Democrats’ Big Edge on Senate Panels

The biggest prize for the Democrats in the defection of Republican Sen. James M. Jeffords is control over the 13 major committees that set the Senate’s agenda.

These committees hold the keys to whether President Bush’s appointees will be confirmed to federal agencies and judgeships. They determine who will testify at hearings and the content of bills that are sent to the Senate floor.

And not least, they have subpoena power that allows them to scrutinize administration policies--a power that was drawn on heavily by Republicans in their investigations of President Clinton.

The starkest changes will occur in committees whose prospective Democratic chairmen are far more liberal than their Republican counterparts and, therefore, likely to have a sharply different policy focus.

If, for instance, Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) becomes Judiciary Committee chairman, the panel will be much tougher on Bush’s judicial nominees than it has been under Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). Similarly, the Energy Committee will get a new environmental look when Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) replaces Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska).

Such differences in philosophy will be far more muted on committees such as Finance, where the outgoing chairman, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, is a populist and rather centrist Republican, and the incoming chairman, Max Baucus of Montana, is a conservative Democrat. The two worked hand in glove on the recent tax cut bill.

Indeed, when it comes to the content of legislation, the Senate party shift is likely to matter far less than all the excitement over the Jeffords defection would suggest. The Senate minority retains considerable power, and, as Brookings Institution congressional expert Paul Light put it, two crucial numbers haven’t changed.

“One senator can put a hold on a nominee,” Light said, “and you need 60 to break a filibuster. . . . The Senate as a whole is a nuanced picture.”

Congress watchers expect the most startling changes in the kinds of administration policies that come under scrutiny and the number of Bush nominees that are confirmed by the Senate.

In the last six years, according to George Washington University political scientist Chris Deering, Republicans used their oversight powers to humiliate Clinton and undermine his top appointees.

Democrats, he said, are more likely to use these powers for more traditional purposes: to investigate such policy matters as the California energy crisis and the high prices of prescription drugs.

Strongly affected by the shift in power will be the rate at which committees approve Bush’s nominees for government agencies, the federal bench and scores of commissions and regulatory agencies.

“On administration appointments, some percentage, maybe 10%, will simply disappear at the committee level,” Deering said.

Light predicted that for the next two weeks, while Republicans remain in control, they will push through as many nominations as possible. But after the formal transfer of power, he said, most nominations will be put off until September while the Democrats put procedures in place to consider them.

That means that many of the administration’s top ranks will be left unfilled and lower-level political appointees, who do not need Senate approval, will end up in charge. That in turn will cramp the administration’s ability to push through its agenda.

“It’s a very serious problem for the administration,” Light said. “We were seeing divisions and problems already gumming up the process, but this will make it much worse.”

The changes at the Senate committee level will range from major to insignificant. Although Democrats are negotiating over who will get which chairmanships, here is a committee-by-committee tour of the likely future Senate:

Judiciary

Democratic control will slow Hatch’s fast-track approval of Bush’s conservative court nominees.

Democrats had been chafing at the White House’s quick and secretive campaign to choose young conservatives for federal appeals courts without the traditional consultation with Democratic home-state senators. Now consultation is likely to occur.

The power transfer could also restore the powerful role of the American Bar Assn. in reviewing candidates before the Judiciary Committee. Bush has moved to scale back the ABA’s half-century-old role, arguing that it gives the liberal-leaning group a “preferential, quasi-official” role in the Senate confirmation process. Leading Democrats want to restore the ABA’s role because they say it provides a rounded look at candidates’ professional records.

The committee may also force Bush to nominate several moderate judges to satisfy the Democrats. But some legal activists say the switch in the end may not have a large effect on who is ultimately appointed to the federal bench.

“The effect will be on the margin,” predicted Clint Bolick, a former Reagan administration lawyer. “It’s important to remember that [Presidents] Ronald Reagan, the first George Bush and Bill Clinton all had their judicial nominees confirmed in a Senate controlled by the opposite party. The process may be slow, but at the end of the day, Bush will have the vast majority of judges he nominates.”

The committee’s legislative focus will probably shift from Republican favorites, such as tort reform, to Democratic priorities, such as gun control, death penalty review, fair employment, cybercrime and continued funding of street cops, aides predicted.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) wants to ban importation of high-capacity ammunition clips and further restrict arms and materiel commonly used by terrorists, aides said. She is now in line to head up the panel’s subcommittee on technology and terrorism.

Energy, Natural Resources

Under Bingaman, who is expected to chair the committee, the Senate is unlikely to act on Bush’s national energy plan by July 4, as GOP leaders had promised. “We’re a long way from being in a position to enact comprehensive legislation,” Bingaman said.

An energy bill that emerges from a Democratic-run committee is expected to include greater emphasis on programs to promote conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power. In contrast to Murkowski, Bingaman opposes opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

Almost certain to come to the floor is a measure sought by Feinstein to put price caps on electricity. “Clearly you are going to have with Bingaman someone who is more inclined to move toward some form of price constraints,” said Keith E. Bailey, chairman, president and CEO of Williams Energy Group, an Oklahoma-based company that controls 4,000 megawatts of California’s electricity supply.

Bush and Republican Senate leaders oppose price controls.

Environment, Public Works

Jeffords, expected to chair this committee when the changes become effective, has pushed for stronger controls on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants to help ameliorate global warming, a policy that Bush has made clear is a nonstarter for him.

The committee is likely to use its investigatory powers to look into regulatory agency oversight of energy companies and recent energy price spikes. A key energy company executive said he thought the likelihood of temporary price caps on electricity spiked up with the Vermont Republican’s defection.

Health, Education, Labor

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who will take over this committee from Jeffords, is expected to push forward quickly with a strong patients’ bill of rights. The measure, which has the support of more than 50 senators and won support of a bipartisan majority in the House, has been blocked by the Senate Republican leadership for more than a year.

Although Jeffords personally supported a bipartisan version of the patients’ rights bill, he was forced as a committee chairman to hew to the GOP leadership’s support only for a narrow version of the legislation.

If a more expansive measure reaches the Senate floor, Republicans will be in the difficult position of having to filibuster to stop it.

Kennedy is also likely to take a strong stand against nominees for key positions at the Department of Health and Human Services who oppose abortion rights and to examine in detail the records of nominees who have long-standing relationships with industries that are regulated by the agencies where they might work. Jim Manley, a spokesman for Kennedy, promised that “we still need to work on a bipartisan basis.”

Also likely to get a big push from Kennedy is disability rights, which the U.S. Supreme Court limited in several recent decisions and which neither the GOP nor Bush has shown interest in.

Finance

The replacement of Grassley by Baucus is likely to have relatively little effect on policy. The two worked closely and co-authored the Senate’s version of this year’s gargantuan tax cut legislation.

Both have talked about giving a prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. The likelihood of such a benefit appears slim, however, since the tax cut would leave too little money to pay for it.

Both lawmakers are likely to push for more health care for the uninsured. There appears to be enough money in the budget for a modest expansion in existing federal programs and for tax incentives for people who buy their own health insurance.

On trade, both Grassley and Baucus come from farm states that rely heavily on exports, and both have supported most trade liberalization proposals in the past.

Defense

Carl Levin (D-Mich.) is more skeptical of missile defense, a Bush administration priority, than is John W. Warner (R-Va.), whom he will replace as chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Levin might use his position to try to limit funding or delay deployment of such a system. He might also seek to block any move that would violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which sharply limits development and deployment of antimissile systems.

The Democrats’ ascension could mean more momentum for military base closings, which the administration supports, as does Levin. Warner has been cooler to the notion.

The Democrats’ power could also make it tougher for the administration to win confirmation for some conservative appointments to the Pentagon.

Foreign Relations

The likely shift from conservative Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) to Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) will have a significant effect on nominations and on Bush’s missile defense policy, over which the committee shares jurisdiction with the Armed Services Committee. Helms supports missile defense while Biden opposes it.

On many policies, however, the two have worked closely, although the tone of the committee’s deliberations is likely to change.

“It’s not just the difference in policies but also personality, temperament and style,” said Joseph Cirincione, director of the nonproliferation project of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington think tank.

Banking

Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.), who will take over as chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee from Phil Gramm (R-Texas), made clear he would do intensive oversight on issues ranging from money laundering to urban affairs.

Commerce

Some observers expect the new chairman, Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), to exercise tighter control over the deregulatory campaign of the Federal Communications Commission than has the present chairman, John McCain (R-Ariz.).

*

Times staff writers Nick Anderson, Marlene Cimons, Norman Kempster, Eric Lichtblau, Paul Richter, David G. Savage, Jube Shiver, Elizabeth Shogren and Richard Simon in Washington and Rone Tempest in Tulsa, Okla., contributed to this story.