Here we are, two days after an historic election that resulted in historic gains for the Republican Party in Congress. Speculation is rampant as to the ramifications of the election, ie. what the voters really meant by voting the Democrats out in such large numbers and what it means for the Republicans. By no means am I to be considered an expert, but allow me to add my voice to the clamor. To do that, let us first go back in history, to the year 1994, and examine some of what happened after Newt Gingrich and company were voted into power. I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I see no way to cut the size down and still make my points. Please bear with me and read through to the end.
The center piece of what Gingrich wanted to do was called the Contract with America. There were several facets of that contract, but there is one that I want to examine closely, the fairness rules Gingrich established in the House of Representatives. To do so, let me quote from a Human Events article published on January 5, 2009. This should give us an idea of what these rules were all about.
After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.
I know the Gingrich era failed to live up to a lot of it’s promise, but that does not take away from the fact that his group had a lot of good ideas. The changes in the House Rules that he established were part of those good ideas and they held in good standing for 15 years. What changed after those 15 years, you ask? After sitting as speaker for two years and seeing Barack Obama swept into the White House, Nancy Pelosi decided she had enough clout to reverse the changes and in January 2009, she went forward with a plan to do just that. This plan basically reverted the House of Representatives back to the old school way of doing business. Legislation was thereafter assembled in secret, behind closed doors, and the process whereby members of Congress could offer amendments was severely restricted, if not stopped altogether.
Before these changes were implemented, the House Republican leadership sent a letter to Pelosi, asking her to reconsider the changes. Here is a portion of that letter, again from Human Events.
President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.
As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.
The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation — the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.
This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.
Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.
This letter was signed by people like John Boehner, Mike Pence, Eric Cantor, etc., and to be honest, no one should have to ask how it turned out. Nancy Pelosi rejected the letter and pushed the changes through, regardless. The legislative process we have seen since Barack Obama took the oath of office is a direct result of the changes pushed through by Pelosi. It is one of the biggest reasons we now have a health care bill that was rammed down our throats.
Where do we go from here, you may ask? A lot of things come to mind, but the first on my agenda would be for John Boehner and the rest of the Republican leadership to make it a priority to reverse the changes made by Pelosi. Making those changes will do a couple of things, at the very minimum. First, it will give the minority party, now the Democrats, a greater voice in the legislative process. I know, that kind of goes against the grain, considering how Pelosi turned out to be such a ramrod, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Second, and probably most importantly, it will open up the legislative process, making it much less secretive and much more responsive to the American people. I think that is part of the message that was sent by the voters in this election.
Concerning the legislative process, let me quote from Matt Ross, of Conservative Hideout fame.
This leaves the GOP in an intersting postiion as well. With the House, and a tigher minority in the Senate, they clearly don’t have carte-blanche against Obama. However, they’re going to have to send things for the Senate to screw up, and for Obama to veto. They NEED to do this. They have to show the people that they’re following through on what they believe, and they need to show Obama for what he is. On the other hand, they also need to show some accomplishments. So they are going to need to be somewhat bi-partisan, so as long as they do not violate core principals.
We the people have a role a well. We have to stay on these folks. We need to support them when they’re doing the right thing, and smack them when they’re screwing up. They are going to find out that the Tea Parties are an equal opportunity pain in the rectum for those that would trample our Constitution.
I think Matt has hit on a very good point. The Republican Party has been the party of no for two years,
in no small part, due to the actions of Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party. They now have an opportunity to make positive changes and to show the American people that there really is a difference between the two political parties and that they are the better choice. Showing that is going to require more than John Boehner making grand speeches about what they plan to do. It is going to require more than a Pledge to America. It is going to require more than someone like Sarah Palin going around the country and declaring to the world how bad President Obama and the Democrats are. As much as I respected the remarks Boehner made Tuesday night, that is simply not enough.
If the Republican Party is to show that the obituary that was written for them two years ago was completely premature, positive action is going to be required. As Matt said in his post, they are going to have to be bi-partisan, as long as they do not violate their core principles. Call me naive, but I think they can get the job done. I do not think they can do it without our help. We need to be more involved than ever. Those of us who blog, we need to call it like it is, no matter who is in the wrong. Giving the Republicans or the Tea Party a rubber stamp is the worst thing we can do. Those of you who were working in the actual grassroots part of this campaign, you need to be working harder than you ever have. The Republican Party has a chance to be the tool we the people can use to put America back on the right path. Part of our job will be to help keep them on that path.
Well said Larry. I’m definitely down with this. I believe we must stay engaged at all level. We must be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I welcome a change to the House Rules because I believe that transparency can on help advance conservative solutions. I believe it’s time for an adult conversation and honest debate about the problems we face. We need all hands on deck to tackle these issues by proposing sound solutions. We need to stop treating the American people like children that can’t handle the truth and lay our cards on the table. It’s time to get to the task of saving our country. Great post Larry.
Thanks, John. I really what you said about having an adult conversation about the problems we are facing. The members of our government would do well to remember that.
Good stuff Larry.
I agree the GOP needs to return the rules of the House to what Newt put in, but they had better do it as vocally with as much grandstanding and finger pointing as possible. The American people must learn what Pelosi did to our legislative process.
Perhaps a role back is in order. I completely disagree with the above poster, however, who wants a great deal of breast beating and congratulatory back-slapping to accompany it.
Please be reminded: These representatives were sent to Washington to fix the country, not to remodel their House. If it needs some sprucing, so be it. But we’ve all had plenty of mandate-giddy celebration from a newly-minted GOP Congress before followed by very little helpful legislation.
Go back to the Tea Party principles you’ve all told me you will uphold and nail these guys to their promises. Our country doesn’t have any more time for grandstanding, finger-pointing or anything else that is wasteful. Leave history to the books and demand that the present be nutured. Nothing less will do, as Tea Partiers have told us.
I don’t think fleeceme is meaning that at all, Laurie. As for me, I am not interested in all of us patting each other on the back and making a big deal out of this. However, I do think the House rules should be reversed, for the reasons I stated in the post. It is an integral part of fixing our country. I also don’t see a thing wrong with making sure the America people know just what kind of damage Nancy Pelosi did to the legislative process with her changes to the rules. I do not wish to see it take center stage, but the information should be made available.
As for nailing these new members of Congress to their promise, that is what we fully intend to do.
Politicians respond to fear more so than support. So, pat ‘em on the head when they do something right, and pull out the Big Stick and use it liberally when they fail. You owe them nothing, they owe you. You are the leader, they are subservient to you. Be loyal to your family, friends and God, not to politicians or parties.
Amen, CL. Well said, indeed.
The post was not too long LD; you have something to say. You’re right, we have to keep on the Republicans. That was our mistake in ’94. We left them to their own devices and they were consumed with beltway fever. We need to make sure that doesn’t happen again.
I agree with rjjrdq, this post was not too long Larry. I also agree with you that the House should roll back these rules, I remember several instances in the last several weeks when the Republicans were not allowed to amend any bills before voting in them. The Democrats then called them the party of no again, and claimed that the Republicans offered no solutions, while it was the Democrats who didn’t allow the Republicans to have a voice in the first place. This would be a good way to show that we are bigger than they are, and I also wouldn’t have a problem with fleeceme’s idea of letting the public know what they are doing.
What worries me is the investigations will start. This is just partisan. The GOP should move on… quit trying to punish Obama it will just make them look worse.
I have a fear that the GOP will waste too much time on the investigations and this will not only stop them from moving forward in the economy, but it will hurt them in 2012. If there is something that legitimately needs to be looked into that is one thing, but I don’t think they should waste too much time looking for something.
I haven’t heard that the GOP is interested in investigating anyone, but if they are, I don’t feel it is a good idea. (I exclude people like Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel from that feeling, for obvious reasons.) We don’t need to be trying to punish anyone, but should rather move forward with efforts to repair our government and our country.