POLITICAL PLAYBOOK
Posted September 26, 1996
Although the 104th Congress has managed to pump out a slew of last-minute legislation in its final weeks, many of the ambitions of its Republican leaders were never met. Some of the Congress' biggest fights, like the duel with the President over balancing the budget while sharply cutting taxes, are well-known. But several other lesser bills that many Republicans (and some Democrats) expected to pass nearly came to fruition but never succeeded. Bills have many lives, however, and some of those killed this year may rise again in the 105th Congress. A Playbook roundup of some bills that could have been, and why they weren't:
Would Have: Approved a Constitutional amendment -- which would still need to be ratified by the states -- requiring the federal government balance its budget by 2002, or two years after the amendment's ratification.
Status: The House approved the amendment on Jan. 26, 1995, 300-132. The Senate twice failed to pass it, 65-35 on March 2, 1995 and again on June 6, 1996, 64-35.
Why It Didn't Pass: It very nearly did. As a constitutional amendment, the measure required a two-thirds vote in the Senate (67). Before then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole changed his vote for procedural reasons, he had mustered 66, and fell just one vote short. The final holdout, Senate Appropriations Chairman Mark Hatfield, R-OR, was almost stripped of his chairmanship as a result.
Next Year? In the unlikely event that Republicans gain a couple of seats in the Senate this November, the measure is quite likely to pass that body. However, with Democrats expected to win back influence and perhaps even control of the House, a balanced budget amendment may not make it past that chamber again.
Would Have: Reformed the financing of Congressional campaigns. The bipartisan Senate version sought to outlawed donations from political action committees (PACs) and instituted voluntary spending limits on Congressional campaigns, rewarding those who complied with free television air time and cheaper postage rates. The House Republican version would have set new limits the contributions individuals and PACs could give to a candidate, with exemptions for candidates who faced millionaire opponents. House Democrats proposed a version seeking voluntary spending limits.
Status: The House defeated both a Republican and a Democratic proposal on July 25, 1996. The votes were 162-259, and 177-243, respectively. The Senate failed to invoke cloture on debate of its bill on June 25, 1996, 54-46.
Why It Didn't Pass: Despite a famous handshake between President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich promising to institute campaign finance reform, efforts to do so are as muddled and stalled as ever. Simply put, members of Congress are reluctant to change the system that got them elected. And PACs and interest groups, fearing their influence may be threatened, have lobbied against many reform provisions.
Next Year? That's what they always say.
Would Have: Approved a constitutional amendment -- which would still have to be ratified by the states -- limiting members of Congress' terms. The version supported by the leadership would have limited members to 12 years in Congress (six terms for House members and two terms for Senators). It would not have applied retroactively to current members.
Status: The House rejected a bill on March 29, 1995, 227-204. The Senate failed to close debate on the bill on April 23, 1996, and the bill was withdrawn from consideration.
Why It Didn't Pass: In general, it's hard to get people to kick themselves out of their own jobs. A vigorous term limits movement applied hard pressure on lawmakers, and dozens of Republican freshmen came to Washington firmly committed to such laws. But many of Congress' most influential leaders -- some, like then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, who happened to have been there for decades -- were at best lukewarm to the idea. And since the bill was a proposed Constitutional amendment, it required a two-thirds vote rather than a straight majority for passage.
Next Year? Of the 10 vows in the Contract With America on which Congress voted, only term limits failed to pass. After the failed House vote, Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared on the House floor to pledge another term limits vote in the next Congress. In the Senate, Sen. Fred Thompson, R-TN, has also promised to raise the issue during the next session. In the current political climate, a term limits bill would not pass a Democratic Congress.
Would Have: Overhauled the multibillion dollar federal cleanup of toxic waste sites around the country. Republican leaders never agreed upon a final version that appeared acceptable for floor votes. But the driving idea behind the revamp was to end "retroactive liability," which refers to the liability of some companies for the cleanup of waste dumped legally before superfund laws came into effect in 1980. Republicans say repealing retroactive liability would streamline and speed up the cleanup process, although it would cost the government more money.
Status: The House Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous Materials approved a bill on November 9, 1995, 15-11. Neither the full House nor the Senate is expected to vote on the bill this year.
Why It Didn't Pass: Republicans experienced difficulties on many fronts. The GOP's reputation on environmental issues was severely damaged in the early months of the 104th Congress, and thus Republican leaders tread extra-carefully in the area. Democrats charged that Republicans were in the pocket of big businesses who wanted to stick taxpayers with the tab for their pollution, and would have fought hard on a floor vote. And even Republican leaders conceded it was harder than they had expected to find the money to pay for cleanups without retroactive liability funding.
Next Year? Observers of this issue say much depends on which candidate wins the White House. Meanwhile, the superfund program is running out of money, and drawing on a surplus account that is expected to run out in 2000. Thus, a fight over new superfund taxes may accompany the next stage of battling over the program.
Would Have: Ratified U.S. participation in an international treaty outlawing the production, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons. The treaty would exempt "riot-control" use of agents such as tear gas. It would establish a system of inspections of both chemical weapons sites and factories capable of producing chemical agents, and would make the transfer of deadly chemical agents more difficult.
Status: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved ratification on April 25, 13-5. Last week a full Senate vote was canceled, and there are no plans to consider the treaty again this year.
Why It Didn't Pass: A combination of persistence by conservative activists and presidential politics derailed the treaty vote. Influential conservatives who generally oppose American entanglement in international treaties, led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Jesse Helms, R-NC, and freshman Sen. Jon Kyl, R-AZ, rallied Senators against ratification. Then, Bob Dole expressed his previously unstated opposition to the treaty at the eleventh hour, swaying several uncommitted Senators. Dole decried the treaty's impositions on the U.S. chemical industry, despite the fact that most major chemical firms had endorsed it.
Next Year? The treaty can still be considered in the 105th Congress, and may win ratification in the absence of a presidential campaign environment.