"Bipartisanship"

"Mr. Speaker, this rule is an affront to the democratic process...At 1 a.m. this morning, with absolutely no meaningful opportunity to review the almost 700-page prescription drug legislation, the Committee on Rules met to consider the resolution now before us. By now I should be used to it, but we cannot tolerate these continual attacks on democracy. When you refuse to allow half this House to speak and to give their amendments, you are cutting out half the population of the United States from any participation in the legislation that goes on here. It defies reason and it defies common sense that political expediency and newspaper headlines could force this monumental legislation, probably the most monumental that any of us will do in our tenure in the Congress of the United States, to force it through the Chamber with little more than cursory consideration."

--Louise Slaughter, Democrat Representative from New York, protesting the use of "special rules" for consideration of the Prescription Drug/Medicare Benefits Bill of 2003.

Today, you can hear this exact same quote, almost word-for-word, from House Republicans who have been ignored and marginalized during the debate over Healthcare Reform in the House.

Under Special Rules, the majority party of the House (in 2003, the Republicans) can restrict debate and amending privileges on a bill after is passes committee. In this case, Representatives were given several hours to debate, and no amendments were allowed. The bill was formed in Republican committees and amended post-committee without any Democrats being invited to the table. The bill passed the House 216-215, after the Republican Speaker held the 15-minute voting period open for a full hour in order to give his party whips time to persuade two Representatives to change their votes, in return for promises to amend the legislation later, in conference between the House and Senate.

As long as committee processes and House rules are subject to simple-majority control, there will be no bipartisanship, cooperation, or moderation in policy proceeding from the House. Unless Representatives are institutionally encouraged to think for themselves and their constituents--and a 2/3 majority vote of the entire House is required for amending the House rules--the majority party in the House will simply be able to ignore and walk roughshod over the minority party. In 2003, it was the Republicans steamrolling Medicare reform, and in 2009 it is the Democrats steamrolling healthcare reform in general.

Allowing a majority to trample the rights of a minority is wrong no matter what policy you are pursuing. It's not American, it's does not serve the long-term interest of the republic, it destroys the public trust and deepens the divide between citizens, and it's just plain not right.