Remember how, during the past few years, Republicans repeatedly accused the Democrats of a lack of “openness and transparency” in the legislative process, of not allowing adequate time to either review proposed legislation or to debate it and—in particular in the case of the health care bill—of ramming it down the throat of the GOP and of the American people without going through the bipartisan process, without holding sufficient hearings or markups?
In reality, House Democrats held 79 bipartisan hearings and markups on health insurance reform over the past 2 years.
In reality, the House considered 239 amendments (both Democratic and Republican), and accepted 121 amendments.
In reality, the original House bill was posted online for 30 days before the first Committee began their mark up and more than 100 days before the tri-committees formally introduced their merged bill in the House.
In reality, the Senate Finance Committee held more that 53 hearings, spent 8 days marking up—the longest markup in 22 years—and considered 135 amendments on the health care legislation. The Senate HELP Committee considered 300 amendments during a 13-day markup. The final Senate bill included 147 Republican amendments.
And in (a surprising bit of) reality, Bill Kristol—no flaming Liberal—said on Fox News on March 7, 2010: “This is the most thoroughly debated piece of legislation in my memory in Washington.”
This week we heard that House Republicans will hold a vote on January 12 to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post says: “As the new House preps for their show-pony health-reform repeal vote, they’ve already indicated that this pageant will take place without hearings or amendments.” He also accuses House GOP of “backtracking on promised ‘reforms’ before they even get started.” Other Democrats are also accusing the new majority “of bringing the measure to the floor without allowing time for adequate debate or bipartisan negotiation.”
The days, weeks and months ahead will show whether the reformers (Boehner and Cantor) really meant what they argued in a letter they wrote to President Obama in February 2010, or whether they will just do what they accused their predecessors-in-power of doing.
Part of that letter:
…[O]ur ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency…‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support…Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.
Just words?
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.