Senate Update: Doing Nothing Fast

Last week in the Senate, the big political event was a vote on whether to discuss the Paycheck Fairness Act. This vote occurred on Tuesday when its visibility was obscured by the Wisconsin recall election, but by a 52-47 vote senators decided against invoking cloture (which requires 60 votes) on the motion to bring this bill to the floor (more on this vote later). The outcome was not a surprise, nor the fact that it was almost a perfect party-line vote: Democrats* 52-1, Republicans 0-47.

Who is the lone Democrat? Harry Reid, who is not off-message as much as on-process. Reid voted "nay" so he can later move to reconsider the vote, i.e. bring up the same vote again. One can only do so if on the winning side.

In the short term, the Paycheck Fairness Act was a complete waste of the Senate's time if you think that legislators are trying to improve public policy. There is no way this bill will get past a Senate filibuster and the Republican-majority House in its current form. So why do it? More broadly, why do legislators hold these "message" votes?

1)  obviously, the goal is to clarify party distinctions for the next election. Even if a proposal is doomed in this Congress, it is worthwhile to know which party supports it and which one opposes it. In this case, the Paycheck Fairness Act vote buttresses the Democrats' claim that the Republicans are waging a "War on Women." Thus the expected defeat was followed by Democratic press conferences on Capitol Hill and the White House and press releases highlighting the vote:

Sorry, America, no equal pay for you, but the DNC made you this lovely infographic.

2) a "show" vote like this provides information about individual legislators as well. Their opponents can use this vote as fodder for campaign ads, and interest groups can target their most vulnerable opponents in an effort to build a majority for their proposals for the next Congress.

Of course, if the majority party is using the legislative process as an extension of its campaign machine, there are a couple caveats. First, while I think it's fair for the majority to have real procedural advantages to enact its policy agenda and keep the country running, it's also fair for the political time of Congress to be equally divided. Luckily, in this case, the House is more than keeping up its end of the political game, but it would be even better if the minority party in both chambers had a chance to play too.  Second, like the rest of us, Congress shouldn't get to play until they have finished their work. And there's a lot to be done: a highway bill, immigration reform, appropriations bills, and tax + entitlement reform.

With that in mind, what else did the Senate do last week?

• approved two district court judges by roll call vote
• passed eight Senate resolutions without a roll call vote (example: "designating June 7, 2012, as `National Hunger Awareness Day''')
• passed two Senate bills, two House bills, and one Senate concurrent resolution sans vote, all minor

The real legislation for this week was supposed to be a reauthorization of farm legislation. The committee draft is quite bold: it ends payments to farmers in exchange for a much cheaper system of crop insurance subsidies. But there was little action on this bill until Thursday morning, when the Senate voted 90-8 for cloture on the motion to take up the bill. After some debate on the motion, the Senate Democratic leaders took to the floor to blame Eric Cantor for Congressional inaction. So ended another week.

* Bernie Sanders is a Democrat. I will call him an Independent when he stops going to Democratic meetings, accepting committee assignments from the Democratic caucus, and getting support from the DSCC.