TWO DAYS AFTER the new era of bipartisanship began, it ended. At least in the Senate. On September 13, Senator Jon Kyl, one of the chamber’s top experts on terrorism, introduced an amendment to an appropriations bill that would give law enforcement some of the additional tools President Bush is seeking. But Senator Patrick Leahy, one of the chamber’s top experts on delaying anti-terrorism legislation, moved quickly to defeat it. “The alleged bipartisanship you refer to is a myth,” Senator Kyl, an Arizona Republican, told me late last week. “There is a lot of rhetoric about bipartisanship, but it’s nonsense. It’s really quite partisan under the surface, and I expect it to remain so.” Kyl’s assessment echoes what many other members of Congress are saying privately. But if Kyl is particularly glum, he has good reason. He has been pushing anti-terrorism legislation for years, measures that today–despite widespread consensus among terrorism experts and members of both parties that they are needed–remain mere proposals. Senator Leahy is the chief reason for the inaction. Kyl isn’t the only Republican irritated with the lack of genuine bipartisanship, and he is not alone in grumbling about Leahy, the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators Orrin Hatch and Jeff Sessions, among others, have grown weary of Leahy’s tactics. “There’s just a lot of frustration with him among Republicans at the federal level,” says a Senate leadership aide, of the senior senator from Vermont. Leahy has long been one of the Senate’s most liberal and partisan Democrats. When fellow Vermonter Jim Jeffords gave Democrats control of the Senate by bailing on the GOP in May, and when Senator Joe Biden passed up the top spot on Judiciary in favor of the same position on Foreign Relations, Leahy lucked into a chairmanship that has boosted his stature. Running the Judiciary Committee makes him not only one of the Senate’s most liberal and partisan Democrats, but one of its most influential. Leahy’s arguments against the September 13 amendment to the Commerce/Justice/State appropriations bill–principally that the Senate was moving too quickly and that senators had not yet heard from the administration–were familiar. He raised the same objections last October when almost singlehanded he foiled an anti-terrorism bill with many of the same provisions. Last year, Leahy promised he’d move the bill after the Clinton Justice Department signed off on it. Since many of the tools in the bill were powers that FBI Director Louis Freeh had been requesting for years, the department gave a thumbs-up after some minor tweaking. But Leahy wasn’t done. His staff submitted a list of 10 changes to the bill’s cosponsors, Senator Kyl and Senator Dianne Feinstein, then the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee’s Technology, Terrorism and Government Information subcommittee. Soon after registering those objections, he came up with another four. “It appears to me that his objections constantly evolve,” says a senior GOP aide. “Whatever is convenient, he objects to.” Though the bill’s cosponsors agreed to make all but 2 of the 14 changes, Leahy still tried to block the bill. Eventually, it passed the Senate without Leahy’s support, but far too late in the term to win consideration in the House. Mission accomplished. The September 13 amendment this year–a more limited proposal than Attorney General John Ashcroft would make days later–brought much the same response from Leahy. “Unfortunately, because this is something that we have had no hearings on, we haven’t had the discussions in the appropriate committees–Intelligence, Armed Services, and Judiciary–we are somewhat limited in opposition,” Leahy complained. “I would feel far more comfortable voting on something like this if these various committees not only had a chance to look at it,” he continued, “but that President Bush’s administration–the attorney general, the director of the CIA, the secretary of defense–would have the opportunity to let us know their views on it.” Put aside for a moment the argument Leahy makes for delay–“we are somewhat limited in opposition”–and consider just his point about hearings. At first blush, it seems reasonable to ask for more time to consider such potentially important legislation. But there are few subjects over the past several years on which Congress has heard more–and acted less–than terrorism. Hundreds of experts, dozens of hearings, and three commissions later–no action. Just five months ago, the Senate discussed terrorism and heard from Secretary of State Colin Powell, Attorney General Ashcroft, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and others in the administration. Although the Ashcroft proposal–which later became the focus of the anti-terrorism discussion–did contain some new items, the September 13 amendment was based almost entirely on last year’s Kyl/Feinstein bill. And that legislation, in turn, essentially repackaged the recommendations of the most recent terrorism study, a report by the 1999 National Commission on Terrorism. The point is, these issues have been thoroughly discussed. “I’m not sure that Senator Leahy even knew all of the work we have done on these issues,” says Senator Kyl. “Notwithstanding the fact that he should have.” “I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he just didn’t know about it,” says Kyl, with a roll of his eyes. Given his record of blocking or slowing anti-terrorism measures, Senate Republicans and administration officials expected resistance when it became clear that Leahy would be the Democrats’ voice on the Ashcroft proposals. Last week, when anti-terrorism talks temporarily broke down, Leahy publicly accused the White House of reneging on a previous deal about sharing secret grand jury information. “Apparently last night theadministration changed its mind and (is) not going to go forward with changes in grand jury proceedings,” Leahy said on Tuesday, suggesting a deal had been close. (Some Republicans say Leahy is uniquely qualified to recognize such double talk.) Administration sources close to the negotiations, meanwhile, say that there never was such a deal-before-the-deal. They call Leahy’s characterization “inaccurate.” “The negotiations were fluid until Tuesday, when our negotiations with Leahy completely stalled,” says a Justice Department official familiar with the talks. “They weren’t even returning our phone calls or e-mails.” Leahy spokesman David Carle rejects suggestions that his boss was simply slowing things down. “His aim wasn’t to see how much he could take out of the president’s bill, but to make sure there were proper checks and balances that struck an appropriate balance with civil liberties in giving new powers to government.” But even after the new Senate language came out Friday morning, administration negotiators were concerned about language added by Leahy and Senate majority leader Tom Daschle on money-laundering. The administration was “agnostic” on the particulars, but fought to keep the language out in order to expedite passage of the anti-terrorism legislation alone. Both administration and Judiciary Committee sources say that much of the hard work on the anti-terrorism legislation is done. Still, they fear more delays as they attempt to smooth out differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. No doubt both sides are eager to get past this partisan wrangling and return to–as the new cliche has it–normalcy. Something easy like, say, judicial nominations. Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard. October 15, 2001 – Volume 7, Number 5
