Archive   |   Biography   |   RSS Feed   |   Opinions Home

The Senate Cooler

Network News

X Profile
View More Activity
By Robert D. Novak
Monday, January 29, 2007

The Democratic plan was for Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to sit down over the weekend with his longtime Republican colleague Sen. John Warner and hammer out a consensus, bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush's troop surge in Iraq. But Warner, who has been making backroom deals for 28 years in the Senate, informed Biden late on Thursday: No deal.

Warner wrote that the "will of the Senate" should be determined in "open" session, not closeted negotiations. That killed the Democratic leadership's dream of passing a Biden-crafted anti-surge resolution by 70 votes or more. Such a proposal now cannot get the 60 votes needed for cloture to end a filibuster (and could fall short of the 50 needed for a simple majority). Conceivably, the Senate might pass no resolution at all.

Despite new Democratic control, the Senate remains sluggish, quirky and madly frustrating for anyone with an agenda. George Washington is reputed to have told Thomas Jefferson, skeptical about a bicameral Congress, that the Senate would be the saucer to cool hot tea from the House. More than two centuries later, the Senate saucer is cooling the beverage boiled up by Speaker Nancy Pelosi's House -- even the widely popular increase in the minimum wage. To everybody's surprise, Pelosi has held back quick House passage of an anti-surge resolution, awaiting action in the cooler Senate.

Biden wanted to force through his sharply worded (though nonbinding) resolution. But advisers prevailed on him to meld his proposal with Warner's milder language. Biden and his principal Republican co-sponsor, Sen. Chuck Hagel (the second-ranking Republican on Foreign Relations), said Wednesday that they were ready to begin negotiating with Warner, the former Armed Services Committee chairman.

One of Biden's advisers told me then that the negotiations should prove to be no problem because they were willing to accept "about 90 percent" of Warner's resolution. Democrats complained that his wording left the door open to further troop increases, and some questioned its first paragraph affirming the president's constitutional role as commander in chief. Such language was supposed to have been massaged over the weekend.

But Biden was surprised late Wednesday afternoon to receive a blunt letter from Warner and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. They asserted that they and other co-sponsors of the resolution "believe that issues set forth in [the resolution] should occur as a consequence of the will of the Senate, working in 'open' session, during floor debate and consideration." In other words, no private negotiations.

That stand poses a dilemma for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid because of bipartisan support for Warner's resolution. Besides Ben Nelson, its co-sponsors include Democrats Mary Landrieu (La.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Ken Salazar (Colo.), and Republicans Norm Coleman (Minn.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Gordon Smith (Ore.). If they stick together, Biden cannot change the Warner resolution.

With Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) the only Republican other than Hagel backing Biden's version, it may lack even enough votes for a majority. Reid faces a difficult choice. He could crack the whip on Democrats to pass the Biden resolution (though falling short of enough votes for cloture). Or he could swallow an unamended Warner resolution to win a bipartisan vote on the record against additional troops.

Bush aides hope that pressure from Cabinet members and the president himself have diminished GOP support for anti-war resolutions. The fact remains that almost no enthusiasm for the surge can be found in the Senate. Even John McCain, an early advocate of more troops, complains that a reinforcement of 21,500 is insufficient.

While many Republicans want to give their president "one last shot" at a military solution, there is pervasive pessimism about the new strategy. Republicans think withdrawal of troops must begin in the next six months for their party to have any chance at retaining the presidency in 2008, and a Bush Cabinet member -- not associated with national security -- told me the same thing last week. The Senate is a tough place for even somebody as assertive as Joe Biden to get his way, but that hardly connotes an expression of approval for sending more troops to Iraq.

© 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity