House Republicans Dread a Possible Election Result: Bipartisanship

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/us/politics/lame-duck-congress.html

Version 0 of 1.

WASHINGTON — A big conspiracy theory in Washington these days, perhaps second only to the one concerning Hillary Clinton’s supposed body double, is the fear among some House Republicans of what President Obama and their party leaders might cook up during a lame-duck session of Congress after Election Day.

They dread sudden approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. They worry about a sweeping bill that would fully fund the federal government. Some even fret that Judge Merrick B. Garland could be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

In short, they fear Congress functioning in a conventional, bipartisan way.

So some more conservative House Republicans are pushing for a long-term spending bill — one that could very likely work against their interests next year — to avoid returning to Washington in late November.

“In lame ducks, all the rules seem to get muddled,” said Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona, a Republican who counts himself among the lame-duck loathers. “Legacy items run to the front of the line.”

The angst is not without merit. Serious legislation and political altercations have occurred in the 19 lame-duck sessions held by Congress since 1940, including the censure of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy; a gas tax increase; a huge and contentious land preservation measure; and, in 2010, a vote to overturn a 17-year ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military.

But the panic among Republicans that they will be betrayed by their party also demonstrates a profound gulf of trust between many rank-and-file members and congressional leaders that has fermented over the last six years, as well as a frustration that their party has been unable to curtail the power of the executive branch.

“I do think it shows a lack of trust,” said former Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, a Republican, who tried repeatedly and in vain to stop lame-duck sessions while in Congress and who likened members of the newest group of opposition to fleshy, wattled fowl. “But I also think it shows a lack of understanding reality. I was conservative before most of these turkeys were born.”

Members of the hard-right Freedom Caucus, who are pushing for a spending bill that goes beyond Dec. 9, are trying hard to make their case to Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the House speaker, even as their arguments lay bare their distrust of his promises.

They insist that scores of members who are retiring or who are likely to lose their seats in the November election should not be permitted to weigh in on big policy matters.

“During the time between the election and the next Congress, perhaps as many as 20 percent of those voting in Congress will have lost their jobs, either voluntarily or involuntarily,” said Representative Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, a Republican. “It doesn’t make sense, when the body is populated in such a fashion, to make final decisions on critical issues.”

Some House Republicans also fear a large spending bill, known as an omnibus, that would replace appropriations measures to fund the government, possibly at levels far higher than current spending. “What’s going to happen is they’re going to come back in the lame-duck session and plus up spending,” said Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky.

Lame-duck sessions can indeed be vehicles for omnibus spending bills. However, the House Republicans who despise those bills are the same ones who have voted down individual appropriations measures or helped load them up with policy riders that contributed to their failure on the House floor. This has made omnibus and short-term broad spending bills hard to avoid, short of a government shutdown. And, notably, Mr. Ryan has repeatedly rejected the idea of an omnibus.

There is also fear that a trade bill, which has tenuous support in both chambers and which Mr. Obama greatly desires, would sail through Congress. “Both presidential candidates say they are against the trade bill,” Mr. Gosar said. “In that sense, it’s perfect timing for them to do it in lame duck.”

On Tuesday, Max Baucus, the ambassador to China and a former Democratic senator from Montana, was on Capitol Hill to make a final pitch for the trade deal, showing that there was still interest in passage this year.

It would be virtually impossible for a lame-duck Congress to approve the Pacific trade accord, the largest regional trade deal in history. The “fast-track” trade negotiating law that helped Mr. Obama complete the accord requires hurdles Congress must clear before a final up-or-down vote on any trade deal, including hearings, a public drafting of legislation, and a full debate and vote in both chambers.

For that process to conclude this year, congressional leaders would almost certainly have to hold the first hearings, at least, before Election Day. “I don’t think the predicate has been laid,” said Mr. Lott, who supports the measure. “That would be a mistake.”

Senate Republicans are eager to cut a short-term spending deal that would authorize new funds to combat the Zika virus and fund veterans programs, hoping to pass it by the middle of next week and return to the campaign trail. The approach has ample bipartisan appeal.

But barring their own plan for a long-term deal, House Republicans want something in return. “Let’s get something for it,” said Representative Jeff Duncan, Republican of South Carolina, who mentioned a policy provision he would like attached to a bill that would halt the Obama administration’s Syrian refugee program and said he was seeking support from the Senate on a possible impeachment of John Koskinen, the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.

As expected, Democrats say, “No, thanks.” “If Republican leadership starts giving in to one demand from the hard right, there will be another and then another,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York. “The only way this is going to get done is if Republican leadership bucks the hard right, period.”

A spending bill that bleeds into next year would give more power to the White House and the next Congress, which could be at least partly controlled by Democrats, so it is against the interest of the very people clamoring for it.

“I do think that ending up with an omnibus at the end of every year makes people cynical,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota. “But in terms of any nefarious attempts to cut deals, I don’t think anyone should fear that. It’s not going to happen.”