit caused me to think back to 1978 when the U.S. Senate spent months considering the Panama Canal Treaties.
After extensive debate, the treaties were approved with one vote to spare beyond the two-thirds required.
At the time the treaties were highly controversial and some senators were adamantly opposed. However, despite predictions that the treaties, which eventually turned over control of the canal to Panama, would be a disaster for the United States, approving them was the right thing to do and they have been remarkably successful.
Although the treaties were primarily negotiated by a Democratic administration, they could not have passed without Republican support.
Particularly crucial was the role of Republican Minority Leader Howard Baker, who worked closely with Democratic Majority Leader Robert Byrd in steering the treaties through some treacherous waters.
As a staff member working with the Senate leadership, I had a close-up view of that cooperative effort. Byrd and Baker introduced “leadership amendments,” putting the Senate’s stamp on the treaties, strengthening provisions protecting U.S.
interests. That strategy was critical in gettingthe necessary bipartisan support. Most Democrats supported the treaty, but not all, and some Republican support was vital. Numerous “killer” amendments were proposed by some of the adamant opponents of the treaties, but they were all rejected.
That example of bipartisanship stands in sharp contrast to what have seen in Washington in recent times. I’m not suggesting that all partisan considerations were cast aside in 1978. That seldom happens in Congress.
And, indeed there were senators who sought to leverage their treaty votes to gain support for pet projects, and others who were completely close-minded even when facts contradicted their hyperbolic claims.
Over the years there have been many examples of bipartisanship on important issues. And there have been extraordinary individuals, productive legislators, and influential statesmen in the Senate. Like many institutions, however, it is subject to cyclical variances. At present it is better known forgridlock, obstructionism, and shameless pandering.
The leadership has been portrayed as ineffective and out of synch with public sentiment.
Leading the Senate is difficult. Its functioning is dependent on willingness to find common ground and on mutual and institutional respect. Because so much of its operation depends on unanimous consent, one recalcitrant member can drive the Senate into the ditch, as seen in recent antics by Jim Bunning and Richard Shelby. And partisan passions effectively mean that it takes 60 votes, rather than the normal simple majority, even to bring measures up for consideration in the Senate because of the ever-present filibuster threat.
Because of the impasse over health care legislation, the Senate Democratic leadership, supported by the White House, is considering avoiding that 60-vote threshold by resorting to the arcane procedure of “reconciliation,” which would only require majority approval for some parts of a final bill. Those dead set against the legislation are outraged at what they see as an end run and claim that the proponents are trying to rush or ram the legislation through. Democrats may have made many mistakes in handling the health care issue, but it has been debated for nearly a year in Congress and was subject to extensive consideration by congressional committees.
Republican Sen.
Orrin Hatch said using reconciliation would“corrode the legislative process, degrade our system of government, and damage the prospects of bipartisanship.” However, many would conclude that this has already happened.
And although there may be legitimate questions about the propriety of using reconciliation, established to deal with budgetary matters, this process has been used 22 times in the past, including 16 when Republicans controlled at least one chamber in Congress, and several of these have involved healthrelated issues.
Though House procedures are considerably different from the Senate’s, the House leaders face their own challenges. It is not clear that even if reconciliation is used that both houses will approve final legislation.
And now we find ourselves in an election year, with many Senate seats, including one in Arkansas, hotly contested and with partisan posturing bound to be abundant. What we need in the Senate, however, are not robotic partisans intent on obstructing and polarizing, but thoughtful, open-minded legislators committed to searching for constructive and cooperative solutions to the nation’s problems, making the Senate once again an institution where hardline partisanship does not prevail.
----
HOYT PURVIS IS A JOURNALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS.
Opinion, Pages 7 on 03/07/2010