John Harwood
December 7, 2004

John Harwood joined The Wall Street Journal in 1991 as White House correspondent. He subsequently covered Congress and national politics, and became National Political Editor in 1997. He has reported on each of the last five American presidential elections. (Read John Harwood's bio)

Q: The intelligence bill was blocked in the House for a while. Was the opposition widespread? What accounts for the stall?

The intelligence bill was initially blocked in the House not for lack of a supportive majority, but rather for lack of the right kind of majority to suit Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert.  To maintain a cohesive Republican caucus, the speaker wants to move to passage only legislation that enjoys strong support within his party's ranks. When the House considered the final compromise that House-Senate negotiators had struck on the bill, Hastert found that some conservatives led by Armed Services chairmen Hunter and Judiciary chairman Sensenbrenner believed the bill was flawed because it might interfere with timely transmission of intelligence to troops in the field and because it didn't do enough to stem illegal immigration. As a result, he declined to let the full House vote even though it was plain that enough Republicans and Democrats together could have passed.  This eventually created a political problem for President Bush, since he favored the bill and its delay was seen as a setback for him. The president then began applying strong pressure for its passage.  

Q: House speaker Dennis Hastert enunciated a policy last week which says Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them. Has a policy like this been adopted before? What bills on the horizon might see their demise due to this new practice?

Though all political leaders want unity within their party's ranks, I don't recall past Speakers enunciating such a policy. During the Clinton administration, for instance, House Speaker Thomas Foley pushed through the North American Free Trade Agreement with help from Republicans even though a large share of the Democratic caucus opposed the agreement. This doctrine poses a major challenge for the enactment of President Bush's priority goals of fundamental tax and Social Security reforms, because many observers believe that both will require bi-partisan support to be enacted. Given the polarization that exists in present-day Washington, it is a near-certainty that compromises drawing significant support from Democrats will face opposition from some elements of the Republican caucus.

Q: Conservatives and moderates in the president's party supported him absolutely and enthusiastically throughout the campaign season. Now that President Bush is safely re-elected, do you expect this complete harmony to last?

Even when it comes to complicated policy matters like Social Security, permanent tax cuts, and the budget? It will be difficult for Republicans to stick together as they face real governing choices over the next couple of years. One locus of conflict will be social issues, since conservative mobilization played such a large role in President Bush's victories. Moderate Republicans are not eager for prolonged legislative debate over issues such as gay marriage, believing they could alienate swing voters, but such a debate will be tough to avoid. Another flashpoint will be the budget deficit. The most aggressive tax-cutting faction is less concerned about the deficit than moderate Republicans and Democrats alike are. On Social Security, a top Bush priority, the solution gaining steam within the administration -- heavy borrowing to finance a transition to private accounts -- makes deficit hawks in both parties very nervous as a threat to the nation's fiscal stability.

Q:A little-noticed provision on access to tax forms stalled the entire federal budget. Apparently, the language was inserted---with little or no oversight---in the bill by a mid-level staffer. On average, how much legislation is crafted by un-elected public employees? What safeguards exist to prevent Senators and Representatives from voting for legislation they haven't really read, let alone written?

Given the scope and complexity of the legislation that members vote on, unfortunately there's no way around this problem. Members rely on legislative staffers to draft bills reflecting their intent, and unforeseen problems often arise. In this case, I believe the staffer in question didn't intend for the bill to allow lawmakers to read individual tax returns, but the phrasing of that provision in fact appeared to allow it. The good news is that when mistakes of this kind surface, it is usually not especially difficult for Congress to fix them.