Transparency Not a Priority for Congressional Democrats
Amanda Carey
Issue date: 1/24/10 Section: News and Opinion
The change to the Senate rules was made in order to increase transparency in the legislative process, as well as strengthen ethical guidelines for senators. Conference committee attendees could no longer emerge with an entirely new, unrecognizable version of the bill. However, since the Act's passage, Congressional leaders have all but completely stopped sending major bills to formal conference committees, where they would have to abide by the new restrictions of Rule 28.
Now enter health care reform: legislation that is highly controversial and was narrowly passed in both chambers along party lines. And with the broad spectrum of issues that differentiate both the House and Senate bills, adding provisions similar to the deal Sen. Nelson (D-NE) got for the purpose of enticing House members to vote for the final version was expected. Yet those last-minute provisions could then have been struck down by a group of at least 41 senators, which would have defeated the entire conference report.
Thus, it's safe to say that one of the main reasons Pelosi and Reid bypassed the traditional and expected conference committee was so they could add whatever was necessary to the final version of the bill, in order to ensure its landing on President Obama's desk. It may not be transparent or ethical, but it's the way the current process works.
The lesson for Americans who are infuriated by the behind-closed-doors behavior is that this kind of conduct is to be expected. Likewise, when the CEO of C-SPAN, Brian Lamb, is denied his request to televise the meeting between Reid, Pelosi and the chosen Democrats, the American people should not be shocked or surprised.
So, when during the campaign Barack Obama said, "we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies," that was just a campaign promise. And as is well known, campaign promises don't really mean much of anything, even when they come from a president promising "change".
Now enter health care reform: legislation that is highly controversial and was narrowly passed in both chambers along party lines. And with the broad spectrum of issues that differentiate both the House and Senate bills, adding provisions similar to the deal Sen. Nelson (D-NE) got for the purpose of enticing House members to vote for the final version was expected. Yet those last-minute provisions could then have been struck down by a group of at least 41 senators, which would have defeated the entire conference report.
Thus, it's safe to say that one of the main reasons Pelosi and Reid bypassed the traditional and expected conference committee was so they could add whatever was necessary to the final version of the bill, in order to ensure its landing on President Obama's desk. It may not be transparent or ethical, but it's the way the current process works.
The lesson for Americans who are infuriated by the behind-closed-doors behavior is that this kind of conduct is to be expected. Likewise, when the CEO of C-SPAN, Brian Lamb, is denied his request to televise the meeting between Reid, Pelosi and the chosen Democrats, the American people should not be shocked or surprised.
So, when during the campaign Barack Obama said, "we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies," that was just a campaign promise. And as is well known, campaign promises don't really mean much of anything, even when they come from a president promising "change".
Be the first to comment on this story