‘The Dean’ Speaks

If you’re a fan of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, you might want to skip former Rep. John Dingell’s new memoir, “The Dean.”

Dingell, never a soft-spoken kind of guy, doesn’t pull any punches when it comes to President Trump, calling him everything from a huckster to a “disturbance on the American Republic.” And worse.

But if you’re a political junkie who’s interested in how we got into the current mess we’re in, then “The Dean” is an easy read. You might even laugh a couple of times.

Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, served in the House for 59 years, from December 1955 to Jan. 3, 2015. He succeeded his father, John Dingell Sr., who held the seat for 22 years. And Dingell’s successor is his wife, Debbie.

Dingell traces his life, from serving as a congressional page to his retirement, during which he spends time on Twitter sending nasty messages out about Trump.

Along the way, Dingell became one of the most powerful members of Congress, serving as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

“One of the main oversight roles of a committee chair is to ask questions and seek answers,” Dingell wrote. “Congressional oversight is fundamentally the search for truth, no matter how painful the consequences.”

And Dingell took oversight seriously, sending administration officials – Democratic and Republican – long lists of questions that became known as Dingellgrams.

Dingell also makes recommendations for cleaning up the current political mess, from public funding of campaigns to automatic voter registration of people when they reach 18 years of age.

But as a creature of the “People’s House” and a critic of the so-called “Upper Chamber,” he has one recommendation that’s not going to gain any traction: Abolish the Senate.

A small state like Rhode Island should not have the same political power as a huge state like California, he argued. At the least, Dingell said, the House and Senate should be combined.

The Senate might have some objections to that.

A Solution for Shutdowns?

At the rate things are going, federal government shutdowns – full or partial – may become almost normal.

After all, the folks in D.C. can’t seem to agree on anything.

Way back in 1999, some members of Congress, including then-Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa), thought they had a good solution. He and then-Rep. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), now a senator, introduced a plan that would have instituted an automatic Continuing Resolution anytime there was a lapse in appropriations.

Programs would have been at the level set the previous year for any annual funding bill that had not been enacted by the end of the fiscal year.

Congress could continue to work on the appropriations bills, but if their efforts failed, at least the federal government would not shut down.

The plan was the product of a Task Force on the Budget Process that was known as the Nussle-Cardin Task Force (yes, they had a budget process task force back then – a clear indication of how well the process has worked).

The Nussle-Cardin proposal dropped like a lead balloon.

First, the House Appropriations Committee said the automatic Continuing Resolution proposal should be dropped from any budget reform plan.

The appropriators, and others, argued that having an automatic Continuing Resolution in effect would take all the pressure off enacting the regular funding bills.

“No longer would appropriations bills be considered ‘must pass’ legislation,” the Appropriations Committee said in a report lambasting the Nussle-Cardin plan. “Inaction would favor the status quo. The option of doing nothing or stonewalling appropriations bills would become a legitimate strategy.”

In other words, the importance of the Appropriations Committee would be diminished because the annual bills would not have to pass. Members would no longer have to come and plea with appropriators to fund their priorities.

And others agreed that the automatic Continuing Resolution would have taken the pressure off having to enact the regular spending bills.

“The result could be that automatic CRs would begin to supplant some appropriations bills,” the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said at the time. “If so, the effect would be unfortunate.”

The proposal was brought to the House floor, where it fared no better. It was defeated and relegated to the trash heap of budget reform plans.

You can argue whether it was a good idea or not, but the fact remains that it would have kept the federal government open even when stubborn fools refused to compromise.

Speaking of Compromise

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has always represented Establishment Republicans – pro-business, free market, anti-regulation people.

Not to mention, the business interests.

And of course, Republicans agreed with many of the Chamber’s positions.

GOP members of Congress have worn the annual vote ratings by the Chamber as a badge of honor. The Chamber identified the key pro-business votes that its officials defined as the most important and members were rated on how they voted.

The Chamber, of course, is not alone in the vote ratings business. Other groups identify the key votes that reflect their interests and rate members of Congress based on how they voted. For instance, the National Rifle Association grades members on their pro-gun votes.

But this month, Chamber officials announced an important revision to how they rate members.

“Beginning with the current Congress, we are revising our scorecard to more fully reward members of Congress for helping to advance pro-business policies while simultaneously encouraging members to reach the compromises necessary for effective governing,” the Chamber said when announcing the change.

That’s right. The Chamber is going to reward bipartisanship.

The new evaluation, of course, will include a legislative vote score of how members voted on particular bills.

It will also include a leadership vote score that is based on the number of Chamber-endorsed bills members co-sponsored and the number of Chamber-opposed bills members refused to co-sponsor.

Finally, a small part – 10% – of a member’s evaluation will reflect the number of bills members co-sponsor that were introduced by members of the opposite party. Of course, members would not be rewarded for supporting bills that the Chamber opposes.

“Lawmakers should be rewarded for reaching across the aisle – not punished,” Thomas Donohue, president/CEO of the Chamber, said in his annual “State of American Business” address on Jan 10.

He continued, “This new approach reflects our belief that many of Washington’s troubles – including dysfunction, division and incivility – could be helped by rebuilding the political center and restoring responsible governing.”

That makes sense and it has for years.

Shortly after the Republicans took control of the House in 1995, a GOP committee chairman said he was having trouble convincing a group of conservatives to accept compromises.

He said he believed it was OK to accept 70% of what you wanted in one year and come back and fight for the remaining 30% the next year.

But he could not convince the conservatives of that, so important legislation stalled.

Compromise has become a dirty word in Washington. Deal-making like John Dingell mastered is no longer respected. Trump, who prides himself on his deal-making ability, has been an abysmal failure at navigating such activities inside the Beltway.

And on Capitol Hill, members are viewed as traitors to their cause if they dare to cross the aisle and try to compromise.

Maybe, just maybe, the Chamber’s decision may help shift the tide.

Then again, maybe not.

David Baumann is a correspondent-at-large for CU Times. He can be reached at dbaumann@cutimes.com.