There's precedent for the House passing the Senate bill
A reader sends along this bit of history:
In 1979 the House again passed a very strong bill, but the Senate committee approved a less desirable version, giving weaker protection to smaller areas. [For example, this version left the 1.5-million-acre Arctic coastal plain open to the possibility of oil drilling.] When Carter and the Alaska Coalition won the first of a projected series of Senate floor votes on amendments to strengthen and expand the inadequate committee bill, Senate leaders pulled the bill from further floor action. Instead, they convened behind-closed-door negotiations dominated by the Alaska delegation.
The Senate-passed bill that resulted was still unsatisfactory to conservationists, who worked with Reps. Udall and Seiberling to prepare a much stronger substitute version they hoped to have the House adopt when it received the Senate-passed bill. However, the 1980 election intervened and Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter. It was obvious that Reagan would side with opponents of the Alaska Lands bill. So, the House leaders, conservationist coalition and Carter had no real choice but to accept the weaker — but still historic — Senate version.
By
Ezra Klein
|
January 20, 2010; 2:59 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Is 60 votes the loneliest number?
Next: Sometimes, a bunny is just a bunny
Posted by: NicholasBeaudrot | January 20, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse
Reagan defeated Carter after the Alaska vote.
Which of course begs the question: what would have the outcome been had the House and Carter held strong? If the progressive/conservationist base had not felt alientated?
Once again, the wrong lesson is being learned here. Capitulating to the tyranny of the minority and unicameralism here will be the downfall of the democratic party.
Posted by: jc263field | January 20, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse
Does the Democratic base really support party leadership going behind closed doors creating programs "for the people" that merely enrich unions, bureaucrats and their own special interests?
Posted by: cprferry | January 20, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse
"There's precedent" and "it's good politics" are two different things.
Posted by: cpurick | January 20, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.













Does my blog have cooties?
http://www.donkeylicious.com/2010/01/swallow-it-or-how-mike-gravel-saved-hcr.html
Among Democrats, Inouye, Levin, Leahy, and Byrd were in the Senate for this. Others, such as Dodd, were in the House. 14 current House Dems were around too -- Dingell, Conyers, Obey, Rangel, Stark, Murtha, Miller, Oberstar, Waxman, Markey, Dicks, Kildee, Rahall, and Skelton