Voting Rights Plus Everything Else

There are so many issues it's easy to get distracted -- Climate Change, Infrastructure, Health Care, Police Reform, Immigration, Civil Rights, Gun Control, SCOTUS Packing, New Statehoods, Campaign Finance & Election Reform, Taxes, Minimum Wage, Women's Rights, etc., etc.

Yet, there is one issue; just one issue, that overshadows them all. The most foundational issue, common to all, is voting rights. With sensible, uniform voting rights for all citizens that encourage voting and don't inhibit it, who knows how we might address all these critical issues. If we suppress the right to vote we suppress the will of the public; and if we suppress the will of the public, we suppress or distort the will to address these issues. Currently, on some issues there is no overarching public or political will to address the issue and so it will not be adequately addressed. On other issues there may be strong public will but, no overarching political will -- again, the issue will not be adequately addressed. If voters are not inhibited or disenfranchised in some way, the all important public will can be expressed in each new election (local, state, & federal). Until voter suppression is stopped and the public is allowed to freely express its will through voting for political leadership and direction little, if any, progress will be made on all of the major issues facing the country.

There is no more important issue than expanding voter rights and stopping blatant voter suppression.

Take climate change for example. . .

The challenge to address climate change is particularly difficult because of its global nature, over which we have only limited and indirect control. It’s doubtful the challenge will ever be met. However, if we focus on issues within the United States and under our government control, addressing climate change is no different than the many other critical issues that must be addressed and solved. While there is no specific proposal to address U.S. involvement in the issue, there is general public support for doing something. That public support may change dramatically depending on a specific proposal, however, there is no clear political support among the existing mix of Congressional legislators so it's highly unlikely that anything will be done. Free and uninhibited voter expression in upcoming elections could change that dynamic.

And how about infrastructure which we can more directly control. . .

On infrastructure there appears to be broad, bipartisan support for President Biden's fairly specific proposed $2.2 trillion infrastructure plan. Yet despite the public support, political support is fairly split and the opposition is entrenched based on definitional and funding issues. 

What if Democrats called the Republican’s bluff? Republicans in Congress continue to say they are for infrastructure, but Democrats define it too broadly, their proposal is too big, and they propose increases in the corporate income tax rate and perhaps taxes only on persons making more than $400,000, all of which they are against. 

As an alternative strategy to meet the public will, why don’t Democrats say to Republicans, tell us the parts of the infrastructure bill that you think are overreach or not germane. If Republicans won’t officially identify their objections, Democrats should do it based on various, on-record comments from Republican leaders. It appears that a small group of Republicans have rallied around a reduced infrastructure bill (conforming to their definition) of about $600 to $800 billion. Then, repackage the bill to near Republican standards and call it Infrastructure (Part A). Now, bring the Part A bill to the floor for a vote and see how many votes it gets or if Republicans filibuster it. 

If it passes, it will at least be a starting point and Biden and Congressional Democrats can claim victory — they compromised and got something done on a huge issue. Democrats also should develop and and widely publicize their Part B bill and highlight the additional features that go beyond the Part A bill. If the Part A bill doesn't pass (I can almost guarantee that), Biden and Dems can expose the blatant hypocrisy of Republicans and their obstructionist agenda and focus solely on political power. If the Biden infrastructure bill (Part A&B) continues to be popular Democrats should attempt to pass it by whatever means and, if necessary, expose opponents to the public will in the midterm election.

By not focusing like a laser on the most critical and foundational issue of all -- voting rights -- I am seriously worried that Democrats are going to undermine what may be a one-time opportunity to save democracy as we know it. Despite the idiocy and corruption of the Trump years he continues to command control of the GOP (a factoid I simply don't understand). In typical Democratic fashion, with the narrowest margin of political control, Democrats are falling into their self-made trap of ideological overreach, lack of focus and confusing communications. This shortsightedness gives Republicans all the buzz words and soundbites they need to spread lies and disinformation throughout the electorate. Typically, Democrats try to push too much, too fast, beyond the middle ground of basic, widely accepted support for necessary reforms -- the so-called Overton window.

It is a time when filibuster reform (not elimination) and plain and simple "voting rights" (exclusive of distracting issues like campaign financing & election reforms) should be the number one priorities. Voting rights in particular is the critical underpinning upon which all other reforms depend; now and in the future. I'm afraid Democrats are not focused on the prize and instead are laying the groundwork for the Republican barrage of "see, I told you so" -- misleading attacks on spending & taxes, packing SCOTUS, reparations, green deals, defunding police, 2nd amendment rights, new statehoods, and other highly controversial and complicated issues that are all important but scare the electorate, do not have overwhelming public support and dominate the news media and overshadow the basic priorities. 

Democrats cannot even muster unanimous support from their own Party on many of these issues and as the 2022 midterm election approaches there is no time to waste. If Dems lose their narrow political control in the midterms, all is lost. Filibuster reform and voting rights legislation to stop voter suppression are essential to any future Democratic agenda and must be accomplished well in advance of November 2022, to allow time to implement reforms. I don't see a focused effort to make that happen.  

###

Footnote #1:

Several Republicans Senators have now put forth a $568 billion counter proposal to the Biden $2.2 trillion plan [https://tinyurl.com/r3rbd6w]. The GOP members include:

Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) along with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Mike Crapo (R-ID) and John Barrasso (R-WY), and Mitt Romney.( R-UT).

The following is a listing of GOP v. Biden proposals for common infrastructure items. The numbers in parenthesis indicate the middle "compromise" between the two proposals. All numbers are in billions and the GOP proposed number is indicated first. See a comparison of the two plans: https://tinyurl.com/efkmpmz2

Roads and bridges 299 - 205 ($252B); 

Public transit systems 61 - 85 ($73B); 

Rail 20 - 80 ($50B)

Drinking water & wastewater infrastructure 35 - 101 ($68B)

Ports & inland waterways 17 - 17 ($17B)

Airports 44 - 25 ($34.5B)

Safety 13 - 0 ($6.5B)

Broadband infrastructure 65 - 100 ($82.5)

Water storage 14 - 0 ($7B)

As it turns out the two plans are only $45 billion apart on generally common items ($568 v. $613). If you split the differences on the common items a compromised total would be about $590 billion.

Consistent with my suggestion above I would propose that President Biden and Senate Democrats immediately package the compromised numbers on the common items into the Infrastructure Part A bill. Currently it is proposed to finance the effort over 15 years with a hike in the corporate income tax rate to 28%, up from 21%. The Administration could also call for a compromise here also -- to say 25%.

Democrats should call the Republican's bluff and put the Part A completely compromised bill to a vote in the Senate & see if the GOP will support it (I doubt it). If it fails to pass, Democrats should immediately pass the bill through reconciliation, claim their victory for getting something done for the American people, and emphasize the GOP's refusal to compromise in the upcoming midterm elections.

President Biden and Congressional Democrats should then package the remaining elements of the proposal into a Part B bill to include their items such as electric vehicles, climate change, elderly infrastructure via caregiving & caregivers, clean manufacturing & rural community energy, energy efficient housing, research and development, educational infrastructure, workforce development, and VA hospitals. Democrats should work separately to build and gain public support for these items.

###

Footnote #2:

J.P. McJefferson

@JPMcJefferson

· May 31

Mitch McConnell made SCOTUS appointments AN EXCEPTION to the filibuster. If Dems can rally 50 votes on issues, Chuck Schumer should make #VotingRights; U.S. #Insurrection; & #CivilRights AN EXCEPTION. #filibuster #FilibusterOrDemocracy #bipartisanship

https://tinyurl.com/yf7me8ne

J.P. McJefferson

@JPMcJefferson

·

May 30

NOTHING WILL CHANGE FOR THE BETTER -- gun laws, climate change, police practices, abortion laws, the filibuster, infrastructure, minimum wage, civil rights, health care -- IF THE PUBLIC IS DENIED VOTING RIGHTS! Fix it now! #VotingRights http://tinyurl.com/99vhav5s

J.P. McJefferson

@JPMcJefferson

·

May 29

Sen. Joe Manchin said, "You have to have faith there's 10 good people." WRONG Joe; Only 6! Joe, it's time to wake up. You can't compromise with liars, tricksters & traitors. Now what? #Congress #bipartisanship #Filibuster #filibusterreform #Senate https://tinyurl.com/386rztac

What Goes Around Comes Around

Back in 2016, as the Obama Administration was coming to a close and before the country experienced the trauma of the Trump Administration, I did a post that urged then Vice President Joe Biden to exercise an important duty of the Vice President -- i.e. issuing an advisory opinion about internal Senate procedure. As the old saying goes in politics, "What goes around comes around." So here we go again debating whether we should once again change the filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate. 

Although Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) now claims a change would ruin the integrity of what was once considered “the world's greatest deliberative body,” both parties have changed this Senate rule before when it suited their political ambitions at the time. As the rule has been chipped away, misused, twisted and distorted in recent years, maybe it's time to put it to bed or develop a workable replacement. As it currently stands it is one of the most destructive and divisive components of Congressional decision-making. It has led to an untenable and undemocratic trend of roller coaster governance by Executive Order. It is not a Constitutional requirement; it is simply a Senate rule that may be changed by a simple majority vote of the Senate. Unfortunately, V.P. Biden did not follow up on my request, but it still seems timely. So I'll pass it along again.

July 12, 2016

V.P. Biden Could Lead Gridlock Reform

An Open Letter To Vice President Biden

Mr. Vice President, now is the time for you to 

exercise one of your important duties.

Dear Mr. Vice President,

The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice, has indicated that “Although often overlooked, one of the duties of the vice president is to act as president of the Senate, including issuing advisory opinions about internal Senate procedure.”¹

I am writing to you to remind that you are in a very unique position at a critical point in our nation’s history to issue an historic Advisory Opinion on internal Senate procedures that could be a highlight of your legacy and a manifesto to challenge and guide the future operations of the United States Senate.

First of all, as President of the U.S. Senate you are in the foremost position to issue such a manifesto. Secondly, your 36 year career as an active U.S. Senator, combined with nearly 8 years as Vice President and Senate President, has given you a perspective unmatched by any individual. Thirdly, your apparent retirement from elected office, gives you a credibility and neutrality which is necessary to speak on a controversial issue that demands bipartisanship, yet defies resolution because of its powerful political scope that benefits both major political parties. Finally, as the Obama Administration draws to a close and a new Presidency has yet to be decided, and a new Congressional session looms, the timing could not be better to set the stage for a new era Senatorial reform.

As you and all Washington, DC insiders know well, certain Senate procedures and rules are a major contributor to governmental gridlock and dysfunction. The excessive increase in the so-called “silent filibuster”; the arcane procedure known as a Senatorial “hold”; and the ability of Senate Leadership and Committee Chairs to ignore Constitutionally-mandated functions (advise and consent) because there are no specified procedural time limits (e.g. Supreme Court appointment), are a few examples of rules and procedures that demand changes.

Some will argue that such changes require a two-thirds vote of the Senate, but that argument has been dispelled by both Republicans and Democrats.

Again, citing the Brennan Center, “The Constitution nowhere requires a two-thirds vote for changing Senate rules and does not even mention filibusters. The Constitution states that ‘each house may determine the rules of its proceedings,’ and the document requires a two-thirds vote only for impeachments, expelling a member, ratifying treaties, overriding presidential vetoes, and proposing constitutional amendments. There is simply no reason to believe that the framers of the Constitution thought a two-thirds vote could be required for the Senate (or the House) to change its rules. The straightforward inference is that, as a constitutional matter, only a simple majority is required.”²

Without going into the details of these extreme extra-parliamentary practices that both parties have self-imposed on House & Senate procedures, it is these very practices that have led, in large part, to the current dysfunctional government and the increasing public unrest.

It is my opinion that if you dig deep into the search for solutions you can find it in the simple concept of "majority rule." For the last several decades inside political manipulation by both parties has undermined this basic concept, and as a result given rise to a devilish concept of "minority rule." This nightmarish concept defies compromise and feeds on government stagnation, obstruction and inaction on increasingly perplexing problems and issues that demand action -- that's why the public is mad – that’s why they have lost their trust and respect for government.

Not only do these practices grind decision making to a standstill, but they allow for increased leverage for lobbyists and moneyed influences. These practices are the "demons of democracy" and have led to the public’s perception that Congress is basically useless as a governing body – e.g. approval ratings less than 10%.

As Thomas Jefferson pointed out way back in 1809, "Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." He also said, "All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes."³

The “demons of democracy” have so distorted the democratic process envisioned by the Founders and the Constitution, as to make it unrecognizable. No elected President (Democrat, Republican or Independent) can achieve their stated or envisioned goals for the country because of these constraints. The result is that the majority public and winning candidate are denied any opportunity to see their vision actually implemented.

We must have trust in the majority rule system as it may not always deliver the results that we, as an individual, envision; however, if decisions are really bad, the majority corrects itself by changing direction. The founders believed in the concept of majority rule and we have now drifted away from that cornerstone.

Mr. Vice President, your leadership on this vital issue at this critical time can help turn the tide of what is becoming a dangerous decline in the public’s belief in our democratic form of government and our political leaders from both major parties. . .

Please use your position, experience and authority to address these critical issues in an Advisory Opinion on internal Senate procedures.

¹ The Filibuster Myth, Frederick A. O. (“Fritz”) Schwarz, Jr., January 15, 2013. Brennan Center

²The Filibuster Myth, Frederick A. O. (“Fritz”) Schwarz, Jr., January 15, 2013. Brennan Center

³ Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337 & Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809. ME 16:456

Bipartisanship On Hold

 Bipartisanship On Hold

I've always been an advocate of bipartisanship and compromise in politics. It started in the late 1970's when I was a young civil engineer and community planner that had transitioned from an environmental consulting firm and began working for a prominent environmental advocacy organization. I think my experience in community planning, explaining plans and concepts to diverse groups (industry, government & NGOs) and conducting many public hearings and meetings helped me understand the varying differences of group opinions and perspectives.

Because of my education and experience I was able to bridge a relatively large gap between legal, technical practitioners in the environmental field with citizen activists clamoring for a cleaner, less threatening environment. Both groups had their political pipelines to the movers and shakers at the state capitol. I became a credible negotiator between many diverse groups including the politicians. 

I began to realize the power of accomplishment that could be achieved when these diverse groups worked together, resolved differences and compromised on solutions. Those were my roots in bipartisanship and I later went on to establish a set of bifurcated nonprofit and for profit corporations to focus on bipartisan objectives, unbiased information and compromised solutions to environmental issues. The whole deal consumed 46 years of a lifetime.

So it was only natural when I retired to start a blog on the "Underpinnings of a Broken Government." Through the years I had seen the advantages of bipartisanship, but I had also seen the many obstacles in the way of constructive solutions to problems and issues. 

Back in early 2016, a volatile political year, when I began the blog, I posted a number of missives on gridlock and the dysfunctional Congress. That's when observers were concerned with what I called gridlock gimmicks such as filibusters; cloture votes; senatorial holds; the Hastert rule; Speaker control; Majority Leader control; Rules Committees control; avoidance of Regular Order; refusing to act; timing delays; riders and unrelated matters; and on and on. All in all it's a massive collection of procedures, policies, traditions, formal and informal rules all being used and manipulated by the majority and minority political parties in Congress. 

The concerns were the growing dysfunction of Congress and the near paralyzing effect on government. Then we transitioned to Donald Trump and the evolution of a much different political atmosphere in the country. What I had previously called the traditional, conservative Republicans were captivated by the Pied Piper of Divisiveness and gravitated to his persistent lies and misinformation which they accepted blindly. With schoolyard nicknames, lies, conspiracy theories and a Twitter account, he showed Republicans a new brand of politics and they welcomed it with open arms.

What at first may have appeared as a novel new "kick'm & shove'm" wild west style of politics that turned political norms upside down, quickly started to amplify an already known bigoted underbelly. What followed was a wildly distorted, Republican voted tax cut, appointment of three Supreme Court justices, the Mueller report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, scandal upon scandal, an impeachment, immigration crisis, a mismanaged pandemic needlessly killing tens of thousands, a revolving door of firings, resignations and replacement sycophants; embarrassment and disaffection among our allies, sinister new relations with our enemies and increasingly tyrannical behavior from the Oval Office.

The country waded through the long slog of this hideous epoch of American political history and approached the 2020 election in the midst of a pandemic. The public was confronted with continuous and persistent fabricated claims that the election was guaranteed to be rigged by Democrats and fraudulent if it yielded anything other than a Donald Trump victory. 

Despite the fact that the Trump presidential approval averaged in the low 40s and never reached 50%, his corrupt, despotic style had morphed a large majority of the Republican Party and many Independents into a new political entity with a radically distorted vision of American democracy and the Constitution. Although 81 million persons voted for Joe Biden; 74 million voted for Donald Trump after experiencing four abysmal years of incompentent, bigoted, autocratic leadership. Additionally it is important to note that in spite of the large Biden popular vote victory, Donald Trump, probably the most odious President in U.S. history, could have been reelected by the Electoral College with the shifting of approximately 50,000 votes in 3-4 states. A similar small number of votes (about 80,000) could have allowed Hillary Clinton to defeat Trump in the 2016 Electoral College as well as winning 3 million more popular votes.

Unfortunately, the 2020 election and large popular vote Biden victory did not settle the differences between Democrats and the new, Trump-laced Republican Party. Trump and his compatriots launched a crazed, obsessive, delusional legal rampage challenging the election results claiming widespread fraud and a stolen election. The results were repeatedly conclusive in some 61 separate court cases in federal and state courts including three decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court -- there was no fraud; it was a completely fair and proper election. 

Following the official Electoral College vote on December 14, 2020, the rage did not stop and disassociated itself from reality and is now referred to as the "Big Lie". Despite the conclusion that the election was completely fair and legitimate, Trump continued his fraudulent claims and even threatened state officials in an attempt to find additional votes that would allow him to alter certified results and declare an illegitimate win. A cult-like movement demanding "Stop the Steal" developed around Trump's efforts to perpetuate the Big Lie. 

Finally, at the last official decision point in the process; on January 6, 2021, before the inauguration of President Joe Biden on January 20, Trump and his immediate cohorts made good on what they had promised would be a "wild" time, by whipping a crowd of hostile insurgents into a frenzy with lies and angry rhetoric. They encouraged them to march on the U.S. Capitol in an effort to forcefully persuade House and Senate members and the Vice President to overturn the U.S. presidential election results to Stop the Steel and award the presidency to Donald Trump. The insurgents threatened assassinations, hangings and extreme violence. What resulted was the worst, most violent invasion of the Capitol and assault on the U.S. democracy in American history. [Storming of the United States Capitol]

Hours later, when the insurgence was finally put down, the House and Senate resumed their review and deliberation of the election results. Seventy percent (70%) of House Republicans and twenty percent (20%) of Senate Republicans voted to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. Subsequent efforts to impeach Donald Trump for the second time and hold him accountable and provide consequences for such seditious presidential actions were rejected by ninety-five percent (95%) of House Republicans. Preliminary actions in the U.S. Senate trial on the impeachment have already revealed that ninety percent (90%) of Senate Republicans are opposed to the impeachment trial.

Through their recorded votes to overthrow a legitimate U.S. election and their recorded votes to reject holding Donald Trump accountable for his seditious involvement in the presidential election and the Capitol insurrection, the Republican Party has overwhelmingly demonstrated that it holds a perverse, perverted and far from traditional view of American democracy and the U.S. Constitution. Now, several weeks beyond the egregious insurrection and the inauguration of a new President, Donald Trump continues his contentions and conspiracy theories of a fraudulent and stolen election. Likewise Republicans in Congress and their leadership continue to confer with Trump on the Party's direction, resist imposing any punishment or consequences for his actions and some still believe the election was stolen.

The aftermath of the Donald Trump presidency has left many questions and uncertainties regarding the state of the Republican Party and its future. Large majorities of the Party seem to have a far different view of the representative democratic republic and the traditional norms of U.S. politics. Until the Republican Party examines itself and clarifies its current extreme positions and its expectation for interaction in more traditional U.S. politics and governance, the concept of true bipartisan resolution of problems and issues facing the country is impractical and quixotic. 

While it may be possible to find an exceedingly small percentage of Republican legislators to align with Democrats to address issues and solve problems, the barometer of good governance should be consistency with widespread public opinion -- not the level of bipartisanship.

*See comments below

Americanship v. Political Powership

I wrote about this back in March 2017, but it's time to revisit this historic time in bipartisan politics.

Fall of 2000. It was a tumultuous time in American politics. The November election had resulted in close votes, hanging chads, contested elections, recounts, court challenges, uncertainty, protests, and public unrest. 

The country was deeply divided. Following weeks of uncertainty after the election, George W. Bush was finally pronounced the winner when he received only 537 more votes than Al Gore in a Florida recount. The controversial recount finally ended with a U.S Supreme Court 5-4 split decision to stop the vote recounting and overruling a 4-3 Florida Supreme Court split decision in favor of Gore. That gave Bush 271 Electoral College votes compared to Al Gore's 266; but, Gore received over 540,000 more popular votes than Bush. Adding to the deep political division of the country, Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate received a total of over 2,800,000 popular votes, drawing them away from the primary candidates. The level of national unrest and divisiveness among the American electorate could not have been higher.
  

If it all sounds familiar, it is. And, American politics has never quite been the same since. Further, similarities on top of the dramatic Presidential race arise in the fact that the down-ballot U.S. Senate races resulted in a 50-50 split between Republicans and Democrats. A situation that could easily repeat itself depending on the results of two runoff elections in Georgia in early January 2021.

Washington politicos were in a tizzy. How would they govern? How would the public react to such a narrow and disputed margin of power when Gore actually won the popular vote and the contentious Supreme Court involvement? There were calls for compromise, bipartisanship and getting the parties to work together. Bush's VP Dick Cheney could break what was at the time thought to be numerous tie votes, but what would be the public reaction?

In the midst of the confusion and uncertainty, Senate leaders Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Trent Lott (R-MS) worked diligently through the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season to craft a remarkable and unprecedented "powersharing agreement" based on what they said was the concept of trust and bipartisanship. Among other items, the agreement provided for Republican chairs of all Senate committees after January 20, 2001; equal party representation on all Senate committees; equal division of committee staffs and operating budgets between the parties; procedures for discharging measures blocked by tie votes in committee; a restriction on the offering of cloture motions on amendable matters; restrictions on floor amendments offered by party leaders; eligibility of Senators from both parties to preside over the Senate; and general provisions seeking to reiterate the equal interest of both parties in the scheduling of Senate chamber business.   

At a press conference, Senator Lott said, "nobody can win on 51 votes. . . [it's] not what the American people expect from us". The full Senate (including then Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)) approved the agreement by voice vote without objection and Daschle and Lott praised it as "miraculous", "historic", “a big down payment on the bipartisanship”, “a serious dose of reality”, “a framework for bipartisanship, nonpartisanship, Americanship.” Despite the many accolades, the agreement only survived for five months when the politicians quickly traded its many advantages for a few percentage points of political power as one member switched parties resulting in a 51-49 split. One has to ask, why do Americans have to sacrifice miraculous, historic, reality, bipartisanship, nonpartisanship and above all Americanship for a few votes of political powership?

From the Congressional Record, January 5, 2001, (107th Congress, 1st Session Issue: Vol. 147, No. 3 — Daily Edition). Senators Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Trent Lott (R-MS) on the Senate Floor discussing Senate Resolution 8, The Powersharing Agreement. [See the full text] The agreement was expanded by a leadership colloquy on January 8, 2001.

Mr. DASCHLE. The other day, I quoted the writer Thomas Wolfe who said: 

America is not only the place where miracles happen, they happen all the time.

If the resolution I will soon introduce is not miraculous, it is, at the very least, historic. It is also fair and reasonable. The details and the spirit of this agreement, which I expect the Senate to pass later today, should enable us to conduct our Nation's first 50/50 Senate in a most productive and bipartisan manner.

I especially thank the Republican leader, Senator Lott. We will enter into a colloquy in a period of time to be later determined, but I must say, without his leadership and his sense of basic fairness, this agreement would not have come about. He and I have spent many hours over the last several months, and now weeks, and certainly in the last several days, negotiating the details of this agreement. He spent many more hours consulting with the members of his caucus about it. He and they deserve credit for taking this unprecedented step. . .

Our negotiations involve many difficult issues and many strongly held opinions. Neither party got everything it wanted. Both sides made concessions. Both caucuses made principled compromises. That is the essence of democracy.

This agreement accurately reflects the historic composition of the Senate. More important, I believe it reflects the political thinking of the American people. It calls for equal representation on Senate committees. Every committee would have the same number of Republicans and Democrats. And it specifies that Republicans will chair the committees after January 20. It allows for equal budgets and office space for both caucuses, at 50/50.

One of the most vexing questions we struggled with during our negotiations was how to break ties when committees are divided equally. We have agreed that in the event of a tie vote, either leader can move to discharge a bill or nomination. The Senate will then debate the motion to discharge for four hours, and that time will be equally divided. There will then be a vote on the motion. If the motion passes, the bill or nomination would be placed on the calendar.

Similarly, the resolution allows committee Chairs to discharge a subcommittee in the case of a tie vote and place the legislative item or nomination on the full committee agenda.

We arrived at this process after much thinking and exchange of ideas. Senator Lott has been concerned that equal representation on the committees could lead to gridlock. While I do not share that concern, I believe this was a fair concession to get this agreement. . .

Today's agreement makes a big downpayment on the bipartisanship we owe our country. Democrats and Republicans made significant concessions, putting the national interest first and putting party aside. . .

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wouldn't say this is my preferred result, but I think it is a reasonable one with a serious dose of reality. We have work to do and we need to begin it now, not in a week or two or three or four. We need to conclude the assignment of our Members to the all important committees that will be having hearings on the nominees. . .

I would prefer to have a clear advantage on every committee and a clear advantage number-wise on everything. While that is preferable, it is not the reality. . .

What we have here, as difficult as it may make life for us, as difficult as it may be for our committee members and our chairmen and ranking members to make this situation work, it is going to require additional work, but it can be done. It is going to force us to work together more than we have in the past. No doubt. I do not think that is bad. I think this is a framework for bipartisanship. There has been a lot of talk about that word, and I am sure there are some people in this city, in this Chamber, who smirk at that, laugh at that. People across America are saying: I have heard enough of that; let's get some results here. . .

It is a framework to see if we really mean it. It can force us to live up to the truest and best meaning of that word-- nonpartisanship, Americanship, that is what we ought to call it--to find a way to get to these issues. . .

This is a classic case of extending the hand of friendship, of good faith. Will it lead to tremendous accomplishments or will that hand of friendship be bitten or the posterior kicked by one side or the other? It could, but we have to start from a position of good faith and reach out and say we are going to make this work.

If it does not work, then the American people will see. If these 50/50 committees do not function, then we can talk about obstructionism, and one way or the other, the American people will know who is trying to make it work and who is stalling it. If we come to this floor and have a debate on a tax bill and it passes this Senate by whatever number and does not get to conference or is tied up in conference or is killed in conference, do you think the American people are going to stand for that? I do not think so. We cannot let that happen. [emphasis added]

On May 24, 2001, Republican James Jeffords left the party to become an Independent and began caucusing with the Democrats, thus breaking the 50/50 party split in the Senate. While it only lasted five months, the discussion above is refreshing in today’s extreme, mega polarized Congressional and public atmosphere. There are many lessons to be learned here and we should reflect on the words.

Yes, it's a different time with many different actors. President-elect Joe Biden has promised to try to work with Republicans and get things done in a cooperative and bipartisan way. It is a statesman-like aspiration and endeavor that many would call foolhardy, unrealistic and untenable in today's political environment. 

The 2001 shared power agreement and its rationale may provide a beginning point for discussion of the need to change the committee power structure that currently exists and is doomed to produce one-sided solutions to exceedingly complex problems and issues. The current debate over a nationwide health care system is a great example. What good does it do if one party narrowly passes a comprehensive health care plan by a couple of votes that is then overturned or gutted with the next transition of political power a few years later. 

We keep repeating this senseless act of governance over and over in a political environment that could not be more divided and appears to be entering a new era of obscurity and darkness. Former President Barack Obama recently said something to the effect that our politics have ventured into a new space where not only do politicians spread lies and misinformation without consequences; but, truth itself no longer matters. 

With this as a starting point for the new President, the idea of working cooperatively to devise bipartisan solutions to the great issues of our time becomes dubious at best. It will take a masterful degree of wizardry and communication skills to create a foundation to even begin discussions along these lines. Hopefully President Biden can tap his own years of political experience and construct a governing nucleus by appealing to the more reasoned and informed members of both parties. Additionally he can seek out influencers outside of Congress and input from seasoned party elders that have viewed the current state of affairs and can assist by sharing their insights and positions of leadership to communicate to their political constituencies and the public. I have suggested various powersharing ideas on this blog.

The bottom line as I have said before, what is our choice? We either work together or we settle for continued political chaos, massive unrest and riotous division among the populous. Additionally, nothing is accomplished; problems go unresolved; and our international reputation is diminished to the largest banana republic on the globe. We need to reflect on the words of our very first President in 1785, when he commented on a similar troubling time, "We are either a United people or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation... If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending it."

Backgrounder Document: Congressional Research Service Report RS20785. The Senate Powersharing Agreement of the 107th Congress (2001-2003): Key Features

"Crisis Point" - Sen. Tom Daschle & Trent Lott discuss their January 2016 book.