PDA

View Full Version : Republican Legislative Tactics


subgenius
22nd November 2003, 08:42 AM
Much respect to the Republicans who stood up to their "leadership."

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 — For weeks, hundreds of impatient Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have steamed as Congressional leaders confined them to the anteroom while writing gigantic bills reshaping Medicare and energy policy.

On Friday, many of those shut out of the inner sanctum got a morsel of revenge when 40 members of the Senate succeeded in blocking the energy bill, a long-sought prize of Republican leaders and the Bush administration. By introducing the two big bills at the last minute and thus limiting debate just before the winter adjournment, those leaders had hoped to push the measures through a weary Congress, but many lawmakers suggested on Friday that the tactic might be backfiring.
...
But it was clear that the Republicans' 11th-hour strategy had its flaws. Too many senators discovered objectionable details in the energy bill that had not come to light earlier — for example, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, was upset to learn about a uranium enrichment plant in New Mexico — and just enough of them were sufficiently angry to halt the bill's progress.

"The whole closed-door process was like a cover-up operation," said Senator James M. Jeffords, the Vermont independent, who voted to block the energy bill. "They tried to sneak things in there that shouldn't be in the bill, and members realized something was wrong."

Mr. McCain said that the more closely members examined the bill, the more unsavory it became.

"I never believed that it was accidental that we didn't receive this bill until a very short time ago, 1,200 pages," he said. "Because it will not bear scrutiny."

The strategy on the Medicare bill has angered even more lawmakers from both chambers. Those members of the House-Senate negotiating committee who were not invited to the real meetings where the bill was written were given a copy of the 1,100-page measure less than an hour before being asked to vote on it on Thursday.

"Believe it or not, members like to know what they're voting on," said Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader, complaining to the Republican leaders of the Rules Committee on Friday about the limited amount of debate on the bill. Representative David Dreier of California, the panel's chairman, said the committee would agree to double the allowed amount of debate time to two hours. But by scheduling such a crucial House vote well after midnight, Republican leaders seemed again to be counting on exhaustion as a pressure tactic.

The anger at the process was hardly confined to liberal Democrats. Forty-one of the most conservative House Republicans, many of whom have grave doubts about expanding the government's role in health care, wrote a letter to House leaders demanding at least three days to read the entire Medicare bill before the vote was scheduled. (Three days' advance notice is the usual rule in the House, but the rule is often waived.) Their request was denied, and some Republicans were left shaking their heads at the way legislative business was conducted by their own leadership. Beyond the influence and deal-making skill of Mr. Frist, they expressed bewilderment about the direction and effectiveness of the entire Republican leadership team from the House and the Senate.

"Here we've got a bill that's over a thousand pages, some of them extremely technical," said Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona. "Even the members of the Ways and Means Committee, who worked on it, took hours to digest the various changes. It's something we really needed more time to digest."
But it was clear that the Republicans' 11th-hour strategy had its flaws. Too many senators discovered objectionable details in the energy bill that had not come to light earlier — for example, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, was upset to learn about a uranium enrichment plant in New Mexico — and just enough of them were sufficiently angry to halt the bill's progress.

"The whole closed-door process was like a cover-up operation," said Senator James M. Jeffords, the Vermont independent, who voted to block the energy bill. "They tried to sneak things in there that shouldn't be in the bill, and members realized something was wrong."

Mr. McCain said that the more closely members examined the bill, the more unsavory it became.

"I never believed that it was accidental that we didn't receive this bill until a very short time ago, 1,200 pages," he said. "Because it will not bear scrutiny."

The strategy on the Medicare bill has angered even more lawmakers from both chambers. Those members of the House-Senate negotiating committee who were not invited to the real meetings where the bill was written were given a copy of the 1,100-page measure less than an hour before being asked to vote on it on Thursday.

"Believe it or not, members like to know what they're voting on," said Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader, complaining to the Republican leaders of the Rules Committee on Friday about the limited amount of debate on the bill. Representative David Dreier of California, the panel's chairman, said the committee would agree to double the allowed amount of debate time to two hours. But by scheduling such a crucial House vote well after midnight, Republican leaders seemed again to be counting on exhaustion as a pressure tactic.

The anger at the process was hardly confined to liberal Democrats. Forty-one of the most conservative House Republicans, many of whom have grave doubts about expanding the government's role in health care, wrote a letter to House leaders demanding at least three days to read the entire Medicare bill before the vote was scheduled. (Three days' advance notice is the usual rule in the House, but the rule is often waived.) Their request was denied, and some Republicans were left shaking their heads at the way legislative business was conducted by their own leadership. Beyond the influence and deal-making skill of Mr. Frist, they expressed bewilderment about the direction and effectiveness of the entire Republican leadership team from the House and the Senate.

"Here we've got a bill that's over a thousand pages, some of them extremely technical," said Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona. "Even the members of the Ways and Means Committee, who worked on it, took hours to digest the various changes. It's something we really needed more time to digest."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/politics/22MEMO.html?th

Richard G
22nd November 2003, 10:23 AM
Thanks for that article. Very interesting. We're having similar problems with our current State Legistlature.

American
22nd November 2003, 12:50 PM
"New York Ti---". That's as far as I read. Hell, I usually stop at "New Yor-".

Don't care what they have to say. Never will.

peptoabysmal
22nd November 2003, 01:32 PM
I have to agree with you on this one sub.

I think the bill was a thinly disguised attempt by W to protect his family's interests, among other special interests. There are some items in the bill that would make some needed changes in the power grid structure and so forth, but overall it looks like it would be almost as bad for America as NAFTA was/is.

"It's a grab bag of special interest projects and not an energy policy," said Sen. John McCain, of Arizona, one of six Republicans, who opposed the legislation.
Link (http://www.courierpress.com/ecp/national_business/article/0,1626,ECP_753_2448495,00.html)


I feel that W has generally pushed the country in the right direction, but if he continues to pursue this type of self-interested political pandering, there will be a lump of coal in his stocking this Christmas. (or at the 2004 poll booth).

I also agree with American that this story comes from the NY Times and is therefore rendered invalid. They should rename that rag to the "New Liberal Times." Maybe there is a rebuttal on NewsMax? :D

WildCat
22nd November 2003, 02:04 PM
This is hardly unique to Republicans. I remember watching a news show some years ago, when Tip O'Neal was still Speaker of the House. In the closing minutes before a vote on a bill, he stands up and says "OK, who wants what?" and immediately hundreds of items totally unrelated to the bill at hand were thrown in it. Minutes later, after hundreds of millions of $$ were added to it it was voted on and passed. It was a real eye-opener for me.

There's only one solution to this: No amendments to a bill that are not directly related to it (useful to keep pork-barrel projects out of the "Patriots Anti-Child Pornography Bill") and giving the president a line-item veto. Both would probably require an amendment to the Constitution.

Then again, the above is the law here in Illinois and bad legislation still becomes law.

Zep
22nd November 2003, 02:25 PM
This sort of behaviour is not confined to the USA but appears with saddening consistency in other "parliamentary" democracies.

Sounds like this can be avoided by two simple things:

1. The House leaders should enforce a standing requirement that ALL bills have a MINIMUM period between proposal to the governing house and their voting, preferably more than 3 days. This to prevent "rush" bills at the last moment an to give time for perusal of the bills.

2. No alteration to the bills once proposed, no exceptions. If they need to be changed due to bargaining or as the result of debate, etc, they will need to be reproposed. This should put a curb on grab-bag bills being concocted during session just prior to voting.

Will this slow legislation making down? Sure will! Because this is how these self-interested and unscrupulous legislators operate - they make slimy deals in back rooms with friends, wheel and deal all sorts of junky stuff through the legislature at the very last minute, trying to fly under the radar, cross their fingers, pretend black is white, and look to bamboozle the public (and in doing so they certainly don't enhance the prestige of their governing body in the meantime, either).

I get the strongest feeling that these sort of people feel that the legislating bodies are their own playthings, not a civic responsibility to their constituents. But I could be wrong...

subgenius
22nd November 2003, 02:49 PM
Hard to fathom the relevence of the fact that it was in the NYT.
The facts are the facts: short notice on major lengthy bills, rebellion by even Republicans. These are major pieces of legislation, not just some road project.
Could we discuss that rather than the source? Ya know even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

peptoabysmal
23rd November 2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by subgenius
Hard to fathom the relevence of the fact that it was in the NYT.
The facts are the facts: short notice on major lengthy bills, rebellion by even Republicans. These are major pieces of legislation, not just some road project.
Could we discuss that rather than the source? Ya know even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Uh, no. :D

How often does a nut find a blind squirrel?