Posted on 06/14/2003 6:36:19 PM PDT by Torie
THE MISERY OF BEING A HOUSE DEMOCRAT. Oppressed Minority by Michael Crowley
Post date 06.12.03
Chris Van Hollen came to Washington to make a difference. Running for the House of Representatives in suburban Maryland last year, he called himself a candidate "for people who care about issues." The Washington Post agreed, raving that he had "the makings of an exceptionally effective member of Congress." Although he was an obscure state legislator at the time, Van Hollen worked furiously to defeat three strong opponents in a September primary, including the handsome and stupendously well-connected Mark Shriver, who happens to be the nephew of a president named Kennedy. In the general election, he toppled Connie Morella, a 16-year Republican incumbent, becoming one of just two Democrats nationally to defeat a sitting House Republican. The victory prompted the Post to declare him "a national Democratic star."
[snip]
But, on a Tuesday afternoon in mid-May, Van Hollen isn't grinning. He's waiting to ask permission, which will probably not be granted, to make an effort, which will almost certainly fail, to alter a piece of legislation. This has him standing in a hallway outside the door to H-313, a cramped, hard-to-find space on the third floor of the U.S. Capitol Building that serves as the hearing room of the House Rules Committee. While "Rules Committee" may sound like something that enforces dress codes, it is in fact one of the most powerful, if little-known, bodies in Congress. Rules dictates nearly everything that happens on the floor of the House of Representatives, from how long bills will be debated to which amendments and legislative alternatives--if any--will be granted a vote. With a crack of the gavel, the Rules Committee can, and often does, decree that even a bill or an amendment with clear majority support never comes up for a vote. In some ways, the House floor is merely a stage; H-313 is where the scripts are written, the outcomes preordained. Democrats often say that c-span would better serve the public by moving its cameras from the House floor to this room.
Van Hollen is here today because, he says, his constituents are facing a "sneak attack." Earlier in the month, he discovered a provision, buried within a gigantic Pentagon budget bill, that would strip decades-old civil service protections from up to 700,000 Defense Department workers, thousands of whom live in his district. The measure purports to boost efficiency, but, to Van Hollen, it will suddenly, expose these workers to managerial whims--or, worse, raw political pressures. So he wasted little time offering an amendment to strip the provision from the larger defense bill. With the Rules Committee considering whether to allow a vote on his amendment, Van Hollen has come to argue on its behalf. But there's not much cause for optimism. Given the committee's nine-to-four Republican majority, Rules hearings tend to have a kangaroo-court quality.
Suddenly the heavy door swings open, and a young woman in a power suit summons Van Hollen inside. H-313 is an absurdly small space, about half of it consumed by the committee dais, which has the oversized look of a large couch in a tiny studio apartment. A few dozen worn wooden chairs offer visitors less legroom than a coach-class seat. The air is humid and stagnant. Van Hollen navigates a narrow aisle between the chairs and squeezes behind a small witness table alongside Democrat Jim Cooper of Tennessee, the lead co-sponsor of his amendment. Presiding at the dais is John Linder, a grim-faced Georgia Republican. Cooper speaks first, then Van Hollen, who argues his case passionately. "This really should be a bipartisan amendment," he says, as Linder crosses his arms and frowns. "This gives powers to the secretary of defense to rewrite the rules governing civil service at the Department of Defense at any time!" Linder's eyes dart impatiently around the room. "It does threaten to undermine the credibility of our civil service as a nonpartisan body," Van Hollen continues--but to little avail. Linder's thoughts are clearly someplace else, someplace where there are no annoying Democrats like Van Hollen. If Linder has listened to a word, there's no sign of it.
When Van Hollen is done speaking, one Democrat on the committee, Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, puts up a token protest to Linder. It would be "outrageous" to quash Van Hollen's amendment, he tells Linder. But McGovern's tone is perfunctory. There is a pause. "Thank you," Linder deadpans. Perhaps five minutes after he arrived, Van Hollen leaves.
Welcome to the life of a House Democrat. It has been nearly a decade since the GOP revolutionaries stormed their way to the House majority in 1994, dethroning Democratic chairmen and ramming through their Contract With America. Today, Democrats say they are languishing under the most despotic majority the modern House has seen. They find themselves a completely subjugated, powerless minority--routinely barred from offering bills and amendments, shut out of committee deliberations, even denied such basic dignities as private meeting space. "It's a fascistic system," fumes George Miller, a fiery California liberal who was recently threatened with removal from the House floor after a particularly furious outburst. "The manner in which they're running the House is corrupt." A Democratic leadership aide is blunter still: "We're basically getting bitch-slapped around by these guys because they control everything."
[There is more, but it is pay for view article, and I pay, and you don't, so I can read the rest of it, and you can't]
So is this in the larger scheme of things, in the fullness of time, a good thing or a bad thing?
As RUSH says, "These Democrats cannot stand to be out of power." Let's hope it stays that way...
According to House Rules, the schedule is completely controlled by the Democrat Leadership. Republicans are informed about the legislative schedule but not consulted. The number of sessions each committee or sub- committee has and the length of such sessions varies widely and is controlled by the Democrat Chairman of each committee. Although many believe that the "real" work of Congress is done in committee, public records of attendance at committee and subcommittee meetings are not readily available. Further, under House Rules, proxy voting is allowed in committee, i.e., a member may be recorded as voting while actually somewhere else.The exchanges today were very important in terms of establishing the Democrats position regarding the Speaker's ability through the Rules Committee to include any legislation the majority wanted and have that legislation protected against points of order even before the adoption of a rule that waived all points of order. In essence Democrats have added a weapon to their overwhelming arsnal which virtually assurs them of legislative success even if they do not have a majority supporting the actual legislation . . .
Congressman Jim Inhofe, in a partial one-minute speech, announced that Discharge Petition #2 had received the required number of 218 signatures. This Discharge Petition was the focus on significant attention during the recess with the names of members who had not signed printed in the Wall Street Journal. Inhofe's original legislation, which was bottled up in the Rules Committee, would allow Discharge Petition Signatures to be made public. Since the Democrat leadership has used the secrecy to protect members who claimed support for a measure but were really opposed, they worked vigorously to keep Inhofe's legislation from coming to a vote . . . much, much more here
When it comes to bipartisanship, the Rats only whine when they are in the minority. Were they the majority party, they would be utterly ruthless. Basically, our way or the highway.
Yeah Miller...when Dems ran the House, didn't he adjourn, and then reassemble in the Democratic Cloak room where the Republicans couldn't go. He knows all about fascist.
Somehow I doubt that.
OTOH, maybe what the Dems need is a leader like Bob Michels. You know, someone able to compromise . . .:-)
You PAY to read a liberal rag?
Incidently, the "non-partisan" civil service system shields bureaucratic traitors to the constitution from the wrath of the voters. Elected patriots cannot remove them.
In addition, the objections you list, especially "voting on stuff late at night after the media cycle is over" serves to keep the Democrats from grandstanding. Hardly a blow to democracy.
But let's scratch beneath the surface. Is this not an indictment of the leadership (or lack thereof) of Nancy Pelosi? The Democrats have worked hard to set up an adversarial position with respect to Republicans. That works well in the Senate, where everything can be blocked with a filibuster, but in the House, it simply prevents the majority from even considering compromise. The Republicans feel -- rightly so -- that it is useless to work with Democrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.