Impasse Over Conference Committees Stalls Senate; Legislative Logjam Feared

One of the first issues to confront the first Congress in 1789 was how members ought to address the new president, George Washington.

The more regal Senate wanted to give him a title, suggesting “elective majesty” and “serene highness,” among others. The more populist House wanted no part of such honorifics. To resolve their differences, each side appointed representatives to a conference committee, which settled on the title members use to this day: Mr. President.

The House and Senate have been using conference committees to resolve their differences ever since. But now, as a result of a 50-50 split between Republicans and Democrats, the Senate finds itself stalemated over the device that is supposed to break stalemates.

Unable to resolve which party should have the upper hand on conference committees, the Senate has simply stopped forming them. As a result of the squabble, a bankruptcy reform bill recently passed by both houses sits in a state of legislative limbo. And unless senators returning this week from spring recess resolve the dispute soon, a raft of other measures will suffer the same fate.

Senate’s Reputation May Be at Stake

The impasse centers on one of the more obscure components of the legislative process. But its stakes are significant, threatening not only individual bills but also, some experts say, the Senate’s reputation with an increasingly impatient public.

“To the average American, the composition of conference committees is not a burning issue,” said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University. “But if you get bills passed by both houses piling up and not going to conference, that would make the Senate look particularly shabby.”

Traditionally, conference committees have Democratic and Republican representatives. The majority party in the chamber gets at least one extra slot, a perk of power designed to make sure negotiations don’t end in deadlock.

But what happens when there is no clear majority, as in the current Senate?

Republicans argue they still should have the advantage because the Constitution calls on the vice president of the United States--in this case, Republican Dick Cheney--to cast the deciding vote whenever a tie occurs in the chamber.

Democrats say that applies only to votes on legislation, not the composition of committees. If Republicans try to force the issue, Democrats say they will filibuster any motion to appoint an unbalanced conference committee, meaning that they will employ a delaying tactic that requires 60 votes--10 more than Republicans have--to defeat.

“Democrats feel very strongly there should be equal representation” on conference committees, said Ranit Schmelzer, a spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.).

The two sides have taken unyielding stands on the issue because conference committees are so influential. On Capitol Hill they are often referred to as the “third house” of Congress.

The committees are created only when differences exist between House and Senate versions of a bill. Ideally, the panel works out a compromise that is returned to both houses for final passage. But committees, which meet in sessions closed to the public, sometimes reshape bills to one party’s advantage or effectively block legislation by refusing to send a measure back for final approval.

The latter tactic was used by Republicans to kill a gun control measure, a minimum wage increase and health insurance legislation in the last Congress. Thus, controlling who sits on conference committees often amounts to controlling the fate of legislation.

The bankruptcy reform bill awaiting reconciliation is a perfect example. The Senate version contains a number of Democratic amendments, including one that eliminates the ability of wealthy people to shield multimillion-dollar homes from liquidation, that Republicans might seek to remove if they were to control the conference committee.

(The one area where Democrats can’t block formation of such committees is on budget measures, which operate under special rules. As a result, a committee is expected to be formed soon to work out differences between conflicting budget plans recently passed by the House and Senate.)

The dispute over conference committees is just one of many sparked by the Senate’s 50-50 alignment. Earlier this year, party leaders struck an unprecedented “power-sharing” agreement for the standing committees that oversee legislation in particular areas, such as agriculture and defense. Under the accord, membership on and resources for these panels were evenly split between the parties.

But negotiators quickly concluded they were stymied on the composition of conference committees and decided to put it off for later. Daschle and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) have had subsequent discussions on the issue but, according to members of their staffs, remain at odds. As a result, Schmelzer said, party leaders could end up negotiating the matter “bill by bill, committee by committee.”

Rift Develops Among Republican Leaders

Many believe the stalemate poses greater risks for Republicans than Democrats, because voters tend to punish the party in power for legislative inaction. The stand-off already has strained relationships among GOP leaders.

Some senators, including Don Nickles (R-Okla.), were unhappy with how much control Lott yielded to Democrats in the power-sharing agreement.

Now those critics are fuming that their party could have to give even more ground. “Reality has set in,” said an aide to one GOP senator. “This was a terrible agreement to begin with, and we never should have gone down this road.”

Only half jokingly, some experts say the best way to resolve the matter might be to flip a coin.

The only trouble with using a coin, Baker said, is that “then, of course, they’d argue about who would do the flipping.”