Procedural Pathos in the U.S. Senate
The United States Senate has once again been in the news, not for handling policy issues which affect our country, but instead with regard to one of its procedural rules. A single senator held up promotions for the United States military for 9 months because of his personal views on a military policy. Senator Tuberville (R of Alabama) disliked the military's policy of offering compensation to female service members if they wish to have an abortion but are assigned to duty in a state which prohibits abortions. In that instance the female service member can receive compensation to pay for the travel to have the procedure done in a state where it is permitted. Senator Tuberville decided he would show his dislike of this policy by putting a” hold” on the promotions of all of the senior officers in the military! During this 9 month period over 360 promotions were not considered for approval by the Senate. .
Senator Tuberville announced last week he was dropping his “hold” although it is unclear if he retained it for certain senior officers. This individual protest by Senator Tuberville is nothing but a vengeful action of a single senator who wants to pout. It is sad that the Senate allows this kind of “hold” procedural power in its rules. As silly as Senator Tuberville's action is, it is not unique. There have been any number of instances where senators have exercised this “hold” procedural authority on the approval of appointments that are nothing but a personal grump. For example, this “hold” procedure was applied to the appointment of a Federal District Court judge in the state of Michigan by a Kansas senator who was upset because the nominee had attended a wedding of two people of whom the senator disapproved !
This and other procedural silliness is endemic in the senate rules. Senators will regularly complain that these rules are abused and they should be changed or deleted but they don't take that action. They want to have the rule there in case they individually ever want to put a “hold” on someone. When questioned on why such an action by Senator Tuberville is allowed, they have all sorts of excuses about senate rules and the complicated issue of how to change them. But this isn't a question of whether the senators could change the rules. After 9 months the senators finally became bothered enough by Senator Tuberville that an action to disallow Senator Tuberville's “hold” was reported out of committee so that it could proceed to a floor vote.
The news media reported Senator Tuberville's agreement to stop his personal protest. But this is an instance of the news media missing the larger point which should receive the most attention. This Senate rule is a silly rule that is used in spats of personal aggravation. The real question is why didn't the Senate take action to delete the rule entirely so that it could not be used and abused again. This is just another example of the various legislative rules and intricacies (such as the “filibuster” rule) that are in place that degrade our legislative process.
I would not suggest that the House of Representatives is any better than the Senate in this regard. Look how silly all of our congressman looked when they removed their presiding speaker and then for several weeks announced that they could not take any action because that single officer in the Congress had been removed! Amongst the 435 of them they could not construct a way to take action to address the policy issues that awaited them. They were stymied by their own rules. One would think they could have acted to change their rules.
These rules keep the houses of Congress from performing their legislative functions. They are detrimental to the strength and future of the country. If there is confusion on that concept one need only look at what occurred to the country of Poland. It was one of the most powerful countries in Europe in the 1600s. It was essentially ruled by an assembly of aristocrats who elected the king and provided for income for the government. However, that assembly had a rule that allowed any single aristocrat to vote against an action and keep it from passing. So the Kingdom of Poland, that was so powerful that it could send an army in 1683 to relieve the siege of Vienna by the Turkish Ottoman Empire, over the succeeding years was constantly stymied by dissenting votes in the assembly. In the next century Poland was partitioned three different times by its neighbors and disappeared.
At some point in time the Senate and the House of Representatives, instead of spending their time pouting and trying to ensure that the power of their individual positions is never compromised, should look at themselves and consider what they can do to clean up their procedural mess and become more responsive to the citizens that have elected them.
Obadiah Plainman