xrayzebra
05-17-2007, 09:48 AM
The party of openness, so says Ms. America!
Dems bend rules, break pledge
By: Patrick O'Connor
May 17, 2007 06:25 AM EST
Democrats are wielding a heavy hand on the House Rules Committee, committing many of the procedural sins for which they condemned Republicans during their 12 years in power.
So far this year, Democrats have frequently prevented Republicans from offering amendments, limited debate in the committee and, just last week, maneuvered around chamber rules to protect a $23 million project for Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).
On Wednesday, Democrats suggested changing the House rules to limit the minority's right to offer motions to recommit bills back to committee -- violating a protection that has been in place since 1822.
Much of this heavy-handedness is standard procedure in the House, where the majority has every right to dominate, but it contradicts the many campaign promises Democratic leaders made last year to run a cleaner, more open Congress.
Just last December, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) declared that Democrats "intend to have a Rules Committee ... that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House."
If this sounds familiar, it is. Republicans made similar promises in 1994, only to renege when they took control of the Congress in 1995.
Democrats have made a number of small revisions -- such as meeting earlier in the day -- but their overall record in the new Congress has fallen well short of that goal.
"The Democrats have not made good on a single promise they made during 2006, especially when it comes to fostering a more open and deliberative House of Representatives," Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said. "Instead of making the House more open and deliberative, they've gone in the opposite direction, doing things we never even contemplated during our time in the majority."
The Democratic spokesman for the Rules Committee sees it differently.
"We've passed a lot of bills, and we've passed them through the committees," said spokesman John Santore. "We're operating in an objectively fair way."
The Rules Committee itself is an often overlooked partisan backwater, where members engage in fierce debates about what amendments, if any, members can offer to bills on the floor. Under Republican rule, the committee often met late at night, when few reporters were around to cover the minority's protests.
The committee, arguably the majority's most powerful tool, serves as a bulwark for the party in power, allowing it to limit debate on controversial bills and prevent the minority from offering amendments to dramatically alter legislation introduced by the majority.
As such, the committee is extremely partisan, and that partisanship often gets personal. The current chairwoman, Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-N.Y.), for example, has an extremely strained relationship with California Rep. David Dreier, the committee's ranking Republican, who preceded her as chairman.
Consistently, Democrats have prevented Republicans from offering amendments to legislation on the floor, which was standard procedure under GOP rule, too.
Statistics are somewhat misleading because chamber rules differ from year to year, but Democrats so far have allowed a comparable number of amendments on the floor to what the Republicans allowed during the first four months of the last Congress -- a little more than a quarter of those offered by the minority.
But Democrats this year have brought a greater percentage of bills to the floor under a totally closed rule that prevents members of the minority from offering amendments -- 45 percent under Democrats, compared with 35 percent under Republicans.
Most of the evidence, though, is anecdotal and mirrors the Democrats' complaints in the minority over the past 12 years.
Members of the majority, meanwhile, argue that they are only trying to overcome the minority's obstructionist tactics to bring down legislation that is popular with a bipartisan majority of the House as a whole.
Democrats broke their campaign pledge to run a more open and honest Congress during their much-ballyhooed "first 100 hours" in power when they introduced five bills on the floor without moving them first through committee or allowing Rules Committee Republicans to dissent. But each of those bills passed the House by a wide margin, illustrating the broad popularity of the legislation.
Members of the minority complained intermittently about alleged abuses of chamber procedure. But it wasn't until Democrats sent the motion to recommit bills back to their committees of origin that GOP leaders began protesting in earnest.
Early in the year, Republicans used a rarely used procedural tool to great effect to change Democratic bills on the floor. After the minority forced Democrats to withdraw legislation granting the Washington, D.C., delegate a vote in the House, Hoyer vowed to change the rules to prevent another such occurrence.
The majority's solution was to define any motion that would send the bill back to its committee of origin as a motion to table -- or, in essence, "kill" -- the legislation, pressuring members who support the overarching bill to vote against the motion.
Republicans tried to bring the floor to a standstill Wednesday after word leaked that Democrats would introduce the rules change into the rule on a budget bill expected on the floor Thursday. Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland (R-Ga.) called for a procedural vote every 30 minutes before Democrats agreed to withdraw the change from the rule.
The Rules Committee provides members a chance to offer changes to legislation before it comes to the floor, even if the lawmakers aren't on the committee of jurisdiction. The majority has the votes to defeat any amendment it does not want to be considered on the floor, but rarely does the party in power block an amendment from even being considered.
Under the Democrats, filing deadlines have been moved up, and some amendments have been blocked completely. When Slaughter wouldn't allow a small group of anti-war Democrats to offer an amendment to the earliest iteration of a bill to fund the war in Iraq, Dreier agreed to offer it for them, and Democrats voted it down.
This perceived drift by the party in power resembles a similar drift by the Republicans after they stormed to power in 1994 as a spirited band of small-government reformers. The realities of the majority eventually forced them to play with the rules, too, and ignore many of the reforms they approved during their first months in power.
During their last days in power, Republicans were regularly introducing bills in the middle of the night, provoking Democrats to rail against the GOP during heated late-night sessions.
TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company
Dems bend rules, break pledge
By: Patrick O'Connor
May 17, 2007 06:25 AM EST
Democrats are wielding a heavy hand on the House Rules Committee, committing many of the procedural sins for which they condemned Republicans during their 12 years in power.
So far this year, Democrats have frequently prevented Republicans from offering amendments, limited debate in the committee and, just last week, maneuvered around chamber rules to protect a $23 million project for Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).
On Wednesday, Democrats suggested changing the House rules to limit the minority's right to offer motions to recommit bills back to committee -- violating a protection that has been in place since 1822.
Much of this heavy-handedness is standard procedure in the House, where the majority has every right to dominate, but it contradicts the many campaign promises Democratic leaders made last year to run a cleaner, more open Congress.
Just last December, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) declared that Democrats "intend to have a Rules Committee ... that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House."
If this sounds familiar, it is. Republicans made similar promises in 1994, only to renege when they took control of the Congress in 1995.
Democrats have made a number of small revisions -- such as meeting earlier in the day -- but their overall record in the new Congress has fallen well short of that goal.
"The Democrats have not made good on a single promise they made during 2006, especially when it comes to fostering a more open and deliberative House of Representatives," Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said. "Instead of making the House more open and deliberative, they've gone in the opposite direction, doing things we never even contemplated during our time in the majority."
The Democratic spokesman for the Rules Committee sees it differently.
"We've passed a lot of bills, and we've passed them through the committees," said spokesman John Santore. "We're operating in an objectively fair way."
The Rules Committee itself is an often overlooked partisan backwater, where members engage in fierce debates about what amendments, if any, members can offer to bills on the floor. Under Republican rule, the committee often met late at night, when few reporters were around to cover the minority's protests.
The committee, arguably the majority's most powerful tool, serves as a bulwark for the party in power, allowing it to limit debate on controversial bills and prevent the minority from offering amendments to dramatically alter legislation introduced by the majority.
As such, the committee is extremely partisan, and that partisanship often gets personal. The current chairwoman, Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-N.Y.), for example, has an extremely strained relationship with California Rep. David Dreier, the committee's ranking Republican, who preceded her as chairman.
Consistently, Democrats have prevented Republicans from offering amendments to legislation on the floor, which was standard procedure under GOP rule, too.
Statistics are somewhat misleading because chamber rules differ from year to year, but Democrats so far have allowed a comparable number of amendments on the floor to what the Republicans allowed during the first four months of the last Congress -- a little more than a quarter of those offered by the minority.
But Democrats this year have brought a greater percentage of bills to the floor under a totally closed rule that prevents members of the minority from offering amendments -- 45 percent under Democrats, compared with 35 percent under Republicans.
Most of the evidence, though, is anecdotal and mirrors the Democrats' complaints in the minority over the past 12 years.
Members of the majority, meanwhile, argue that they are only trying to overcome the minority's obstructionist tactics to bring down legislation that is popular with a bipartisan majority of the House as a whole.
Democrats broke their campaign pledge to run a more open and honest Congress during their much-ballyhooed "first 100 hours" in power when they introduced five bills on the floor without moving them first through committee or allowing Rules Committee Republicans to dissent. But each of those bills passed the House by a wide margin, illustrating the broad popularity of the legislation.
Members of the minority complained intermittently about alleged abuses of chamber procedure. But it wasn't until Democrats sent the motion to recommit bills back to their committees of origin that GOP leaders began protesting in earnest.
Early in the year, Republicans used a rarely used procedural tool to great effect to change Democratic bills on the floor. After the minority forced Democrats to withdraw legislation granting the Washington, D.C., delegate a vote in the House, Hoyer vowed to change the rules to prevent another such occurrence.
The majority's solution was to define any motion that would send the bill back to its committee of origin as a motion to table -- or, in essence, "kill" -- the legislation, pressuring members who support the overarching bill to vote against the motion.
Republicans tried to bring the floor to a standstill Wednesday after word leaked that Democrats would introduce the rules change into the rule on a budget bill expected on the floor Thursday. Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland (R-Ga.) called for a procedural vote every 30 minutes before Democrats agreed to withdraw the change from the rule.
The Rules Committee provides members a chance to offer changes to legislation before it comes to the floor, even if the lawmakers aren't on the committee of jurisdiction. The majority has the votes to defeat any amendment it does not want to be considered on the floor, but rarely does the party in power block an amendment from even being considered.
Under the Democrats, filing deadlines have been moved up, and some amendments have been blocked completely. When Slaughter wouldn't allow a small group of anti-war Democrats to offer an amendment to the earliest iteration of a bill to fund the war in Iraq, Dreier agreed to offer it for them, and Democrats voted it down.
This perceived drift by the party in power resembles a similar drift by the Republicans after they stormed to power in 1994 as a spirited band of small-government reformers. The realities of the majority eventually forced them to play with the rules, too, and ignore many of the reforms they approved during their first months in power.
During their last days in power, Republicans were regularly introducing bills in the middle of the night, provoking Democrats to rail against the GOP during heated late-night sessions.
TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company