This Congress has only enacted 49 laws, the fewest since at least 1947. | REUTERS The (really) do-nothing Congress

Sen. Tom Carper had been wavering over the “nuclear option” for days — until one of his colleagues issued a blunt judgment of Congress.

“My colleague said, ‘It’s hard to imagine it getting much worse because we’re not getting anything done,’” the veteran Delaware Democrat said. “If there was an a-ha moment, that was probably it.”


Indeed, the 113th Congress is on track to go down as the least productive in history — a legacy that may be cemented after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gutted the filibuster on presidential nominees by deploying the “nuclear option.” Republicans say the unprecedented move will make them even less likely to cooperate with Democrats — not that there’s much collaboration to begin with.

( Also on POLITICO: In post-nuclear landscape, uncharted terrain)

So far, this Congress has only enacted 49 laws, the fewest since at least 1947, when the Congressional Record began tallying legislative activity on a yearly basis. In fact, the 80th Congress — famously dubbed the “do nothing” Congress by President Harry Truman — enacted 388 public laws by July 1947.

In the last 66 years, there are just four occasions in which fewer than 100 laws were enacted by a similar point in the legislative calendar. And two of those instances were in the last two Congresses, with the previous Congress making just 62 laws through November 2011.

The dysfunction is partially the result of the toxic relationship between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans, which helped trigger the first government shutdown in 17 years last month and a series of flirtations with a historic debt default.

( POLITICO's Turn the Table: Senate catching up with times on 'nuclear option')

The slow pace of legislating comes despite huge problems facing Washington: A $17 trillion debt, the prospects of a second government shutdown in mid-January, the bumpy rollout of the health care law and overseas threats from places like Iran. Meanwhile, congressional inaction on a new farm bill is poised to upend rural America and send milk prices soaring. Even legislation that would seem to appeal to some in both parties — like an immigration overhaul — is stuck.

Both sides are embarrassed by their performance, even if they are quick to assign blame to the other.

“If I look at the last 12 weeks, we can count on one hand what we’ve achieved,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “We put the government back in business thank goodness, but beyond that the strategic helium reserve bill is really the centerpiece of what we’ve done.”

( Also on POLITICO: Obstructionism vs. Obamacare)

There is still a glimmer of hope to get some major bills through, including the long-overdue overhaul of farm policies, the annual defense policy bill, the comprehensive immigration bill, a budget deal and an omnibus spending package. And some bills have made it to the president’s desk, including a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and a measure addressing student loan rates.

But the farm bill’s chances for passage this year took a big hit this week, the emotional politics of an immigration overhaul may kill it next year and any budget deal is expected to be limited in scope.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned that the defense bill could join the long list of proposals that fail in the 113th Congress — even though an annual Pentagon authorization measure has passed Congress every year for the last 51 years.

( Also on POLITICO: Harry Reid's gambit)

“I do not know if it will be done,” McCain said. “I know [the nuclear option] puts a chill on the entire United States Senate.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), McCain’s closest friend in the Senate, added Thursday: “I just think after today, legislating’s going to be pretty tough.”

Not that it wasn’t already.

Part of the problem is structural. The schedules of the GOP-controlled House and Democratic-led Senate aren’t well coordinated, which can make efforts at bicameral meetings and consensus-building sessions more difficult. On Friday, the Senate began a two-week recess, while the House is expected to be out for just one week before adjourning for the year on Dec. 13. The Senate barely works on Fridays. In 2013, the Senate has been in session for legislative business on just seven Fridays.

With partisan relations hitting rock-bottom, Obama’s approval ratings sinking and the midterm elections around the corner, few have hopes for a major breakthrough in this Congress. It may take next year’s elections to help clarify whether voters want one-party rule in Congress or continue with divided government.

In the meantime, Reid’s move to dramatically weaken filibusters on nominations only seemed to intensify the bad blood in the chamber.

“He doesn’t want his people to vote on hard issues,” Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) said of Reid. “He knows he’s got seats at play, and he can lose control of the Senate – it’s about power. I just think between now and next November, there will be a lot of message voting – that’s about it.”

Senate Democrats say that their chamber has overcome a historic number of GOP filibusters and still managed to push through a spate of high-profile bipartisan bills only to see them stall in the House, whether it’s been the online sales tax bill, legislation banning workplace discrimination against gays or the sweeping immigration overhaul. Had the House simply accepted a clean continuing resolution with no poison pills in September, Congress could have avoided the shutdown, Democrats say. (The House eventually backed down after a 16-day shutdown.)

Instead, the run-up to the shutdown and its fallout consumed a month of the congressional calendar from mid-September to mid-October. And the first part of September was dominated by a potential congressional vote to authorize military action in Syria, a vote that was later called off. Before that, lawmakers were out for a five-week August recess.

House Republicans argue that it’s the Senate sitting on their bills, whether it’s on energy, regulatory reform or an education overhaul, pointing out they’ve passed 140 measures that have been ignored by the Senate.

“If the president and Senate Democrats want a break from their Obamacare failures, they would be wise to start focusing on the economy and pass common-sense jobs bills,” said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.

Still, the inability to get any sort of consensus on big-ticket legislative items is part of what drove Reid to his decision to invoke the nuclear option.

“Let’s be realistic,” Reid said Thursday. “What could they do more to slow down the country? What could they do more than what they’ve already done to stop the Senate from legislating?”

Indeed, Reid backed off his long-standing opposition to invoking the nuclear option, which Senate majority leaders have long avoided because of fears that future majorities would eviscerate the power of the minority party to derail, delay and shape legislation. The move allowed Reid to change the filibuster rules by 51 votes, rather than 67, a move that will set a precedent and could encourage future majority leaders to work their will over the chamber.

Now all presidential nominees — except for those chosen to the Supreme Court — can be approved with just 51 votes, rather than the 60 long needed to overcome a filibuster. While legislation isn’t affected by the rules change, future majorities may choose to now invoke the nuclear option to allow bills to overcome a filibuster with a simple majority of senators.

“I think the issue we’re trying to address is a broken institution,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

Republicans say Reid is manufacturing a crisis given that he has stalled GOP amendments more than any other majority leader, only to blame the Republicans for later blocking votes because their proposals have yet to be heard. But the Democrats say the GOP has abused the filibuster with the singular goal to derail the Obama agenda and prevent the president from having a functioning Cabinet and having the ability to place his appointees on the federal bench.

Either way, both sides acknowledge it doesn’t bode well for bipartisan consensus in the future.

“I’ve been here in both the minority and the majority – and I’ve never seen it quite like this,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who joined the Senate in 1992.

Juana Summers and Burgess Everett contributed to this report.

This article tagged under: Tom Carper

Republicans

Democrats