What we did is we ended 40 years of one-party control. That was a system where the chairman became so dominant that even a rank and file Democrat had no power, even in the majority. I would wager to say a rank and file Democrat Member has more power today under our system than they did under their system, which meant that the chairman decided every issue. You would bring a bill before the chairman. If he did not want to hear it, it did not happen. If the chairman did not want to have a public hearing on it, it did not happen. If the chairman did not want to invite these witnesses, it did not happen. If a bill was being debated and someone wanted to amend it and the chairman did not want it to be amended, under the old system it did not happen. What we have now is the expression of a lot of different ideas. We have a lot of Members on both sides of the aisle empowered to make significant change.
Christopher Shays: “What we did is we ended 40 years of one-party control. That was a system where the chairman became so dominant that even…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the shift in power dynamics in Congress after the end of one-party control.
Share
More from Christopher Shays
And the exciting part, I think, or the very sensible part of what we have as Federal employees, because as Congressmen, we have that same plan that all Federal employees have, is that we can choose to upgrade our plan and spend 28 percent…
We have proven we can do it in the elimination of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
When I hear how partisan some of my colleagues have gotten on the other side of the aisle, it really astonishes me that somehow it is the President's fault. The clear fact is that we had better find a way to work together, because in my…
Twenty thousand shells in Russia, chemical weapons, no bigger than this, they were put in, they almost looked like wine bottles stacked up, building after building.





