Hoyer Defends Democrats' Plan to Block Republican Amendments

[Ron Burgundy]

Bloomberg - Jan. 3 -- The voters' decision last November to give Democrats control of Congress justifies party leaders in blocking Republicans from amending a wave of bills that will move through the House this month, said incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said his party campaigned on a ``100-hour'' agenda that includes raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour from $5.15 and should be able to move that measure through the chamber without interference. Democrats will later make good on a separate campaign promise to allow the minority party more opportunity to amend bills on the House floor or in committee.

``We view the first 100 hours as essentially a mandate from the American people,'' Hoyer told reporters.

His comments come amid a controversy that began Dec. 14 when House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said for the first time that Republicans wouldn't get a chance to offer amendments to those initial bills. House Republican leaders have protested the move, and some key committee chairmen yesterday sent letters to Democrats complaining that they are being locked out of the process.

Democrats take control of the House and Senate at noon tomorrow after elections that left their party with 51 of the Senate's 100 seats and 233 of the House's 435 seats.

When Republicans were in the majority, they routinely blocked Democrats from amending bills and angered Democrats by often moving legislation to the floor without adequate time for lawmakers to review the contents.

Republican leaders today said Democrats weren't following campaign promises to run the House more openly.

`Totally Inconsistent'

``It's totally inconsistent with what we have been promised,'' David Drier of California, the senior Republican on the House Rules Committee, told reporters.

Republicans ``have not seen one line'' of any proposed legislation, and committees won't be able to debate any of the bills that will be passed in the first weeks of the session, said incoming Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri. When Republicans took control of the House in 1995, Blunt said all of their election-year agenda was first passed by committees.

``The American people were promised a new way of doing business,'' said Adam Putnam, a Floridian who is chairman of the Republican Conference. ``We are disappointed that, at this point in the game, half of the Congress has been cut out of the process.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Laura Litvan in Washington at llitvan@bloomberg.net

[motivez]

I guess now that they're not in the majority, things like this are unacceptable.

Personally, as long as this only applies to the bills they promised as a part of their "First 100 Hours" promise, I see no problem with that. The American people decided to elect them based in part on this platform, and in part on the massive failures of the Republican party, so I see no reason why they should be hindered by Republican stall tactics.

If they were allowed to stall bills, etc, it'd just be used later in another campaign to show that the Democrats didn't live up to their promises, etc, etc.

However, after the initial passage of these measures, I hope they will attempt to work with the Republican minority to accomplish things for the American people.

[Diamond Cross]

This tit-for-tat crap should be unacceptable all the way around. It's a simple cocept, if you deplore a certain kind of behavior, don't do it if you want to be better than the other guy who's doing it. "Do as I say not as I do" is never credible, no matter who does it.

But dont count the Republicans out yet, there's still all kinds of things they can do to stop Democratic legislation. And they'll probably do it.

[Thorgrim]

It's no secret that the GOP planned to delay the Democrats agenda as long as possible with their fingers crossed and hoping for a blowout in 08 to sweep them back into power

The people didn't elect the Democrats to power so they couldn't even pass bills to go to the president, they didn't vote out the GOP so they could block bills that make them look bad (stem cell/minimum wage/etc)

They'll get to it eventually, but it never was there #1 item...who here voted for a Democrat because they thought they'd give the GOP a right never before seen in the house

Originally Posted by motivez

I guess now that they're not in the majority, things like this are unacceptable.

Personally, as long as this only applies to the bills they promised as a part of their "First 100 Hours" promise, I see no problem with that. The American people decided to elect them based in part on this platform, and in part on the massive failures of the Republican party, so I see no reason why they should be hindered by Republican stall tactics.

If they were allowed to stall bills, etc, it'd just be used later in another campaign to show that the Democrats didn't live up to their promises, etc, etc.

However, after the initial passage of these measures, I hope they will attempt to work with the Republican minority to accomplish things for the American people.

Democrats were elected 95% based on Iraq and you know it. Min wage was a non issue in the election, give me a break man.

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

This tit-for-tat crap should be unacceptable all the way around. It's a simple cocept, if you deplore a certain kind of behavior, don't do it if you want to be better than the other guy who's doing it. "Do as I say not as I do" is never credible, no matter who does it.

But dont count the Republicans out yet, there's still all kinds of things they can do to stop Democratic legislation. And they'll probably do it.

I'm sure they will, the democrats did it for years from legislation to judicial nominees, quite frankly republicans deserve what they get, but this country really needs to quite the partisan bullshit and do whats right for the country, I'm hoping with many of these new democrats thats just what will happen.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Democrats were elected 95% based on Iraq and you know it. Min wage was a non issue in the election, give me a break man.

Polls out show most of the country is on board with the Democratic agenda, that includes the 100 hour plans they put forward.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by motivez

Polls out show most of the country is on board with the Democratic agenda, that includes the 100 hour plans they put forward.

Indeed my wide-eyed friend

These are policies listed by favor/oppose/no opinion.

Allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies to attempt to lower the price of prescription drugs for some senior citizens: 87/12/1

Raising the minimum wage: 85/14/1

Cutting interest rates on federal loans to college students: 84/15/1

Creating an independent panel to oversee ethics in Congress: 79/19/2

Making significant changes in U.S. policy in Iraq: 77/20/3

Reducing the amount of influence lobbyists have in congressional decisions: 75/21/4

Implementing all of the anti-terrorism recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission: 64/26/10

Maintaining the current Social Security system to prevent the creation of private investment accounts: 63/32/6

Funding embryonic stem cell research: 62/32/6

Reducing some federal tax breaks for oil companies: 49/49/2

Changing the rules to allow Congress to create new spending programs only if taxes are raised or spending on other programs is cut: 41/54/5

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/01/03/rel31l.pdf

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Indeed my wide-eyed friend

These are policies listed by favor/oppose/no opinion.

Allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies to attempt to lower the price of prescription drugs for some senior citizens: 87/12/1

Raising the minimum wage: 85/14/1

Cutting interest rates on federal loans to college students: 84/15/1

Creating an independent panel to oversee ethics in Congress: 79/19/2

Making significant changes in U.S. policy in Iraq: 77/20/3

Reducing the amount of influence lobbyists have in congressional decisions: 75/21/4

Implementing all of the anti-terrorism recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission: 64/26/10

Maintaining the current Social Security system to prevent the creation of private investment accounts: 63/32/6

Funding embryonic stem cell research: 62/32/6

Reducing some federal tax breaks for oil companies: 49/49/2

Changing the rules to allow Congress to create new spending programs only if taxes are raised or spending on other programs is cut: 41/54/5

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/01/03/rel31l.pdf

I wish these polls would show who they called. Did they call 1019 Democrats? Random? Republicans? They don't say.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I wish these polls would show who they called. Did they call 1019 Democrats? Random? Republicans? They don't say.

It really wouldn't matter in this case.

This just shows that Iraq isn't the only thing people are in line with on the Democrats agenda.

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I wish these polls would show who they called. Did they call 1019 Democrats? Random? Republicans? They don't say.

You can usually find the info and in almost all the polls I've ever seen since 2002 they poll a disproportionately high number of democrats and independants.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You can usually find the info and in almost all the polls I've ever seen since 2002 they poll a disproportionately high number of democrats and independants.

yet strangely enough, they are insanely accurate come election day

Funny how they could be purposely skewing their results against republicans yet...get the right numbers

the average of all the last polls picked every senate race, funny, almost no one going into that night said the democrats would pick up exactly 6 seats, let alone in those exact 6 states, except the polls, who were dead on and ahead of the game

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You can usually find the info and in almost all the polls I've ever seen since 2002 they poll a disproportionately high number of democrats and independants.

if you're going to attack the accuracy of the polls, then just show some that show something to the contrary

[ballz2wallz]

The GOP needs to stop bitching and work on building themselves up to win the next election so they can do things right again.

Originally Posted by Pro Street

if you're going to attack the accuracy of the polls, then just show some that show something to the contrary

If the polls dont post their demographics there's a problem.

Democrats are trying to do some of the same crap republicans did that got so much outrage years ago. The bullshit talk about "bipartisan" and "changing" congress was just that, bullshit.

The following issues are being pushed through or are they are going to attempt to push them through without any committee hearings:
Higher min wage
Price controls on prescrip drugs
"ethics reform"
Paygo

and a host of other items...if these are such worthy causes why not bring them to committee for debate? Why not make the arguments public surrounding these issues?

A higher wage doesn't always pose huge risks to the economy but the fact is all economists say there will be SOME job loss as a result of higher labor costs. Maybe its tiny, maybe it is not, but it should be debated openly.

Most hilarious is the new paygo rules, democrats refuse to say publically that reinstating paygo will FORCE the bush tax cuts to expire. But they wont say that publically.

Absolutely ridiculous...


edit: btw this was taken from todays wall street journal print edition

[Scrum]

It's part of the "100 hours" plan.

They have been saying these are the things they are going to do. It's the platform they ran on and why they were elected. I have no problem with them using the system in place to make these things happen and then changing the system to be more fair.

Turnabout is fair play. At least this won't be happening for the next 2 years.

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

It's part of the "100 hours" plan.

They have been saying these are the things they are going to do. It's the platform they ran on and why they were elected. I have no problem with them using the system in place to make these things happen and then changing the system to be more fair.

Turnabout is fair play. At least this won't be happening for the next 2 years.

They were elected because of Iraq and you know it...furthermore you and MANY others myself included complained about the way many republicans handled issues, but now that your party is in power its ok???? Give me a break man, this is ridiculous.

[motivez]

Thread merge inc

...and, done

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

They were elected because of Iraq and you know it...furthermore you and MANY others myself included complained about the way many republicans handled issues, but now that your party is in power its ok???? Give me a break man, this is ridiculous.

As I said earlier, as long as it's only with the campaign promise first 100 hour issues, I have few problems with it. If it extends beyond that, my opinion will change.

The country is on board with their agenda, and they have an obligation to the country they promised to work on accomplishing things that need to be changed.

While I'd much prefer the Republicans be included so the bills can be written as good as possible, I'm fairly sure if they allowed the Republicans to participate, they'd simply stall all they can in hopes that they can hold off until '08 and then point to the Democrats failure to accomplish things and keep their promise as a reason to put them back in power.

No one who was so eager to change from the old corrupt regime to a new, hopefully more ethical congress wants to see changes blocked simply for partisan and political reasons.