Public land worth billions is sold for a pittance under an 1872 law, but the U.S. Senate fails to take action on legislation designed to get a fair price.
Exploding gas lines, ruptured by unknowing excavators, pose a threat to public safety, but the U.S. Senate does not act on a bill that would make it easier to learn their locations.
Health care coverage for children through Medicare might well have been approved by Congress this fall, but the Senate did not act.
Big money influence over elections continues unabated in part because curbs were not voted on in the U.S. Senate.
Lawmakers may continue to play golf or ski at the expense of lobbyists and the corporations they represent: A bill to ban such gifts was blocked in the U.S. Senate.
These Washington failures -- or successes, depending on your viewpoint -- were the result of orchestrated gridlock in the recently concluded 103rd Congress.
Voting was blocked by a flurry of filibustering, the ultimate symbol of gridlock, and expression of legislative paralysis as virtue or of cynical disregard for the role of government.
Once the last refuge of opponents of civil rights, suffocating debate has now become the policy-making twin of negative campaigning and mud slinging in campaigns. It is a parliamentary device bent sharply to the demands of politics.
According to Safire's Political Dictionary, the word is ultimately derived from the Dutch vribuiter, meaning freebooter, commonly used to describe pirates, commonly regarded as thieves. The stolen goods in this case are majority rule, good will, good bills, government's good name and democracy itself.
The maneuver has been employed so frequently in recent years that an organization was founded last summer to work for its reform or abolition. "Action, Not Gridlock" is headed by former Maryland Sen. Charles McC. Mathias Jr., a Republican, and 14 former GOP officeholders. They were joined by 10 former Democratic governors, senators and representatives.
In original form, extended debate was permitted to give the minority a chance to avoid being steamrollered by the majority -- even to become the majority by force of argument, to be heard at the very least.
Under U.S. Senate Rule 22, a filibuster may be employed at each of seven points in the path a bill must travel to reach final passage. These opportunities have seldom been taken over the years.
Until 1957, the tactic succeeded in turning back civil rights legislation. Those bills passed later in different times -- and after the super-majority required to end debate was reduced from 67 to 60 votes.
But in 1993 and 1994, Republicans filibustered almost everything that moved, including the appointment of committees to discuss legislative differences with the House. In the last week of the most recent session, five filibusters were under way at one time. One bill faced three separate filibusters.
The talking goes on
These "debates" may only be stopped by a vote of three-fifths of the body. Unless 60 senators agree that enough is enough, the talking goes on, sometimes for weeks.
"We now have a leadership," said Republican Rep. Fred Grandy of Iowa, "that pre-empts policy with politics."
A bill called Goals 2000 made his case. The bill promotes development of workplace skills and standards, gives states more responsibility for education, promotes improved teacher training. It had been supported earlier by the GOP -- naturally enough, since it originated in the Bush administration.
After complaining that they disliked putting hobbles on grass-roots lobbying groups, Republicans continued to filibuster the lobby reform measure even after its sponsor, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, agreed to remove the offending passages.
Asked why his party opposed a bill it had previously backed, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas said his allies had been intimidated earlier by the liberal press.
The filibuster was designed to deny Democrats and President Clinton any semblance of effectiveness. But Democrats supported filibusters, too, particularly on campaign finance reform.
"I've reached the conclusion that we can't get 60 votes for the Ten Commandments," said Sen. John B. Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat.
When the full frenzy of the tactic descended upon the Senate, a single senator, working anonymously, could stop a bill. By putting a "hold" on legislation, he was announcing an intention to filibuster unless the bill was satisfactorily amended.
This happens more easily in the filibuster-dominated final moments: If one or two filibusters are under way at the end of a session, the "hold" can kill a bill instantly without the aid of a filibuster. The Senate's presiding officers will set it aside to avoid the delay and move on legislation that has less opposition.
The strategy has worked, in part, because so many voters are down on Washington. Sen. Dave Durenberger, a Minnesota Republican, says his party concluded it could not be hurt by killing bills.
As in the case of health care for children, losses of gold mine revenue, gift-giving by lobbyists and other pieces of concrete legislation lost to filibusters, some in Congress believe the public will care when it sees the casualty list.
One of these is Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, who proposes to ratchet down the debate-ending super-majority. Sixty senators would still be required on the first attempt, but 57 would suffice on the next try, 53 on the next and finally the filibuster could be ended by the vote of a simple majority of 51.
His objective is strongly backed by both Maryland senators.
Paul S. Sarbanes, a member of the joint committee studying ways to streamline Congress, says: "There is no more important issue than reducing delay and gridlock in the Senate. The use of the filibuster has escalated dramatically, wasting time and damaging the ability of the senate to even consider important public business."
'Get it done'
"I'm a get-it-done, end-gridlock senator," says Barbara A. Mikulski, also a Democrat. She supports reforms that would allow Congress "to move ahead to meet the day-to-day needs of American families."
Senator Harkin says he wants the bill to pass even though he is now in the minority. But he said he would not "unilaterally disarm": If Republicans decline his invitation to reform the process, he suggested, they might well feel the filibuster's lash themselves.
"Action, Not Gridlock" supports the Harkin proposal, too, according to Sandy Newman, the group's executive director. Democrats, he agrees, have a dilemma.
But the key to passage, he says, is held by Senator Dole, now the incoming majority leader.
"It would be smart for Republicans to support the [Harkin] proposal, and those who oppose it should understand that they are inviting Democrats to use filibusters to stop their legislation. If Republicans oppose this change they will have lost any moral credibility in challenging Democrats' use of the filibuster over the next two years," he says.
The process has always operated on good will and shared objectives. At the very least there was mutually assured destruction: Hurt me and I'll hurt you.
Democrats, though, are a bit trapped. As the minority, they may be loath to set aside such a powerful tool. And Republicans may conclude that the filibuster should be preserved against the possibility they may be back in the minority some day. In the meantime, they may think destructive debating will be less effective for those who still believe government has a legitimate role in problem-solving.
D8 C. Fraser Smith is a reporter for The Baltimore Sun.