Hoyer: Senate Keeping House Empty

Count Steny Hoyer among those grumbling that the House isn't working enough, the Majority Leader told reporters Tuesday -- but blame the Senate.

"I want you all to know I'm not happy with it," Hoyer said at his weekly press briefing. "We passed numerous very substantive pieces of legislation, and we're waiting for them to get back."

That's not to say the House isn't working, Hoyer said, citing ongoing health care negotiations as "a heavy lift," but while they await conferences with the Senate on a wide variety of bills, House members don't have as much to do on the floor. "We're not going to make work. I'm not going to have people stand here and just twiddle their thumbs," he said.

Hoyer said his criticism was not directed at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- who has become the target of progressive groups now that Senate movement on health care reform has shifted in his direction -- but the deliberative nature of the chamber itself. "It's difficult to move things in the Senate," Hoyer said. "I think Sen. Reid has the most frustrating job in government in the United States of America."

Afghanistan, however, is one area where further delay is necessary, Hoyer said. He hit back against growing complaints by both Republicans and the military that Democrats are taking too long to weigh their options, arguing that the additional troops directed to Afghanistan under President Obama mark an improvement over what the Bush administration did for the region.

"My Republican colleagues, of course, abandoned their focus on Afghanistan for seven years. Seven years they let it drift. And did not resource it properly. And did not succeed," Hoyer said. "So this business of wringing your hands and saying, you're not doing what you need, we're doing much more than they did."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[CommunistUtopia]

I am actually glad the Congress does not spend more hours in Washington. It would be cheaper for the country to give each of them paid vacations to Disneyland for two years.

[Tulka2]

Getting the money out of politics would be high on my list of things to deal with. That and re-regulating media in a responsible way.

Ask media why they don't just carry a video camera to Charlie Palmer's restaurant in D.C. every morning? If the House is empty....? They are all down there bowing and scraping and sucking up to lobbyists for money.

Do you know why there are no t.v. cameras at Charlie Palmer's? It's because t.v. has a huge conflict of interest. Most of the money politicians humiliate and compromise themselves for goes straight to t.v. campaign ads. It's a huge conflict of interest. That's why you will never even hear Maddow, Olbermann, Schultz talk about it...much as they might individually like to. When pigs fly.

We have to get the money out.

[MarkVA71]

Aren't there over due appropriation bills to be passed???

[AxelDC]

How about addressing DADT and DOMA?

Democrats promised to end those this year, but somehow have "too much on their plates".

Even if the Senate isn't prepared to take these up, just having them pass the HR sets the stage for a showdown next year.

That is, unless you guys were just pulling our legs in order to get more money and enthusiasm from the base. You would never do that, would you???

[tel8034]

My thoughts exactly.

The House can ceetainly begin the work on DOMA and DADT as well as Environment Protection.

That should keep them busy for a few weeks.

[MarkVA71]

Right!!

[rosiebond007]

If the oposition doesn't or won't show up in the Senate - just post an Absentee vote and MOVE ON.

They are obstructionists - don't wait around, just read the Bills, name the folks requiring confirmation, VOTE YES, vote Absentee and move on.

You can't hold the whole country in limbo just for a few with ego problems.

They will come soon enough when they see that their ploy is a waste of time !!

[ResidualSelfImage]

Pelosi Hoyer Reid all warmongers that wont do the peoples work on healthcare.

[Tulka2]

Buck up. It's not over yet.

[Dosadi]

War mongers? Then what does that make the republican "we know where the WMD's are." party.

[frafish]

Dems do not have a super majority in the senate. Tthe have 58 senators and two independents that sometimes vote their way and of course the Veep if necessary but the veep can't vote to stop a filibuster (I don't think). I must admit that the Republicans have very good discipline. To keep all of their senators in line is tough (maybe that's why they don't want gun control). Anyway, to keep saying that the dems have a super majority is not entirely accurate, which brings me to another point.

The democratic majority should vote to get rid of the filibuster. They can do it because the filibuster is just a procedural rule, not a constitutional mandate, and they could get rid of it if they wanted to. I suppose they don't because it also serves their purpose when they are not the majority party. However the rule holds up important legislation and is not democratic. The senate is not a corporation where they can change the by laws when they feel it convenient for business purposes.

[AxelDC]

That's called a Super Majority.

Republicans regularly used procedural votes to get their agenda passed, and they had 55 Senators at their peak. Why are Republicans more adept at passing their agendas with 5 fewer Senate votes and much smaller House majorities?

You never heard Bush complaining that he didn't have enough votes to get his agenda through Congress, no matter how perverse that agenda might have been.

[MarkVA71]

Actually, a "super majority" in the senate is 67 votes. It is the amount needed to override a presidential veto. I wish people would stop calling the 60 a super majority. All it is good for is ending filibusters (if all 60 stick to the script).

[JSG55]

And the problem is what exactly?
Infact the Senate should meet less also.
They both should be in session 90 days max and should be a part time job.
Less damage that way and they would all have to get a real job the rest of the year.

[Raster]

The Senate is woefully outdated as an institution. It is the greatest hindrance to a well functioning democracy in the US. It practices seem most suited to protecting the Slave States "peculiar institutio­ns."

[NeoStar9]

Been feeling and thinking this for a long time. The House is fine for the most part. It's the direct representation people will get. However the Federal Senate causes a LOT of problems. On the top of their problems are their term limits. It makes no sense at all for them to be able to stay in offer longer then the President. That 6 years needs to be dropped to say 3 or 2 like the House. That would show that they need to actually get something done more often. Two there really should be a limit how many times you can run for office on that level. Far to many are bought and paid for. Limit the times they can run to two or three should make things a lot harder for the lobbyist since they can't buy people long term. Really make it a term of service and NOT a career.

[rosiebond007]

overpaid, overweight and out of date.

[AxelDC]

In his terrific book, "Fixing Elections", Prof. Steven Hill compares the US Senate to the British "rotten boroughs" of the 19th C., where landed gentry had far more votes than the urban working class and thus were literally able to starve the working classes by banning grain imports with the "Corn Laws".

Only by successively ending the rotten borough system did Mr. Gladstone end the stranglehold this shrinking landed class had on British politics.

Unfortunately, the US system requires the Senate to participate in its own destruction, no matter how outdated and undemocratic it maybe. That said, the Progressives got rid of State Legislatures appointing Senators, and ending the filibuster system that allows 20 tiny states to block the overwhelming opinion of this nation would be reform in itself.

The absurdity of watching one woman from tiny Maine dominant the debate on 1/6 of our GDP should tell you that our system is completely out of whack.

The Founding Fathers wanted a system that was inefficient and they certainly found that formula. Americans are angry with their government because responsibility is too diffused and special interests can find enough room to prevent meaningful changes from happening.

[LightShadow62]

If the GOP were interested in anything but partisanship and protecting their corporate bosses everything would be done.

[jay1975]

Are you serious? Whhen the Dems have a super majority in both houses, you blame Repubs? Do you think the Dems are delaying these bills for your best interests or theirs? Partisans are destroying America, on both sides.

[LightShadow62]

I admit that the Democrats should have given up on trying to get the Republicans to play nice months ago.
As for the so-called super majority, the House has it, the Senate does not.
The GOP has no problem in hold up the process with the filibuster (the same filibuster they wanted to outlaw a few years ago) but when you count the Blue Dogs (Republicans dressed as Democrats) and Lieberman (Republican Lite) the Dems do not have the 60 votes needed to pass legislation nor force an up or down vote in reconciliation.

[jennylynn]

the democrats are in charge. Don't blame the republicans. They don't want their names on this bill.

[dsgeorge]

if Reid was a LEADER things would be getting done. weak knee'd, spineless, gutless.

[DJ23]

I concur.

[jennylynn]

and will not be re-elected.

[GuyRC]

I don't think anybody could move the Senate significantly faster or farther, it was designed to slow down popular change by giving equal power to states rather than people. Blaming Reid is counter-productive

[rosiebond007]

Most of the Senators are overpaid, overweight, lazy, have too many staff, don't do their own reading and out of date.