( CNN ) Late last month , the U.S. Senate voted to approve the siting of the Keystone pipeline by a vote of 62-36 . This vote will ultimately have little impact on the project 's future as President Barack Obama has promised to veto the legislation . Nevertheless , the process by which the Senate considered this highly partisan issue was truly remarkable . Over three weeks , the Senate debated and voted on 41 amendments -- nearly three times as many amendments as were considered during all of 2014 . Moreover , the process was cordial , occasionally intense and at times even suspenseful . While covering a wide variety of topics , the amendments were all substantive and reasonably related to the topic of the proposed legislation . Votes were taken on delaying the effective date of the pipeline ; requiring campaign finance disclosures for those benefiting from tar sands development ; and removing the lesser prairie chicken from the threatened species list . Several amendments were adopted including bipartisan legislation to accelerate energy efficiency and a widely supported resolution acknowledging that climate change is real and not a hoax . Given the authentic opportunity to debate , Democrats responded in kind , agreeing to a fixed number of amendments and a endorsing a process for final consideration of the legislation . This blast of engagement is not a testament to the exceptional or unique significance of the Keystone debate . It is also not a coincidence . Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has committed to restoring the Senate 's deliberative process even if it means spending more time in Washington and subjecting his caucus to the occasional `` tough vote . '' The Senate 's ability to conduct this productive process while considering a hotly contested and highly partisan issue is an early sign that both Republicans and Democrats are up to the challenge . The more open debate created an obligation and opportunity for Energy Committee Chair Lisa Murkowski , R-Alaska , to work closely with the committee 's ranking member , Sen. Maria Cantwell , D-Washington . Energy policy is often a topic that can generate bipartisan support , and this early legislative activity is promising , even if the debate was partisan and at times even harsh . More fundamentally , that the full Senate spent long hours together in the chamber is a breakthrough . The process may be laborious , but it 's the essence of our democracy . To appreciate the ramifications of a return to active deliberation , it is necessary to understand the dynamics at the heart of congressional gridlock . The usual diagnosis of our government 's recent dysfunction is that toxic polarization and anger are preventing deliberation . But the reverse is equally true : the absence of deliberation has also caused exasperation , enmity and toxic polarization . In the six years that former Democratic Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska served in the Senate , he did not have a single amendment considered on the Senate floor -- not one . Imagine a pilot who is never allowed to fly a plane or a surgeon barred from the operating room and you 'll get a sense of the exasperation felt by those serving in a dysfunctional democracy . Centrist Democrat Joe Manchin lamented last year that his worst day as governor of West Virginia was better than his best day as a U.S. senator . And yet another senator grudgingly described his job to me as that of a `` glorified telemarketer who occasionally gets to vote to confirm an assistant secretary of education . '' This boiling resentment must be channeled somewhere , and much of it follows the path of least resistance -- feeding the foul mood and partisan rancor that undermines collaboration . Even when the vast majority of amendments are defeated , the very act of being heard serves as a safety valve , releasing some of the steam and reducing the likelihood that issues blow up . Moreover , the ability to debate amendments provides an incentive for building coalitions . Why take on the political risk of pushing an idea that is at odds with leadership or orthodoxy if you 'll never even be heard ? An additional reason McConnell may be opening up the process is that the political strategy of avoiding tough votes was , thankfully , a big flop in the 2014 elections . All of the seven purple state Democrats that Sen. Harry Reid sought to protect lost their seats . In each contest , these Democrats were aggressively challenged for voting in lockstep with the President 's agenda . Given the opportunity to take some `` tough votes , '' they might have been able to demonstrate independence and courage . Looking to the future , the real question is whether McConnell can sustain his promise in light of the time commitment and occasional `` gotcha '' amendments that go along with open debate . There have been few opportunities of late to extol American democracy . Let 's hope our leaders seize and build upon this opportunity to restore the wisdom and character of the U.S. Senate .
Jason Grumet : Keystone legislation is likely to be vetoed , but process was encouraging . He says the Senate is returning to its tradition of more open deliberation .