A lot of people are speculating about what a Democratic House might look like. But we don’t need to speculate: We can look at the record to see how different it would have been from the Republican House we have had.

In the past two years, Congress has reauthorized the Patriot Act, extended lower tax rates on capital gains and dividends, reformed the bankruptcy laws, and approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement. A Democratic House would have blocked those initiatives or, in the case of the Patriot Act, forced a substantial weakening of the proposal. The House helped to build the case for a constitutional amendment on marriage by voting on it. That wouldn’t have happened under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, either.

Congressional Republicans turned in a strong finish before packing up their accomplishments, and their baggage, to head home to seek reelection. Congress approved the procedures President Bush requested for the interrogation and prosecution of terrorist detainees. Congress authorized the construction of 700 miles of fencing at the southern border, with the Senate voting 80-19 to join a largely Republican House majority in recognizing the public’s demand for border security as a first step in a sensible, sustainable immigration reform. To prevent voter fraud, the House also approved a bill requiring voters to show photo ID before voting in the 2008 federal elections.

The House passed the Child Custody Protection Act, making it a federal crime to take a child across state lines to evade her home state’s parental-involvement laws on abortion. Most House Democrats opposed the law, and Senate Democrats were able to block it. The Democrats say that the Republicans have run a “do-nothing Congress.” But the Democrats’ motto has been to allow nothing, and to offer nothing.

The baggage that Republicans carry on the campaign trail includes a 45-percent increase in federal spending since 2001. This Congress is responsible for a 9-percent increase in federal spending in 2006, the largest yearly boost since 1990 and Senate spending is $32 billion over budget for 2007. While the House approved a line-item veto and changed its own rules in the hope of reducing the number of earmarks, a stubborn majority of Republicans have shown little interest in cutting the size of government.

The Senate and House are both on track to set a modern record for the fewest days in session — less than 100 days this year. Although they were able to spend a lot of tax dollars in the relatively few days spent in session (a profligate kind of efficiency), time ran out for judicial candidates, whose nominations have been neglected. Judge Terrence Boyle’s nomination to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals remains pending after five years. Department of Defense general counsel William Haynes’s nomination to the Fourth Circuit has been pending for three years, and William Myers’s nomination to the Ninth Circuit has been pending on the Senate floor for more than a year. The Senate Judiciary Committee failed to act on the nomination of Peter Keisler to replace Chief Justice John Roberts on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The relatively strong performance of the Republican majority in recent weeks is a product, more than anything else, of a sense of urgency. If it had had that sense earlier, it might not be in quite the dire political situation in which it finds itself now. Conservatives evaluating this majority can only conclude that it is disappointing — but still better than the alternative.