Can Anybody Around Here Pass a Law?

WASHINGTON -- As if more proof were needed about congressional dysfunction, witness the spectacle of the last two weeks, in which the Senate managed to grind itself to a halt over a human trafficking bill that both sides want to pass.

The bill would create a fund to recompense trafficking victims, paid for by fines on offenders. The snag, as often happens, comes in the form of abortion politics, specifically a provision that would prevent the money from being used to pay for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.

Democrats balked at allowing the measure to move forward with the provision in place. Senate Republicans refused to strip it. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell then pettily upped the ante by saying there would be no vote on Loretta Lynch, whose nomination for attorney general has been languishing for an unconscionable four-plus months, while the trafficking bill was stalled.

This is all so maddening, with blame to spare on both sides.

Even leaving aside the merits of the abortion-funding argument, Republicans are to blame for unnecessary obstinacy combined with bad-faith dealings across the aisle.

As to the obstinacy, the previous Senate version did not contain the abortion language, nor does the House-passed bill. Ergo, it is not central to the measure.

As to the bad faith, according to Democratic senators, Republican staffers, in sharing this year's version with their Democratic colleagues, highlighted seven changes -- and somehow failed to mention the abortion language.

Which gets me to the Democratic blame -- the sloppy staff work and an opposition based as much on the symbolism of acceding to yet another abortion restriction as on the harm of the particular restriction at issue.

As to the sloppy staff work, excuse me, Democratic staffers, ever hear of trust but verify? And, for those who carp that senators should be reading every page of a bill themselves, the provision stipulated that the funds "shall be subject to the limitations on the use or expending of amounts described in sections 506 and 507 of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014." This is why senators have staff.

As to the symbolism versus substance of the opposition, the actual harm of the abortion-spending restriction is dwarfed by the greater good this bill would do. Not all trafficking victims would be covered by the rape exception, but most would.

In any event, even if the House version of the measure, with no abortion language, were to prevail, the restriction would end up being in effect anyway, for the arcane reason that the House version does not contain its own funding mechanism.

That would bring the abortion restriction back into play, because it's a standard feature of spending bills. Abortion-rights groups are pressing Senate Democrats to make this stand in part to send the signal that enough is enough, in part to avoid entrenching the precedent of abortion restrictions spreading beyond appropriations measures.

"Over the years, we have lost virtually every battle that has been on this floor and we are tired of it," California Democrat Dianne Feinstein said in a revealing comment on the Senate floor on Wednesday. "So we are taking a stand and we are going to hold that stand." Yes, but at the expense -- potential expense -- of trafficking victims?

As of this writing, cooler heads in the Senate (Maine Republican Susan Collins and North Dakota Democrat Heidi Heitkamp) are seeking to craft a compromise. "If we cannot approve a bill to deal with human trafficking, then what will we be able to deal with?" Collins asked on the floor Thursday.

Good question.

The optimistic interpretation is that this episode, like the earlier showdown over homeland security funding, reflects the growing pains of a new majority. Under this view, it will take some time for Republicans to accommodate themselves to the reality that their seeming power is limited by the facts of the filibuster, the veto pen and, particularly in the House, their own ideological fissures.

Once that acceptance sets in -- or so the theory goes -- the two sides will be able to forge a relationship workable enough to accomplish the basic tasks of governing and, perhaps, make progress in the relatively few substantive areas on which they can agree.

I hope so. But episodes like the trafficking fight leave a toxic residue of anger and distrust. That a feel-good bill could leave everyone feeling so frustrated does not bode well for the legislative road ahead.

========

Ruth Marcus' email address is ruthmarcus@washpost.com.