As regards Mr. Berg-Andersson's latest commentary, MUCH ADO ABOUT NOT VERY MUCH, I do agree with his basic premise that the media has made a much bigger deal about the whole "power shift" in the Senate than is merited. However, I am surprised that Mr. Berg-Andersson neglected to discuss the biggest area the "power shift" will effect... this being Senate committees.

In the power-sharing agreement made before the start of the 107th Congress, it was decided that each committee would be made up by an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. As long as the Republicans remained united in their various committees, they had the capacity to report any bill out of committee and have it brought to the Senate floor for a vote. In the new political lineup, however, the Democrats will maintain a one man majority in each committee and, thus, will be able to effectively block any bill from reaching the Senate floor. So, in fact, the "power shift" will have a noticeable effect on the Senate, as well as the Republicans' capacity to set the agenda, for the next two years.

What do you think about this?

Thank You,
Daryle Hendricksen
Daryle.Hendricksen@delta.com

Mr. Berg-Andersson responds:

First of all, as regards the ability of Republicans to set the agenda: keep in mind that, of course, the House of Representatives is still Republican; all Revenue Bills must, by constitutional mandate [Article I, Section 7, clause 1], originate in the House and, beyond even these, there will be more than enough "Republican agenda" legislation coming out of that chamber which the Senate will, even under nominal Democratic control, nevertheless have to consider in its role as the "second chamber" re: any such House-originated bills. I see little evidence that, given that the same 100 persons are yet sitting in the Senate as were there prior to Senator Jeffords' defection, that they would vote any differently on any such bills coming from the House than they would have under nominal Republican control.

In addition, we have a Republican President and most of the broader and more general national policy agenda is, as in any Administration, going to emerge from this GOP White House rather than be formulated on Capitol Hill; the "point people" on any major issue on which the Federal Government is going to have to focus over at least the remaining 3 1/2 years of this 54th Presidential Administration (whether it's, say, the prospects for a lasting Middle East peace or, for example, a national response to California's energy woes) are going to be President Bush, his Cabinet and his other White House-based advisers. I don't see how the Republican agenda on anything significant is, therefore, not going to get its "day in Congress".

Yes, it's true that Democrats could vote by a margin of 1 in a given committee (this, of course, assumes both Parties remain "united in committee": easier said than done!) to keep legislation from coming to the Senate floor- yet Republicans can still offer their own amendments on the Senate floor to legislation on the same subject (almost all the Republican agenda the Democrats could, at least theoretically, thus block does have a Democrat counterpart which would have to be introduced from that side of the aisle in any event: there are very few issues- and virtually none of the major ones- that the Democrats would find politically expedient to avoid dealing with, assuming they actually would want to win back both houses of Congress in the 2002 Midterm Elections [let alone set a "Democratic Party tone" for the 2004 Presidential Election campaign]). About the only visible effect the alleged "power shift" of 6 June 2001 has is that a Democrat-supported version of issue X (Education Reform, for example) will now be considered ahead of Republican item Y (say President Bush's energy plan) instead of the other way round- yet such issue Y will still have to be addressed at some point; and, again, tell me that the up-or-down floor vote among the 100 Senators would be significantly different had Senator Jeffords remained a Republican!

Yes, Democrats might even now be able to bring "their" issue Z (say, a Minimum Wage Increase package) to the Senate floor, an issue which very well might not have been so seriously considered in a Republican Senate- but so long as the up-or-down vote is cast by the same cast of characters as heretofore, what would be the long-term effect of this ability? The GOP House would then still have to pass bill Z; a Republican President would still have to sign it (note that the slim Democratic majority in the Senate and no Democratic majority at all in the House do not augur well for an override of a George W. Bush veto).

The fact is that Republicans in the Senate are, most assuredly, not "united", though neither are their Democrat counterparts: as I pointed out in my Commentary, the moderates/centrists (though, admittedly, they are not all "centrist" in the same way) of both Parties (plus an 'Independent' Jeffords now) are actually the balance of power in the Senate, regardless of "whose the leadership"; different coalitions of non-centrists from either Party and these moderates will determine what passes and what doesn't and, to some extent, will also influence what is on the agenda, even in committee (depending on how many such "centrists" are on a given committee). But, besides all this, individual Senators will continue to balance their respective political world-views, their perceptions of the needs of their home States (though Senators no longer represent their State's governments but rather the People of their State, they still- at least in this sense- remain something of "Ambassadors" from a second level of Sovereignty in our Federal system to that system), along with the proverbial "politician's eye" for what the next Election might portend for them if they should vote one way or the other, as they consider legislation throughout the remainder of this 107th Congress.

Absent a future Republican vacancy or two in seats from States with Democratic Governors (which would allow temporary appointments of Democrats pending Special Elections), the "power shift" from one Party to the other is still not all that important- certainly, as you yourself have agreed, not as important as the mainstream media of late has made it seem! The fact is that the political landscape re: this "split Congress" is, likely, not all going to "shake out" until, at the earliest, the Midterm Elections in November 2002: until then, we're still basically left with the same situation we've had since the results of the 2000 Federal Elections were finalized- neither Trent Lott or Tom Daschle controlling the Senate agenda changes this.