When Harry Reid lost a vote for the first time as majority leader, he kicked aside a Senate custom and instead decided to try for an outcome more to his liking.
After failing on a procedural vote to kill an effort by Jim DeMint, R-S.C., that would subject more categories of earmarks to disclosure, Reid declined to follow the Senate norm of accepting the amendment without a vote.
Instead, he twisted arms.
It was a move that DeMint likened to House Republicans’ will-bending, three-hour vote on the Medicare prescription-drug law (PL 108-173) in 2003.
“I’m afraid it is starting to feel a little like the House,” DeMint said on the Senate floor. “We’re doing exactly the same thing.”
The Senate broke for the night with the matter — an amendment to the ethics and lobbying bill (S 1) — still unsettled after the 46-51 vote against “tabling” the amendment.
There was no clear indication of where the votes would fall on a roll call on the amendment itself.
Reid worked his side hard for potential vote-switchers, but DeMint sounded confident as he left the Capitol on Thursday night. “I think we have the votes to pass it,” he said just after Trent Lott, R-Miss., volunteered to switch his vote in favor.
In the midst of Reid’s first real test as majority leader, Republican aides speculated about whether the Democrats’ campaign promises of open governance were still operative. “What took the Republicans 12 years took the Democrats only two weeks,” one GOP aide said.
A Reid spokesman did not return a call seeking comment.
The Earmark Battle
Senate conservatives, led by DeMint, contend that the earmark definition written by Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would exclude from new earmark-disclosure rules about 95 percent of the legislative line items they consider to be earmarks.
DeMint’s amendment, which was supported by nine Democrats and Independent Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, would expand the definition of earmarks to include those found in report language accompanying bills and conference reports — where the vast majority are located — and others, like those for fighter jets, that end up benefiting the federal government.
Republicans on both sides of the Capitol noted that the language was identical to the earmark definition embraced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Democrats in their rules package (H Res 6). In turn, that language was close to the earmark definition promoted by House Republicans in the last Congress.
Reid said the House endorsement of the language was one reason he opposed it.
“That’s one of the problems I have,” he said, suggesting that Pelosi’s definition was ill-considered. “I frankly don’t think they’ve spent the time on this that we have. The House can change its rules at will. They do. We don’t.”
Reid pleaded with DeMint to pull his amendment, saying the more narrow definition of earmarks — which would exclude the great majority of federal projects — had been vetted with Republicans.
DeMint appealed to his backers to hold fast and not switch their votes. “I would just like to make an appeal today that my colleagues accept this amendment. . . . It obviously can be worked on in conference,” he said.
“You can’t claim you want reform, then do it in little patches,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a leading critic of earmarks.
As the two sides angled for votes, Reid was clearly embarrassed by the situation.
“I’ve told my friend, Sen. DeMint . . . this amendment he’s offered is going to take a little more time,” he said. “Sometime we’ll have an opportunity to vote on the amendment. I hope it’s rejected.”
The Debate Continues — for Now
Reid has allowed the lobbying and ethics debate to ramble, but he plans to file a motion to limit debate so he can finish the bill next week.
The agenda ahead has several items that are bound to be time-consuming: a minimum wage increase and embryonic stem cell research legislation — plus, Reid wants to make time for a symbolic but important Iraq resolution.
On Friday, senators will vote on at least two amendments.
One would deny pensions to those convicted of bribery and certain other crimes connected to their service in Congress.
The other would increase criminal penalties for lobbyists who fail to comply with the bill’s disclosure provisions.
In a challenge to Democratic leaders, Lieberman offered an amendment that would create an Office of Public Integrity, which would have the authority to investigate ethics violations and make recommendations to the Senate Ethics Committee. A similar measure failed last year, 30-67.
Another proposal sparking debate would give the president enhanced authority to strike spending items from appropriations bills, subject to final votes by Congress. Under the amendment, proposed by budget hawks DeMint and Judd Gregg, R-N.H., the president would be allowed no more than four rescission packages a year.
A similar proposal was approved last year by the GOP-controlled Budget Committee while Gregg was chairman, but it never reached the Senate floor.
Meanwhile, Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, is working on an amendment that would scale back Reid’s proposal to make senators pay the full charter fare when they take private jets.
Under the current rules, senators have to pay only the first-class rate for flights on private aircraft. Stevens has argued that because his home state is so vast and has so few major commercial airports, he has no choice but to fly on private airplanes. He said he shouldn’t have to pay tens of thousands of dollars — the actual cost for some flights — to traverse Alaska.
Campaign Finance Comes Later
Stevens’ amendment is among up to a dozen that could be voted on before the Senate completes action on the bill. Reid indicated that he would seek to table, and thus kill, amendments that relate to campaign finance law rather than ethics and lobbying standards.
He promised that Senate committees will hold hearings and make recommendations on campaign finance changes later in the new Congress.
