Homestead mailing list

["Wendy" <crazygardens AT nationi.net>]

Analysis
Hastert Launches a Partisan Policy

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 27, 2004; Page A01

In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most 
lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy 
in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, 
regardless of how many Democrats favor them.

Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside 
groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' 
influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. 
Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills 
such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year's intelligence package. 
Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after 
negotiations with the Senate, only if "the majority of the majority" 
supports them.

Senators from both parties, leaders of the Sept. 11 commission and others 
have sharply criticized the policy. The long-debated intelligence bill would 
now be law, they say, if Hastert and his lieutenants had been humble enough 
to let a high-profile measure pass with most votes coming from the minority 
party.

That is what Democrats did in 1993, when most House Democrats opposed the 
North American Free Trade Agreement. President Bill Clinton backed NAFTA, 
and leaders of the Democratic-controlled House allowed it to come to a vote. 
The trade pact passed because of heavy GOP support, with 102 Democrats 
voting for it and 156 voting against. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the House 
GOP leader at the time, declared: "This is a vote for history, larger than 
politics . . . larger than personal ego."

Such bipartisan spirit in the Capitol now seems a faint echo. Citing the 
increased marginalization of Democrats as House bills are drafted and 
brought to the floor, Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.) said, "It's a set of 
rules and practices which the Republicans have taken to new extremes."

Price, a former Duke University political scientist and the author of "The 
Congressional Experience," acknowledged that past congressional leaders, 
including Democrats, had sometimes scuttled measures opposed by most of 
their party's colleagues. But he said the practice should not apply to 
far-reaching, high-stakes legislation such as NAFTA and the intelligence 
package, which were backed by the White House and most of Congress's 535 
members.

Other House Democrats agree. Republicans "like to talk about 
bipartisanship," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "But when the 
opportunity came to pass a truly bipartisan bill -- one that would have 
passed both the House and Senate overwhelmingly and would have made the 
American people safer -- they failed to do it."

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), a White House aide when NAFTA passed, said this 
week, "What is more comforting to the terrorists around the world: the 
failure to pass the 9/11 legislation because we lacked 'a majority of the 
majority,' or putting aside partisan politics to enact tough new legislation 
with America's security foremost in mind?"

Some scholars say Hastert's decision should not come as a surprise. In a 
little-noticed speech in the Capitol a year ago, Hastert said one of his 
principles as speaker is "to please the majority of the majority."

"On occasion, a particular issue might excite a majority made up mostly of 
the minority," he continued. "Campaign finance is a particularly good 
example of this phenomenon. The job of speaker is not to expedite 
legislation that runs counter to the wishes of the majority of his 
majority."

Hastert put his principle into practice one week ago today. In a closed 
meeting in the Capitol basement, he urged his GOP colleagues to back the 
intelligence bill that had emerged from long House-Senate negotiations and 
had President Bush's support. When a surprising number refused, Hastert 
elected to keep it from reaching a vote, even though his aides said it could 
have passed with a minority of GOP members and strong support from the 
chamber's 206 Democrats.

Hastert spokesman John Feehery defended the decision in a recent interview. 
"He wants to pass bills with his majority," Feehery said. "That's the 
hallmark of this [Republican] majority. . . . If you pass major bills 
without the majority of the majority, then you tend not to be a long-term 
speaker. . . . I think he was prudent to listen to his members."

Some congressional scholars say Hastert is emphasizing one element of his 
job to the detriment of another. As speaker, said Norman Ornstein of the 
American Enterprise Institute, "you are the party leader, but you are 
ratified by the whole House. You are a constitutional officer," in line for 
the presidency after the vice president. At crucial times, he said, a 
speaker must put the House ahead of his party.

If Congress eventually enacted an intelligence bill similar to the one 
rejected last Saturday, Ornstein said, "then it would be unfair to rip 
Hastert to shreds. But if this either kills the bill or turns it from what 
would have been" a measure with considerable bipartisan support, he said, 
"then I think he should be condemned roundly."

Some groups representing families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, 
terrorist attacks are already criticizing Hastert. "The failure in 
leadership of the speaker to bring the bill to the House floor for a vote is 
particularly troubling because we believe the bill would have passed by a 
wide majority in the House," the Family Steering Committee said.

In the new Congress that convenes in January, Hastert's strategy may prove 
sufficient for GOP victories on issues that sharply divide the two parties, 
such as tax cuts, several analysts said. But on trade issues and other 
matters that are more divisive within the parties -- and thus require 
bipartisan coalitions to pass -- he could face serious problems.

Hastert's "majority of the majority" maxim, Ornstein said, "is a disastrous 
recipe for tackling domestic issues such as entitlement programs, the 
deficit and things like that."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15423-2004Nov26.html?referrer=email