      |
|
|
 |
|
« Back to The Congress - 2002 main page   Transcript for: The Congress - 2002Ben Wattenberg: Hello, Iım Ben Wattenberg. The November 2002 Congressional elections are coming up. Democrats now hold a one-seat advantage in the Senate. The Republicans have a slim majority in the House. There are issues aplenty. The economy is dicey. The President is talking a bout war in Iraq. How important are these elections? And how has our Congress been doing up until now? To find out more, Think Tank is joined by Michael Barone, senior writer for U.S. News & World Report, co-author of the Almanac of American Politics, and author of The New Americans: How the Melting Pot Can Work Again; and Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, columnist for Roll Call, and co-author of Vital Statistics on Congress. The topic before the house: The Congress 2002 This week on Think Tank. Ben Wattenberg: Norman Ornstein, Michael Barone, thank you very much for joining us on Think Tankagainyouıre both veterans. Norman, let me being with you. You wrote recently in Roll Call that the Congressional elections of 2002 might well be the most consequential of our time. What did you mean by that? Norman Ornstein: If you go back, Ben, through the 40-year period from 1954, when the Democrats captured both houses of Congress, to 1994, when Newt Gingrich gave the Republicans, for the first time, a majority back, you could look at virtually all of those elections, going in there was no question who would hold the majority in the House of Representatives. There were questions about whether there would be a change of 20, 30, 40 seats, more or less, but no question about the majority in the House. For most of those elections, until the Republicans took the Senate in 1980 when Reagan came in, there was no question. Now weıre at a period where both houses are so close that theyıre literally toss-ups. And probably, next time around, as we head for the 2004 elections, whichever party holds the majorities will be in the same position. And add to that one other factor, the parties are different than what they were back in the 50s and 60s and 70s through that other era when most of the members tended to congregate somewhere around the middle ideologically and there was some admixture between the parties. Now the Democrats have moved Left; the Republicans have moved Right. So the consequences of a shift in the majority, where if you have it you control the agenda, the timing of issues, what comes up and when, are much greater. Ben Wattenberg: Michael, do you buy that idea of the most consequential? It seems to me that every time we come to an election, somebody is saying this is the most consequential. Michael Barone: Well, somebody is often one of the candidates and indeed for that candidate it may indeed be the most consequential election, but for others not necessarily. I think Norm is absolutely right. Weıve got an exquisitely balanced American politics these days. In my introduction to my Almanac of American Politics 2002 I call this the 49 percent nation. I mean weıve had three straight presidential elections and three straight elections for the U.S. House where neither party has gotten a majority of the vote. The last time those two things happened was the 1880s. No one in Washington has a living memory of that, except of course Strom Thurmond. Ben Wattenberg: Consequential means more than just itıs close. How consequential in terms of the national polity are these elections, who controls by one vote or who doesnıt control by one vote? Norman Ornstein: If you have the majority in the Congress, you have the speakership in the House of Representatives to start with. You basically control the rules, you control the agenda. That means you can decide what issues come up, when they come up, and you can have some ability to limit the amendments that are offered to those issues. You have every committee chairmanship and every subcommittee chairmanship, so you decide the agenda and the committees. Ben Wattenberg: And the committees can decide to hear a certain issue or not hear a certain issue. Norman Ornstein: Hear a certain issue, not hear a certain issue. Haul up a cabinet member or CEO and grill them or not call them up. Focus on some things and use the Congressional bully pulpit. Michael Barone: Yeah, Ben, youıve got, for example, one word. Denny Hastert has been Speaker for four years, this is his fourth year as Speaker. Legislation is brought to the floor of the House under rules issued by the House Rules Committee, which limit amendments and so forth. You canıt really run a legislature of 435 members without some kind of restrictive rules. Every single one but one of those rules has passed during the four years that Denny Hastert has been Speaker. In other words, the Republican majority, and I think Majority Leader Dick Armey and Majority Whip Tom Delay have done a superb job of keeping their majority together on important and key votes, including issues that cross party lines a little bit, like fast track on trade. Ben Wattenberg: All of these strictures have ways around them. You can petition for discharge of a bill, but basically thatıs how it works. Michael Barone: Yes, they passed campaign finance, for example. The House eventually passed a bill the Speaker didnıt want, but the fact is on most issues they prevail. So, we have this year the Republican House passed a Republican version of prescription drug bill, paying for some seniors for prescription drugs. The Democratic Senate was unable to pass a bill one way or the other. So thatıs a pretty favorable place for the issue for Republican candidates. They can say, look we passed a prescription drug bill. Democrats didnıt even do it. The one before us is our bill. Now if the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives they could probably pass a Democratic version of a prescription drub bill. It would have a better chance of passing, or something like it in the Senate, and then the issue would be, is that mean, nasty George W. Bush going to veto prescription drugs for seniors. That puts the issue in a different light and itıs likely to produce a different legislative outcome. Ben Wattenberg: He has threatened the veto pen but hasnıt really used it much, has he? Michael Barone: He hasnıt used it at all. Norman Ornstein: Letıs put this in stark terms: if the Democrats had gained six more seats in the 2000 House elections, and held a majority by one vote in the House, they would have kept the Bush tax cut from coming up. Tax measures have to originate in the House. For months, taken away all the momentum, and we would not have had anywhere near the tax cut we got. We might have gotten a tax cut. We might not have gotten any tax cut. But the tax cut we got would have been far different and the Presidentıs top priority would have been delayed and diluted. Thatıs the difference it can make. Now if you have all the reins of power doesnıt mean you can get everything done because our system is so permeable and you canıt keep perfect party unity, but if you donıt have the reins of power then you donıt have the control of the agenda. Michael Barone: The first President Bush was really forced by the Democratic Congress to raise taxes in 1990 and to break his central promise of ³read my lips, no new taxes.² That was because Democrats had the majority in both houses and so you got a tax increase. Ben Wattenberg: He could have vetoed it. Michael Barone: He could have vetoed it, but as a practical matter they were holding his defense budget hostage. The reason he agreed to that tax cut, I believe, is that he felt that it was the only way to set separate fire walls to preserve defense spending from being cut as much as he feared the Democrats wanted to cut it. So he made a deal on taxes to save defense. Ben Wattenberg: So the President, in hockey terms, if the Congress is of the other persuasion, heıs sort of the goalie. He can stop a lot of shots, but he canıt stop them all. Michael Barone: And he can influence the negotiations by making veto threats, as Bill Clinton did on a number of occasions. Ben Wattenberg: And as Bush as done. Michael Barone: And as Bush has done occasionally. And Bush has been threatening a veto of the Homeland Security bill if it contains the provisions on civil service workers that the Democrats want to keep in it in the Senate. Ben Wattenberg: Norman, you also wrote in that article, I think, that not only is it the most consequential but the most unusual. What are the unusual things that have happened in this Congress? Normal Ornstein: Itıs not over yet, of course. We not only have a session, well itıs supposed to end October 4th so they can get home and campaign for this consequential election, wonıt end until late October, and then they may come back for the so-called lame duck session. Ben Wattenberg: Explain a lame duck session for our viewers. Norman Ornstein: The new Congress takes office on January 3rd under the Constitution. The election is in the first week in November. So that period between November and January you still have the old Congress in place, even thought many of its members are going to be leaving. A lame duck is a session of Congress that keeps the old Congress and its members in place Ben Wattenberg: Who can call that Congress? Norman Ornstein: The Congress can call it or the President can call a session. Ben Wattenberg: If the President calls a session they are bound to come? Norman Ornstein: They are bound to come, they arenıt bound to do anything. But theyıve been talking because theyıve got so much that they want to do in the period before the election. And remember, whatever you do in a Congress, a two-year period, if you donıt finish it by the end, you donıt pick up where you left off, you go right back to square one. So theyıve got a lot they want to do. Michael Barone: Yes, theyıve got a complicated bill on bankruptcy reform, which is being held up on a side issue. And that is one that an awful lot of members would like to see passed. Itıs got large majorities, but youıve got to get it through. Thatıs coming up. Youıve got appropriations for many departments. Weıre probably going to be considering an Iraq war resolution or something in the nature of that, probably before the election. The Homeland Security bill is stuck in the Senate right now, Norman Ornstein: Prescription drug benefits. Weıve still got the energy bill thatıs been out there for so long and patientsı rights and so on. But what makes this unusual, Ben, is if you go back to the election in 2000, President winning by one electoral vote after the 36 days of controversy, seeing his party lose seats in both houses of Congress, these very close margins, you would have easily gotten away with predicting total gridlock. We havenıt had a huge number of bills enacted into law, but when you look at the sweep of things that have been done up until now: the tax cut, which is a sweeping piece of legislationI take no position on whether these are good or bad thingsa farm bill, huge and sweeping farm bill. The most major campaign finance reform, really the first significant one in a quarter century. A whole series of things done after September 11, from the Patriot Act to the sweeping changes in transportation security. Michael Barone: Fast track on trade was voted for the first time since it lapsed in 1994. That was a significant and hard-fought vote with almost none of the Democrats supporting free trade measures these days. Norman Ornstein: Most Congresses, if you got one or two of those things done, you d say, boy, that was a very significant accomplishment. Theyıve actually accomplished quite a lot here, and if they do some of the things that are still on the agenda before theyıre done this actually will be an extraordinary Congress in terms of consequential legislation. Ben Wattenberg: What are the major issues that Joe Congressman, or Joe Senator, is going to be running on this fall? Michael Barone: Well, the fact is, what weıre hearing them run on is not very much. Some of the Democrats in particular, but also some of the Republicans, are talking about prescription drugs for seniors, that comes out fairly high. Many of them are talking about education. The Congress passed an education bill in 2001 that was fairly significant. But the fact is that there arenıt a lot of specifics. This is one of those times when no issue really stands out on the screen. People are concerned about the war on terrorism, but they also say theyıre concerned about domestic issues. Thereıs some concern about the economy, but the fact is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are proposing to do something significantly different in terms of macro-economic policy, even though some people running for election are saying well the economyıs in terrible shape. I mean I asked Dick Gephardt, the House minority leader, Democratic leader, he said the economyıs in terrible shape, weıve got to do something. I said, what should we do? He said, I donıt know. (laughter) Norman Ornstein: What we do is this, Ben, Democrats would much prefer to run on, and have voters concerned about as they go into the voting booth, the economy, where the mood is sour, and domestic issues, like prescription drugs, where they have a comparative advantage when voters are asked which party can do better. The Republicans have a distinct and clear advantage on foreign policy, the war on terrorism, military affairs. And if the issues that people are thinking about, as they go into the voting booth, are a war in Iraq, dealing with terrorism, making sure weıre strong abroad, then Republicans will be very satisfied. And at this moment we donıt know which will dominate. Michael Barone: I think the Democratic Senate leadership has not handled this to its maximum political advantage. They wanted to have this corporate responsibility issue be the focus of things this fall, and they wanted to assail the Republicans for not curbing irresponsible executives. The fact is that bill was passed on a bi-partisan basis. The Sarbanes bill, which was supported mostly by Democrats but had significant Republican support in committee, and on the floor then was basically accepted by the Republican House. That was passed at the beginning of August. Instead the Democrats are getting into a fight with President Bush on Homeland Security, which is not the issue theyıd really like to fight about. Ben Wattenberg: For many years, members of Congress, when asked on the public opinion polls, who do you think highly of, who do you not think highly of, were right down in the basement Michael Barone: Yes, but my member of Congress was high. Ben Wattenberg: My member of Congress was high, the others. And then they got sort of a boost after 9/11, when everybody got a boost. And now itıs sort of coming back down again. Letıs just chat for a moment about the image of Congress. You guys work with them all day long, all week long, all year long. I mean, you get this image of people who are spending more time raising money than they are legislating, that theyıre not honest, that theyıre always going out on junkets, that itıs sort of a mugıs game. Is that how you all feel about the Congress? You talk to the people regularly. You see how they live. Michael Barone: I think thatıs a sort of grotesque caricature of what goes on. I mean, the fact is, itıs not a life that most people would want to live. You have to spend half the time in your districts, half the time on Capitol Hill. Then you have to spend a lot more time these days in airports, taking your shoes off and so forth. The fact is, yes, they do spend some time raising money and they pay attention to how they raise money. But they also, most of them, spend significant amounts of time legislating. The junkets youıre talking about, some of them are kind of free luxury trips. A lot of them are actually pretty hard-working trips that have schedules and briefings that would be considered onerous duty. Ben Wattenberg: That are longer than Think Tank even. Michael Barone: Yes, itıs that kind of thing. So I think most of these people are in business, theyıre in the politics business, through some combination of ambition and idealism. The ratios between those two qualities vary. but thereıs some element of both in almost all of them. Ben Wattenberg: Norman, are these guys having fun? There was a time, I donıt know, maybe about ten years ago when this sort of rancorous business started, where a lot of elected office holders say, you know, itıs not fun anymore. What about it? Norman Ornstein: Itıs not fun. Itıs not certainly what it used to be. I used to talk to the former Republican leader Bob Michel, who in the 50s and into the 60s, he and a few of his colleagues, including Dan Rostenkowski, the Democrat from Chicago, used to pile together into a Buick and drive to Washington. Theyıd spend a lot of time here. You didnıt have regular flights back. They were concerned about legislating. They had relationships across party lines and they got satisfaction out of their work. Itıs harder to get satisfaction. Partly because, as Michael says, itıs a difficult lifestyle. Frankly the level of rancor and bile has increased dramatically since say the 70s and into the 80s. Itıs down now from what it was a couple of years ago, partly because of September 11th, but itıs still higher that it should be. Michael Barone: The level of rancor is there. The Constitution wasnıt written to make it a pleasant lifestyle to be a member of Congress. I mean, the fact is there was a price to be paid for that amity, and that price was lack of competition between the parties and to some extent lack of accountability of members of Congress. The Republicans got along well with the Democrats as long as they didnıt threaten their majority. When Newt Gingrich did threaten that majority and succeeded in overturning it, naturally there was huge rancor and that was the price we paid for competition. The result though is that the voter now has a serious choice to make between the two parties. The parties being more cohesive than they used to be are now more accountable for the results. Forty years ago there were a lot of conservative Southern Democrats, in fact in some Congresses they were more than half the Democratic caucus in the 1950s, there were a fair number of liberal Republicans. Now the parties are much more cohesive, you get party line votes, and you the voter have a choice. Ben Wattenberg: Between the so-called red states and the so-called blue states, which is in my judgment a little bit hokey because I mean if you take a whole state and say thatıs a red state because it went 51-49 for the Democrats. The maps on the red state/blue state thing are a little bit Michael Barone: Well they are, but there are some serious differences here. I mean, New York City and Los Angeles County went for Al Gore by a bigger margin than Lyndon Johnson carried them against Barry Goldwater in 1964. For them this was a very one-sided race. Montana and Kentucky, to take two of possible many states, gave George W. Bush a bigger margin than Richard Nixon got over George McGovern in his landslide win in 1972. Ben Wattenberg: Big cities got Democratic and rural areas go Michael Barone: Well, they donıt even see this as a close call. Norman Ornstein: But this is presidential politics that weıre talking about and in that sense Michael is right, voters have a choice. The paradox here is that even though the parties have become distinct and more different, if weıre talking about Congress, most voters donıt have a choice. Ninety percent, close to ninety-five percent of the districts of the House are safe. Members go back, they travel a lot, the lifestyle is brutal, most of them are not seriously challenged. Ben Wattenberg: Why do they keep doing it? I mean, after theyıre in office for three terms or four terms theyıve established enough contacts here in Washington that they can quit, work less hard, make three times four times five times the money, and yet they stay on. Michael Barone: Not all of them. Norman Ornstein: Most do. If you talk to members, they get enormous satisfaction, even though the lifestyle is tough, out of being in public life and making those decisions. Thereıs an excitement that every day you go in and something important may be happening. And if youıre out, you donıt have that same level of excitement, the sense that youıre right at the cutting edge of things. So, itıs something that many of them do and they get locked into it. And we continue to get a reasonable group of people, but I have to tell you, the money chase, what it takes to run and to win, the brutality of it all, weıre having a harder time in many places of the country, getting the quality of people across the board to run. Ben Wattenberg: Would you like to be a Congressman? Norman Ornstein: When I was growing up and when I first started to study this I would have killed to be a member of Congress. Now I would not want the lifestyle. Ben Wattenberg: Norman, I know you were very active not only as a scholar but as a participant in helping pass this campaign finance reform bill. Thatıs not going to take effect for this election, is that right? Michael Barone: Correct Ben Wattenberg: What is it going to do to congressman and senators for the next elections? Norman Ornstein: Well, for the individual members it will be in some ways a boon to them because one of the elements of this bill raises the limit of what an individual can give to a congressional candidate from a maximum of $1000 to a maximum of $2000. Now this is the first adjustment in 25 years itıs still way below inflation. Michael Barone: Yes. Norman Ornstein: Itıs not as if this is going to suddenly transform American politics and it wasnıt intended to do that. Itıs going to, if weıre lucky, take a system that I believe had just careened out of control, especially in terms of the outside advertising that was done, and move it back to almost where we were in the mid-1980s. Ben Wattenberg: Letıs talk about this election just for the brief few moments that we have left. What are the polls showing? Michael Barone: The vote in 1996 for House of Representatives was Republicans 49 percent, Democratic 48.5 percent. In 1998, 49 percent Republican, 48 percent Democratic. In 2000, 49 percent Republican, 48 percent Democratic. Nothing that Iıve seen in the polls and individual races or preference nationally indicates to me that we necessarily will get a popular vote that is different from that by any significant amount. Norman Ornstein: Keep in mind that with say two to three dozen House races that are hotly contestable right now, maybe eight, you could push it to ten or twelve Senate races that are really interesting and close, you donıt need much of a trend. The polls may not even show a trend. That could just be enough, with the winds swirling in late October, to tip a couple of races in one direction, from 51-49 one way, to 51-49 the other, and that will determine the majority. Michael Barone: And youıll have as we said earlier sharply different policy results. If that House vote should change from 49-48 Republican to 49-48 Democratic, and that results in the Democrats taking over the House of Representatives, there will be different policy results on many issues. Ben Wattenberg: I want to ask a question about this policy results thing. You have each indicated that the Congress is now more polarized than before. There are people on the right, there are people on the left. Michael Barone: Political scientists used to call for accountable, cohesive parties, weıve got them now. Ben Wattenberg: Okay, but yet, Norman and you also Michael listed out the list of what has passed the Congress, and you said that it was pretty big stuff and it was pretty good stuff, and knowing you guys that means it was not extreme in left or right. So here you have the Congress that is much more polarized than before, and yet they are passing important legislation, that is legislation of the center. Is that right? Norman Ornstein: I think more of it this time around, but not all of it, was center-right because of the tremendous cohesion that the Republicans had in the House and because of the political skills of the President. But it was center-right, or it was center-left, or it was center. We do not have extreme legislation passing. There is a check and balance at work here. Ben Wattenberg: Norman, if you were a typical voter and watching television on election night, what one race would you be looking at to give you a clue as to what was happening? Norman Ornstein: To me the most interesting race in the country is for the Senate in Texas. This is the seat that Phil Gramm is retiring from. The Presidentıs state, overwhelming Republican, conservative Republican who held the seat, and the Democratic candidate for the Senate there, former mayor of Dallas, African American moderate named Ron Kirk is putting up a tremendous fight. If he wins that seat he becomes an instant national figure, and it creates a huge problem for the President just in terms of appearance. Ben Wattenberg: How about you Michael? Michael Barone: I think one of the most interesting on election night will be the race for Senate in Missouri. This is the seat held by Jean Carnahan, the widow of the late Governor Mel Carnahan. Thereıs a strong Republican challenger here, Jim Talent, former congressman, nearly elected governor in 2000. And if Talent wins, the polls show this is a pretty close race, if Talent wins, his term begins upon his election and certification by the secretary of state and the governor. That means that there could be a post-election session of the old lame duck Senate in which presumably control would pass from the Democrats to the Republicans again. Ben Wattenberg: Wow. Michael Barone, thank you. Norm Ornstein, thank you. And thank you. Please remember to send us your comments via e-mail. For Think Tank, Iım Ben Wattenberg. (credits) We at Think Tank depend on your views to make our show better. Please send your questions and comments to New River Media, 1219 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Or e-mail us at thinktank@pbs.org. To learn more about Think Tank, visit PBS on line at www.pbs.org, and please, let us know where you watch Think Tank. At Pfizer weıre spending nearly five billion dollars looking for the cures of the future. We have twelve thousand scientists and health experts who firmly believe the only thing incurable is our passion. Pfizer. Life is our lifeıs work. Additional funding is provided by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, and the Smith Richardson Foundation. This is PBS. Back to top  Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc. ©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved. 
  Web development by Bean Creative. |