Related Resources On NationalJournal.com Poll Track: National Polling On Political Parties · Online Exclusive: Paying For Their Crimes (12/13/06) · Rules Of The Game: Election Reform, Round Two (12/04/06) · Rules Of The Game: Promises, Promises (11/20/06) · National Journal: Democrats To Watch (11/17/06) · Wealth Of Nations: A Fiscal Challenge For The New Congress (11/17/06) · Capitol Corridors: Blue Dogs Have Their Day (11/16/06) · National Journal: Going Blue (11/10/06) [an error occurred while processing this directive] Additional Resources On The Web Democrats.gov: A New Direction For America · Democrats.gov: The First 100 Hours · White House Transcript: Bush Meets with Pelosi and Hoyer

By Richard E. Cohen, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, Dec. 15, 2006

Crammed between their jubilant Election Night celebrations on November 7 and the pomp, picture-taking, and parties that will surround their January 4 takeover, House Democrats have been scrambling. Behind the scenes, they have been racing the clock to write the initial policy and procedural initiatives that the House will act on early next year in a rapid-fire round of legislating unlike anything seen since the GOP's Contract With America onslaught in 1995. Although Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., acknowledged at a December 14 press conference that it's a formidable challenge, she contends that Democrats will be ready.

"Just because they haven't been made public doesn't mean the decisions haven't been made," Pelosi said. "In taking over the responsibility for the House of Representatives, Democrats have a tall order. I am impressed by all of the decisions that the new speaker has to make." But she pledged: "Democrats are prepared to govern and ready to lead."

Despite those assurances, though, some rank-and-file House Democrats have been feeling a bit uneasy. Although Democrats have vowed a return to "regular order" in the legislative process, along with more openness and accountability, many of the decisions about their first-100-hours agenda are being made privately by party leaders and a handful of committee leaders. More details started to trickle out this week, at Pelosi's briefing and in conference calls that leaders held with members. But House Democrats by and large left town after the 109th Congress shut down in the wee hours of December 9 with more questions than answers about the 110th Congress.

Will House committees consider any of the 100-hours legislation? (Perhaps. But that's unlikely, according to leadership sources.) Will Republicans -- or balking Democrats -- be permitted to offer amendments during floor debate? (Don't count on many. But, in truth, nobody knows.) Which specific health care changes will be proposed, and which energy company tax breaks repealed? (Well, you get the picture.)

On the internal House rules changes that Democrats will offer on Opening Day, for example, two veteran Rules Committee members said in separate interviews during the first week of December that they have been mostly out of the loop. Two other members -- Reps. Tom Allen, D-Maine, and David Price, D-N.C., who more than a year ago co-sponsored a widely publicized package of internal House reforms -- said they know little about Pelosi's specific plans on the topic, and each suggested that a reporter contact a third co-sponsor. But that lawmaker -- Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., who is preparing to serve as Appropriations Committee chairman -- also demurred. "My head is on the appropriations mess that Republicans have left," Obey said. "I have more than enough to worry about."

Likewise, other senior members said that much ambiguity surrounds what lies ahead with proposed legislation, although they voiced confidence that the logistical details will be settled in due course. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., said on December 8 that Pelosi staffers have informed Ways and Means Committee aides that the House will consider by mid-January a version of the bill that he filed in April to nullify tax breaks for big oil companies. "It will come up in some form," McDermott said. "But we on Ways and Means haven't been brought into the discussion of how it will come to the floor."

Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., another senior Ways and Means member, said that it was uncertain whether the committee will hold a hearing on the legislation, never mind a markup. "We're looking at various provisions," he said. "The decision will be made by the leadership and Ways and Means Democrats."

Some Democratic staffers have privately voiced alarm about the slow pace and scant information. "The silence from Pelosi's office is deafening. It scares me. I don't know what they're doing," an aide to a usually well-connected Democratic member said in early December. "During the campaign, we got talking points nearly every day from Pelosi's office. Since then, we've had very little."

When told of these concerns, a more experienced chief of staff to a senior member close to Pelosi was dismissive. "People worry too much. They assume that mistakes will be made," this aide said. "There is a lot going on. I think that everything is OK."

A top leadership aide maintained that most members realize that the rules changes and separate legislation remain a work in progress, and they are comfortable with that. "They know the general direction," he said as Congress was preparing to adjourn.

Adding to the uncertainty of the transition period was the sudden illness of Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., who was rushed to George Washington University Hospital on December 13 and underwent emergency surgery for a brain hemorrhage. With the long-term prognosis unclear, speculation mounted that Democratic control of the Senate could be in jeopardy, should Johnson be unable to serve and South Dakota GOP Gov. Mike Rounds appointed a Republican successor. Pelosi refused to comment on how such developments might impede the Democratic agenda, saying that her thoughts and prayers were with Johnson and his family and that she hoped for his full recovery.

When the 110th Congress convenes on January 4, the eyes of the nation -- and much of the world -- will be on Capitol Hill, as Pelosi becomes the first woman House speaker. The scripted ceremonial events will include the roll call of all members; the nomination and vote for each party's candidate for speaker, with speeches by the loser and the winner; and the swearing-in of all members. Then, in the next 24 hours, Democrats plan dramatic flourishes to demonstrate their clean sweep of Capitol Hill.

For the first time in many decades, debate on the usually routine package of House rules changes will extend into a second day, as Democrats spotlight their reforms -- such as a gift ban and travel restrictions -- and the freshmen who were elected on November 7 on a promise of change. In the following two weeks in January, House Democrats hope to generate public enthusiasm and to prove they can deliver real change by passing their 100-hours legislative platform featuring at least seven prominent -- and easily digestible -- policy proposals. (The new Senate Democratic majority plans to eventually consider most, if not all, of these measures, although the minority party's enhanced rights in that chamber preclude rapid action.)

"In our first 100 legislative hours, we will raise the minimum wage, make college more accessible, health care more affordable, promote stem-cell research, roll back subsidies to Big Oil, and protect Social Security," Pelosi said last week in what has become a familiar mantra. Once they complete those measures, plus rules for tighter budget discipline and implementation of the 9/11 commission's recommendations to strengthen homeland security, many Democrats hope that President Bush's State of the Union message, expected on January 23, will seem anticlimactic.

And yet, in planning for their takeover, Pelosi and her senior team at times seem to have lost their footing, in stark contrast to their well-choreographed moves immediately after the election. Pelosi faced criticism when the close ally whom she lobbied for as majority leader, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., received less than 40 percent of the Democratic Caucus vote in facing Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md. Then she found herself in a no-win situation over the selection of a new Intelligence Committee chairman, as she bypassed two veteran members whom she viewed as problematic and selected the less experienced Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas.

"There have been problems," acknowledged Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., one of nine chief deputy whips. "But problems are predictable with a change in leadership after 12 years. There has been a lot of pent-up ambition and agenda."

Past As Prologue
Assuming that the January unveiling goes smoothly -- and some Democrats fear that is not a foregone conclusion -- the mishaps and uncertainties of November and December could be largely forgotten. But the contrasts between the Democrats' preparations and the Republican takeover 12 years ago offer useful insight.

In 1994, of course, Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and his House allies crafted the detailed Contract With America, featuring 10 main planks with some parts further divided. Most Republican members and candidates signed it at an elaborate September event on the Capitol steps. After Republicans won the election, the contract was a useful rallying device for Gingrich, who was a novice as the party leader, and for rank-and-file members, none of whom had served in the House majority.

In the first 100 days after they took control, House Republicans passed all of the contract proposals, after committees reviewed them, except they failed to secure the two-thirds vote required for a constitutional term-limits amendment for members of Congress. (Some of the contract proposals won ultimate approval, but others were rejected by the Senate, by President Clinton, or by the Supreme Court.)

By contrast, the Democrats' campaign this year focused largely on the Bush administration's policy shortcomings -- especially in Iraq -- and on Pelosi's depiction of the GOP's "culture of corruption." Party leaders outlined various themes for their policy plans if they won control, including a "New Direction for America: Six for '06." But candidates across the nation were free to choose their favored proposals, or to ignore the party agenda. This freedom could create headaches for leaders down the road in managing their caucus, whose members are far more diverse and fractious than were the mostly homogeneous Republicans when they took control. In contrast to the earlier Republicans, House Democrats next year will have more than 80 members who served in the majority before 1994.

"They are not as rooted as we were. In many ways, the [Democrats'] new majority is a reincarnation that brings ideological baggage. But they also have experience," said outgoing Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif., who worked closely with Gingrich in 1994 to prepare for the majority. "The [GOP] rules package reflected our ideas in the campaign. Newt had a great grasp of detail, though he didn't spend much time on specifics."

Judging by the early signals, Pelosi's speakership style seemingly will be closer to that of Gingrich and his GOP leadership successors -- who centralized power, instilled rigid party discipline, and tightly controlled the influence of once-autonomous committee chairmen -- than to that of her mostly laissez-faire Democratic predecessors as speaker, such as Reps. Tom Foley, D-Wash., and Tip O'Neill, D-Mass.

At every turn this year, Pelosi has exercised command-and-control, whether in carefully managing campaign messages or the 100-hours legislative gambit. She has also shown the chairmen that she won't hesitate to pull them back: Besides her role in choosing the Intelligence panel leader, she stifled impeachment talk by incoming Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.; she made it clear that she prefers incoming Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to take the lead on oversight issues, rather than returning Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., with whom she has clashed; and she discouraged any turf grab by Dingell against incoming Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass.

"She is very involved in detail and nitty-gritty," said a veteran House aide who has watched Pelosi closely during the transition. "That's a risk that she takes." The staffer noted, for example, that she even got involved in the assignment of Capitol office space.

Asked whether Pelosi has a top-down management style, her communications director, Brendan Daly, said that she is demonstrating "strong leadership." He added, "People know this is coming." After a campaign in which Democrats announced specific plans, Daly said, "we won the election, and we are doing what we promised to do." He rejected parallels to the Republicans' 1994 contract. "Gingrich was a revolutionary who wanted to tear this place down," Daly said. "We want to pass strong ethics reforms and clean up Congress."

Some Democrats caution that the current transition period should not be viewed as a model for how they will operate after they take control. Although Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., the second-ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, said he was not familiar with many of the current discussions on rules changes, he voiced confidence that House procedures will become more open and fair. "There will be more consultation. And Rules Committee hearings [on scheduling legislation for House floor action] will be real, with give and take," McGovern said. "I will go from being a pain in the ass [in the minority] to more of an advocate for respect, inclusion, and fairness."

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., who is next in line behind McGovern at the Rules Committee, also said he has not participated in discussions on how to bring bills to the House floor. Incoming Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., and her aides have actively worked with Pelosi and her aides on the rules changes. "House leaders and chairmen will be working over the holidays to prepare for January 4. Without question, other members will defer," Hastings said, although he voiced the hope that members will schedule a hearing to review the proposed procedural changes.

The Nitty-Gritty
Democratic leaders are confident that they will win House passage of all measures in their 100-hours agenda. They contend that these proposals have been widely circulated and discussed. "All of these have been vetted," Pelosi said at her December 14 press conference. "These are not new to the Congress."

Some of the proposals have been the subject of previous House action, while others have not. Some have shown greater potential to win GOP backing. And several will likely be modified in the Senate, where Republicans have greater leverage because of the 60-vote requirement to shut down a filibuster. A key factor with some of the proposals will be Bush's willingness to seek compromise rather than exercise his veto.

Democrats have tentatively scheduled the minimum-wage increase among their initial measures for consideration. Even with Republicans in control of the House this year, the proposed increase to $7.25 per hour seemed certain to gain majority support after seven GOP party regulars bucked their leaders to support a Democratic amendment during an Appropriations Committee debate in June. As a result, Republican leaders refused to bring the underlying appropriations bill to the House floor.

With no minimum-wage increase since 1997, Democrats view this issue as central to their efforts to shift from the GOP's focus on tax cuts for the wealthy. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., a Pelosi confidant who will chair the Education and the Workforce Committee, has taken charge of the issue. At a December 12 press conference, he told reporters that the bill will reach the House floor "early in the 100 hours" but that he did not know whether hearings will be held or amendments permitted. "There is a full understanding of the issue," Miller added, while noting that "over a two-year period, there will be a mix of hearings and rules" for debating other bills on the floor.

Although Republicans have little hope of placing their imprint on the minimum-wage bill in the House, they may be able to secure Senate changes to make the bill acceptable to Bush. "Philosophically, a core of Republicans -- including myself -- opposes an increase," Dreier said. "But if there is a hue and cry, we can support it with some incentives for business."

On revisions in student-loan fees, another issue facing his committee, Miller noted deferentially that "options have been presented to the speaker."

Also tentatively scheduled for House action during the week of January 8 is the proposal to expand federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research. This is the only piece of the Democrats' agenda that has won House and Senate approval, although Bush vetoed it in July and the House fell 51 votes short in its override attempt.

DeGette, the chief Democratic sponsor of the measure, said that the new bill will be "essentially the same" and that she sees no need to hold hearings on the measure, given its broad public support. "We are open to discussion with the White House. But they have consistently refused to meet with us. So why should we negotiate with ourselves?" she said.

Rep. Michael Castle, R-Del., the bill's other chief sponsor, largely agreed with DeGette. But he was a bit more open to negotiations. "I am a little concerned that if we keep the same bill, the president will veto it," Castle said. "The election has increased the pressure to act. If we start the process and get good support, maybe the White House will discuss possibilities."

As for proposals to nullify tax breaks for oil companies, Bush's antipathy to any tax increase -- plus his support for the energy industry -- appears to make enactment a nonstarter. But McDermott insisted that record oil-company profits during the past year show that "they don't need this tax break," referring to a provision in a corporate tax-cut measure in 2004 that provides at least a billion dollars in annual savings to Big Oil.

Some of the other, broader proposals in the 100-hours agenda could prove more complicated and daunting. Since the election, various news reports have chronicled how Democrats are struggling to figure out ways to implement the 9/11 commission's sweeping recommendations. (Republicans argue that they've already implemented many of the proposals.)

Initial news reports indicated that Democrats would put aside the 9/11 commission's suggestion that Congress overhaul its own oversight structure to better respond to terrorist threats. Then, within the past week, a Democratic leadership aide said that Pelosi planned to create a bipartisan task force to look into the idea. But at her December 14 press conference, she announced creation within the House Appropriations Committee of a hybrid "select intelligence oversight panel" -- which also would include members of the Permanent Select Intelligence Committee -- "for considering intelligence funding" and other issues. The 9/11 commission, she added, "presented several different options" for overhauling congressional oversight.

Meanwhile, the Democrats' promise to require government negotiation of prescription drug prices for Medicare recipients -- an idea popular on the campaign trail and in many polls -- has the potential to backfire if not handled adeptly. Republicans point to surveys showing that Medicare recipients like the current prescription drug program, which has ended up costing the government far less than budgeteers first predicted. Although Democrats have long pushed to model the program after the one run by the Veterans Affairs Department, which negotiates drug prices for military veterans, seniors might reject such a system in practice because of its potentially more-limited choices. During the 109th Congress, Democrats had several drug-negotiation proposals on the table, and it is unclear which direction they are headed.

In moving quickly on their ambitious agenda, Pelosi and the other top House Democratic leaders -- Hoyer, Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., and Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. -- will need to establish comfortable relationships with each other. The four worked together closely during the past two years, but the past few weeks have made it clear that conflicts remain -- notably, between Pelosi and Hoyer; plus, Emanuel gave serious thought to challenging Clyburn for the whip post. Although internal competition on congressional leadership teams is not unusual, the demand for quick action next month could increase tensions, as members of the new team seek to define their roles in the majority, including with the party's various factions and its more than 40 freshmen.

Some Republicans warn that the apparently partisan tenor -- including the procedural shortcuts -- of the 100-hours agenda will boomerang on the sponsors. "Democrats have spent the entire [six years] I've been in Congress complaining about our process. They now have the opportunity to follow through with that," said Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., the new chairman of the House GOP Conference. "We will hold them accountable. The public wants all 435 members to have a say in how our laws are written."

A senior aide to incoming Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, added that Republicans have deliberately remained mostly quiet amid the Democrats' "turbulence and turmoil" in the past month. Much of their 100-hours agenda is "poll-tested, safe, and not especially risky for Democrats," he added. "We will look at their proposals on a case-by-case basis and may go along with some." With the possibility that maverick Democrats will go their own way, the aide continued, "there could be unanticipated problems if their planning is not adequate. Then, their opportunity for a bounce could become an embarrassment if they stumble out of the gate."

For now, buoyant Democrats are not inclined to take advice from across the aisle. But the GOP's recent comeuppance is a useful reminder of the dangers of hubris.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Need A Reprint Of This Article?
National Journal Group offers both print and electronic reprint services, as well as permissions for academic use, photocopying and republication. Click here to order, or call us at 877-394-7350.