Does Congress need a 'consensus council'?

Watching the current congressional session degenerate into a partisan blame-fest, observers might well wonder if there is any way to move closer to the reasoned debate the Founding Fathers had in mind for the nation's legislative body.

In an effort to restore comity and face the challenges that call for finding common ground rather than confrontation, a bipartisan group of lawmakers is calling for the creation of a non-governmental, non-profit organization that would help Congress sort through difficult policy issues and come up with consensus-based solutions.

Whether the bills currently pending in the Senate (S. 1651) and the House (H.R. 3305) to create a U.S. Consensus Council ever make it out of the 107th Congress remains to be seen. However, supporters see this as a time in need for such a council and hope the issue comes up during the November lame-duck session.

Earlier this month, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee passed the bill, which was sponsored by Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

Byron said the council's role would be "to build agreements among stakeholders, primarily on legislative issues where there are diverse and conflicting views."

The council would not negotiate with Congress or take sides on issues. At Congress' request, it would bring together those involved and help work out agreements that find common ground. Congress would be free to accept or reject whatever agreements offered.

"I have long been a supporter of building consensus and finding ways to reach compromise," Dorgan said when introducing the bill less than a month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "There are so many important issues that get deadlocked in Washington, and this approach will help break that logjam."

Before Congress left for the election break, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and ranking Republican Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., asked that the measure be considered by the full Senate under unanimous consent. However, a Republican has put a hold on it and "we don't know who it is or why," a Byron spokesman said late last week.

The bill authorizes a council budget of $5 million a year and calls for an eight-member board selected by the House and Senate majority and minority. Board members would not be subject to Senate confirmation, and the council would be required to disclose its private funding.

In addition, the Senate version of the fiscal 2003 Treasury appropriations bill (S. 2740) includes $1 million for the U.S. Consensus Council-providing that the legislation establishing the new independent body is passed. Dorgan chairs the Senate Appropriations Treasury subcommittee that passed the measure in July. The full Senate has yet to consider the measure.

Meanwhile, the House bill-sponsored by Reps. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont., Chet Edwards, D-Texas, and Jo Ann Emerson, R- Mo.-remains in the House Government Reform Committee. And supporters say the Treasury Appropriations bill (H.R. 5120) approved by the House does not contain any money for the U.S. Consensus Council.

While Congress generally does a good job of coming to a consensus, there are issues where the U.S. Consensus Council could lend a hand, including "issues where it is gridlocked and not making progress" or matters that cross jurisdictional lines, says Robert Fersh, director of the National Consensus Initiative at the Search for Common Ground, which has been spearheading the effort to create the council. Fersh worked as a House and Senate committee staffer from 1978 to 1986.

Dorgan said that the consensus council in his state served as a model for his national proposal. North Dakota's Consensus Council Inc. has helped find agreement on the use of grasslands in the western part of the state, the structure of judgeships across the state and flood mitigation efforts in the Red River Valley, he said.

Dick Gross, CCI's deputy director, said that the group is "so positive about the concept that we've helped get other consensus councils started" in the region. And he takes issue with those who say some subjects simply don't lend themselves to the consensus-building process.

"I think it's more a matter of timing than the issue," said Gross, who is also co-director of Policy Consensus Initiative, an umbrella organization for state efforts. The approach doesn't work when "the anger level or the political level is such that people feel it's not to their advantage to engage in consensus [building]." Insufficient time or resources can also derail the process, he adds.

But Gross thinks the process could work even in the politically charged atmosphere of Congress. On some issues, "even politicians say, 'Please, take this off our backs,' " he said, adding that it creates a "win-win situation for everybody."

Will Harmon, communications director coordinator for the Montana Consensus Council, says that to reach a workable agreement, consensus councils must get to the table not only those affected by the decision, but also those who could undermine the process if excluded.

Harmon does not think consensus councils are always the right tool, however. While they have been successful in many areas, he said, they don't work with "value issues like abortion where you never really find agreement." Still, he noted that the Montana Consensus Council-created in 1994-has helped interested groups and lawmakers find common ground on such sticky subjects as Superfund cleanup, water rights and improving mental health care. A larger problem, Harmon said, might be that "lawmakers and executives like to tell boards and agencies what to do, and that's not a good idea in consensus-building."

While there is currently no national consensus council, Search for Common Ground earlier this year coordinated efforts to find agreement on government funding of faith-based initiatives. Many of the recommendations of the 33-member working group-whose members ranged from civil libertarians to evangelical Christians-are included in the bipartisan Charity Aid, Recovery and Assistance Act (S. 1924), which supporters hope the Senate considers before calling it a year.

At this point, the fate of the U.S. Consensus Council remains in the hands of Congress. So an almost circular question remains: Can the House and Senate muster a consensus to move consensus council legislation?