The motto of all newly-elected members of Congress, most voters, and TV talking heads is “time to end the gridlock, work across the aisle, and get things done.”
There are important differences in the parties’ viewpoints and both parties’ bases are prepared to punish members who “don’t fight hard enough.” So anyone trying to end gridlock faces challenges. But there are things the new House leadership can do.
Some reasons for gridlock include the consolidation of power by party leadership (which removes legislative power from committees); the recent practice of almost 100% party line voting; and the reluctance to bring legislation to the floor if there is any uncertainty about its prospects of passing.
In fact, for two decades the GOP has applied the Hastert rule, under which legislation doesn’t move to the floor unless it is supported by a majority of Republicans. As a result, legislation (such as immigration reform) that could pass with some Republican votes and strong support from Democrats, never gets a vote.
And what gets a vote often is an “omnibus package,” drafted in the previous 24 hours, often by members of a single party. Members are presented with a “take it or leave it” proposition.
This problem won’t end overnight. But some actions could improve bipartisanship.
-
Re-empower committee chairs. Legislation should move through committees, get marked up, and move to the floor rather than being assembled by a small group appointed by leadership.
-
Drop the Hastert rule. Back when Congress functioned (pre-Gingrich), the attitude was that legislation “deserves a vote, up or down.”
-
Require the lead sponsors of legislation to make a sincere effort to find bipartisan co-sponsors before the bill moves to committee markup.
-
Minimize the use of the “closed rule,” which allows leadership to send legislation to the floor under “take it or leave it” rules that don’t permit any amendments.
Leadership should take steps to restore procedural collegiality within committees and on the floor. The minority party should be included in committee procedure, such as: 1) bipartisan votes on subpoenas, 2) committee votes to issue controversial reports, and 3) including minority views in committee reports as a matter of course. The Speaker should hold bipartisan meetings to plan how the House will deal with the floor schedule. All this used to be congressional routine.
These small steps could begin to lower the temperature in the House. But this still leaves the issue of “what will the Democrats do with their new power?” All the talking heads seem worried that the Democrats will promote “divisiveness” by pursuing too many “scandals” and “getting nothing done.”
The House will undoubtedly pursue an active legislative agenda. At a minimum, the House will probably vote on: protecting the Special Counsel; DACA and immigration reform; minimum wage; reforming college loans; improving ACA, possibly including Medicare for all; infrastructure; campaign finance reform; and changes to the tax bill to actually direct benefits to the middle class.
Most of this legislation will die in the Senate. But House leadership knows that passing legislation shows that the House is “doing its job,” forces Republicans into votes that might hurt them in 2020, and allows the Democrats to point at the “do nothing Republican Senate.” There’s nothing original here; these are all techniques mastered by Newt Gingrich in the 1990s.
But all that legislative action has nothing to do with the important role oversight will play in the next Congress. Serious program oversight may be the most important thing Congress does (should do) and the new Democratic control of House committees is very important. While an oversight hearing can’t force an agency to do anything, it does force the agency to focus on the issue raised by the committee and exposes federal agency activities to public view.
I’ve listed below a few examples of important oversight topics for a few House committees. None of these has a thing to do with “Trump scandals.”
The Agriculture Committee could hold hearingson the impact of tariffs on agriculture; nutrition and hunger; national forest management (does “bad management” contribute to California wildfires?); and rural broadband.
The Armed Services Committee will conduct oversight of major systems development and production programs (cost, schedule and performance); troop and equipment readiness in a time of high operations tempo; maintenance costs for aging systems; impacts on soldiers, families, and equipment of repeated/prolonged deployments; sexual harassment; deployments in Africa (objectives, risk, numbers, etc.); Afghanistan (mission, status, risks, exit strategy, etc.); nuclear weapons security, safety, and force modernization; and many other issues.
The Education and Workforce Committee will undoubtedly raise issues such as: the effectiveness of for profit colleges and charters; the impact of two decades of high-stakes testing; retirement and the workforce crisis; immigration and the workforce; and the student debt crisis.
Homeland Security will examine issues like the impact of global warming on natural disasters; the failure of the recovery effort in Puerto Rico; family separation (numbers, costs, psychological impacts, reports of abuse, etc.); compliance with asylum policies; ICE priorities and practices; and the basic question “is there a border crisis?” (numbers, are they criminals? do they take our jobs?, etc.); costs and impacts of the “travel ban;” and “the Wall” (what will it cost, what will it accomplish, environmental consequences).
Veterans Affairs will examine the effectiveness of DVA services (waiting times, outcomes); specific medical challenges such as suicide prevention, PTSD, opioids, etc.; and privatization proposals.
Finally, Ways and Means will take a critical look at the “new” trade deals, the economic impact of tariffs, taxation and debt, and threats against Medicare and Social Security.
These examples for just a few committees show the vital role played by responsible and thorough congressional oversight. It isn’t glamorous but it can have an enormous influence on what the public knows and how the agencies act.