Just a few days ago, it seemed like the Senate was poised for a wide open debate on a bill to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year, with dozens of amendments filed by both parties and interesting votes on the horizon dealing with budgetary choices in the wake of $85 billion in automatic budget cuts made by the sequester.
But Senators in both parties defaulted to familiar legislative behavior in recent days, featuring finger pointing, verbal jabs, political posturing and stalemate, as the underlying bill to fund the federal government inched forward to final approval without much in the way of meaningful floor debate or substantive votes.
It only reinforced the view that the Congress can screw up just about anything, including a one car funeral, though maybe that has been true since the First Congress convened in 1789.
Instead of real efforts to determine post-sequester priorities, nothing really happened on the Senate floor in debate on this funding bill.
Instead of votes to shift around money in the bill to keep dozens of air traffic control towers at small airports open, nothing happened.
Instead of voting on a plan to move money around to re-start White House tours which were stopped after the sequester, nothing happened.
Instead of a vote on a rider that prohibits the Postal Service from dropping Saturday first class mail delivery, nothing happened.
Instead of being the World's Greatest Deliberative Body, nothing much happened.
"It is frustrating to see nothing happening on the floor," said Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) on Tuesday afternoon, who joined the bipartisan grumbling about the lack of legislative action after seeing an empty Senate floor on his office television.
The crux of the stalemate was simple - Senators wanted votes on the amendments that they offered to the bill. Democratic leaders weren't that interested in allowing too many votes.
For example, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) popped up several times on the floor in recent days to urge action on his bipartisan amendment to shift money around at the Agriculture Department to keep food safety inspectors from being furloughed - but Democrats weren't in the mood to let him have that vote.
So, Moran repeatedly objected to plans from the Majority Leader to move ahead on the funding bill, leaving Sen. Harry Reid sputtering and frustrated.
"Amazing," Reid said on the floor Tuesday, as he made clear that his plan for votes on ten amendments was the best and last offer.
Let's take a minute to review how we got here.
Way back on Sunday March 10, I waited and waited to see if the Senate Appropriations Committee would produce their version of H.R. 933, the House-passed bill to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year.
The bipartisan product finally surfaced around 9 pm on Monday March 11, weighing in at 587 pages.
The next day, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to quickly move the Senate on to the bill, but ran into resistance from Republicans, as Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) protested that they weren't given enough time to read the bill before legislative action commenced.
"We just heard the Majority Leader say he can’t understand why somebody wants to read this bill," Coburn said, as he and Reid once again exchanged verbal barbs on the Senate floor.
"I really am flabbergasted," Reid said at one point about Coburn's objections, again making clear in public his personal distaste for the Oklahoma Republican.
"Just when you think it can’t get worse, it gets worse," Reid grumbled.
Reid didn't know at the time how accurate that statement from Tuesday of last week would be about the entire Senate debate on this bill, as both parties puffed out their chests and wouldn't back down like they were in a schoolyard scrap out on the Senate blacktop at recess.
Republicans didn't want to be pushed around by Reid, worried that they would get no chance to offer any substantive amendments; Democrats meanwhile wanted to get moving quickly in hopes of forestalling any political grenades that the GOP might roll on to the Senate floor.
As the Senate stalled, Reid groused that "the Senate has one speed: slow - real slow."
On the morning of March 12 when the Senate returned, Democrats were ready to attack, demanding that Republicans quit holding up action on the bill that would fund some government agencies, while extending a temporary budget for others through the end of the fiscal year.
Republicans quickly made clear they were ready to get down to work.
"I see my old friend, the distinguished majority leader, on the floor," said Sen. McCain. "We are ready to move forward with amendments."
Later on that Wednesday, the first two votes were taken, as the Senate defeated a GOP amendment to block funding for the Obama health law.
Three hours later, we had the first (and maybe only) interesting vote on this bill, as the Senate refused to block a McCain amendment that sought to remove funding for several military construction projects in Guam.
The motion to table failed on a 50-48 vote against, and McCain's amendment was then adopted by voice vote.
Little did we known on Wednesday evening of last week that the real amendment process for this $984 billion measure was pretty much over.
On Thursday, the Senate took two votes, defeating an amendment from Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), that attempted to add language to cover the Labor-HHS funding provisions in the bill; the Senate then rejected a Coburn amendment that provided for a hiring freeze in federal agencies and departments, as a way to hold down on expenses and thereby limit possible furloughs.
"The Department of Treasury is currently advertising for an outreach manager," said Coburn, as he ran down a list of jobs that had been advertised since the sequester went into effect.
"The Department of Labor is looking for a staff assistant at $81,000 a year to answer the phone. There is a search for a policy coordinator for the Department of Health and Human Services to attend and facilitate meetings at $81,000 a year. There is an opening for a director for the Air Force history and museums policies and programs at $165,000 a year. There is another opening for an analyst for the Legislative Affairs Office at the Marine Corps for $90,000 a year. The Department of Agriculture is looking for a director of the government employee services at a range of $179,000 a year."
But with no support from Democrats, Coburn's bid was going nowhere. And neither was the bill.
A few hours later on Thursday afternoon of last week, Senators were given the high sign that they could leave for the weekend, while key Senators would try to work out a deal on a package of amendments to the bill by Monday.
"I want to tell my colleagues and anyone watching that just because Senators are not speaking on the Senate floor doesn’t mean nothing is going on," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
But while Mikulski was trying to broker a deal on what amendments might be considered, the amendments kept piling up; there were over 90 by the time the Senate left for the weekend on Thursday evening.
Sen. Reid made clear that if there was no agreement, he would move to cut off debate Monday and then force final action, which would likely mean no votes on any more amendments.
When the Senate returned on Monday afternoon this week, there was still no agreement; several hours later Reid went to the floor with a deal to allow for ten amendments to be voted on.
That did not satisfy every Senator, and his request was quickly torpedoed.
"I object," said Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who wanted a vote on her plan to strike out $380 million for a controversial missile defense program known as MEADS.
"This is over with," an exasperated Reid said.
The unique part about the Senate is that it takes agreement of all Senators to get something done, though the Majority Leader can use the rules to tilt things in his direction.
Those of us up in the Press Gallery though watched the last week-plus of inaction in the Senate and noted - once again - that it would be so much easier just to give a little debate time to several dozen different amendments, and then just vote on them.
That's the way things can work in the Senate.
But once again, it didn't happen on this bill.
Who's to blame?
It's an easy answer if you support one side or the other, because the other side is always the problem in Congress.
But it's at times like these that I default to a description which still might be the title for my book.
"Alcohol is a depressant, but so is the Senate."
Get me a double, bartender.
