Can New Rules Fix a Broken House?
Last Thursday the bipartisan group No Labels and the affiliated House Problem Solvers Caucus hosted a lunch at the Library of Congress. Caucus members trickled in from the Capitol building across the street, where Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and the Republicans were failing, yet again, to reach a compromise on an immigration bill within their own ranks. There was, of course, no question of trying to cross the aisle and wrangle up Democratic votes.
The Problems Solvers are a group of 48 congress members, equally balanced between Republicans and Democrats, pledging to fix a broken and polarized House. Their lunch was part of No Labels’ “Speaker Project,” a campaign to leverage the upcoming 2019 election of the Speaker of the House to pass needed rules changes.
The endeavor is premised on the likely thin margin the majority party will have in the House after the midterms. If that margin is in the single digits, it would only take a handful of Problem Solvers, be they Republicans or Democrats, to withhold their votes for Speaker and force changes to House rules. Members could alternatively use closed-door party leadership meetings after the election, or the vote on a formal rules package after the Speaker election to try to get their way.
Ironically, the caucus is employing a strategy whose influence it is setting out to diminish. Time and again, small, but recalcitrant factions have managed to stop House business in its tracks until they get what they want. Most prevalently, Republicans have seen the House Freedom Caucus hold up or threaten to hold up more moderate legislation on immigration, health care, and federal spending — in the process driving two Speakers to premature retirement.
The power in the House has, according to No Labels, become concentrated in these two poles — the extreme members of the majority and the Speaker — leaving moderates and the minority with almost no power.
While the Problem Solvers have yet to come to an agreement about what rules changes will solve these problems, No Labels has proposed a number of changes that would redistribute power from extremists to moderates. One proposal would revise a rule that gives any House member the right to trigger a vote of no-confidence against the speaker. “The mere threat of such a vote,” No Labels writes, “puts tremendous pressure on a speaker to halt any bipartisan coalition-building efforts and placate the rebellious group.”
No Labels also wants to encourage bipartisanship by giving the minority party more representation on committees and requiring that the speaker receive at least five votes from the minority party to be elected. Other proposals include restoring power to committees, making it easier for members to bring bills to a vote, and requiring House members to spend more time in D.C. and less time fundraising and campaigning.
But the problems with Congress, of course, run deeper than its rules. In remarks opening the lunch, former House Democratic majority leader Dick Gephardt recalled his own success in bipartisan negotiation and compromise. He emphasized the important roles of an open, cooperative culture and friendly relationships between members in enabling compromise. At one point, discussing the kind of drawn-out bipartisan negotiations over meals that used to be commonplace in Congress, he said, “I once ate five hot fudge sundaes with Bob Dole. That’s how much I love this country.”
In describing what’s changed in Congress over the last 30 odd years, Gephardt pointed to changes in the country as a whole. Journalism in the internet age, he suggested, no longer supports the kind of public debate central to the functioning of our political system. “When everyone is a journalist, no one is,” he said. He’s concerned that social media is “driving people into two tribes.” Compromise isn’t possible unless issues are seen as genuinely up for debate, rather than simply representing opportunities to score points against the other side.
As Gephardt tells it, congressional dysfunction is a piece of a broader dysfunction that has seen our public discourse devolve into public relations, posturing, and permanent campaigning. “I don’t know how we get to a better culture here [in Washington],” he said, “unless we improve the culture in the whole country.”
Rules changes may be necessary, but, if Gephardt is right, they might not be enough on their own. To that end, the cultural shift signaled by No Labels and the Problem Solvers themselves may prove more significant in the long-run than any new rules.
Alexander Stern is deputy editor of RealClearPolicy.
