Democrats work to restore civility and efficiency to House

On January 3 Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) became the first person to return to the Speaker’s chair after a break in service since Sam Rayburn (D-TX) back in the 1950’s. Pelosi was Speaker from 2007 to 2011 and her Speakership was marked by victories in passage of the Affordable Care Act and the staving off of President George W. Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security.  Her tenure was also marked by a continual decline in bipartisanship and civility among members of the House as she continued trends set by Speakers Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Dennis Hastert (R-IL) in centralizing power in the House at the expense of committee chairs and rank and file members.

This year’s return to Democratic control in the House is another opportunity for Speaker Pelosi and the new Democratic majority to enact reforms that will promote civility and improve efficiency in the operation of the House. This process has begun with the adoption of new standing rules for the House of Representatives.   In the words of House Rules Committee Chair James P. McGovern (D-MA), the new rules will “modernize Congress, create a more accommodating legislative process, and hold the Trump Administration accountable on day one of the new Congress.”

The new rules adopted by the House last week, among other things, require a 72-hour review period before floor votes on proposed legislation.  Moreover, all bills must have had a committee hearing and a committee mark-up (drafting) session before going to the floor.  These two reforms in tandem will do away with the all too common scenario of bills being drafted in leadership offices in one night and brought to the floor the next day for a vote, with no one, except leadership and lobbyists, understanding what exactly is in the bill.

The new House rules also create what will be known as a Consensus Calendar, which will provide for expedited consideration—within twenty five legislative days-- by the full House of any bill that attains 290 co-sponsors.  This reform is worth highlighting because it symbolizes a clean break from the scourge of the so-called “Hastert rule.”  Named for former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), but actually begun under former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and largely followed by Speaker Pelosi in her previous tenure, this informal “rule” provided that no bill would be brought to the floor without the support of a majority of the majority party.  The Consensus Calendar could result, for example, in a bill with nearly all Republicans cosponsoring and fewer than half of the Democratic Caucus being sent to the floor for a vote.  This is a variation on the longstanding discharge petition route to the floor (majority of House signing petition) and it remains to be seen whether leadership will pressure members to stay away from co-sponsoring Republican measures, thus making the Consensus Calendar inoperative.  

Other important reforms include creation of Select Committees on Climate and on Modernizing Congress.  This latter Select Committee has an especially important mission, to make recommendations to bring Congress fully into the 21stCentury in terms of bringing back staff expertise to Congress, expertise that in recent years has been obtained from paid lobbyists for special interests.  In an excellent January 11, 2019 Washington Postcolumn entitled “What Makes Congress So Dumb”, Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ) points out that Congress approves the budgets of “445 executive departments, agencies, commissions, and other bodies.  But for every $3,000 the United States spends per American on government programs, we allocate only $6 to oversee them.” Committee staff budgets and personnel have fallen dramatically since the 1990’s, thus enabling paid lobbyists in many cases to become the major source of information for our nation’s lawmakers. 

In the 1970’s, the post-Watergate elections brought a wave of institutional reform including the establishment of a Congressional budget process and a Congressional Budget Office. At the time the executive branch through its Budget Bureau was being equipped with modern computer systems, while Congress did not have a single computer.  Investments were made and Congress resumed a proper oversight role that continued until the 1990’s when Speaker Gingrich began disinvesting in Congress’ institutional expertise.  The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) have been cut significantly over the years and their historically non-partisan studies and conclusions have been unfairly called into question in the political crossfire.  Meanwhile, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) has been all but abolished, this in an age when government needs to know more about technology and its implications for society and they need to gain these insights from impartial sources not just industry lobbyists. 

The new House rules also make important enhancements to existing ethics rules.  The new rules prohibit members and staff of the House from sitting on corporate boards, require that any non-disclosure agreements entered into by House members and staff must not prohibit contact with the House Ethics Committee or the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, and require that any member of the House indicted for a felony resign from leadership posts and committee assignments.  

The new House rules, developed in an unprecedented consultation with a wide range of internal and external groups, represent a good faith blueprint for operation of “the people’s House” in a more open, fair, efficient and bipartisan manner. Congress, however, has a long tradition of working around the rules, even waiving them entirely at times. Will Speaker Pelosi, in her second tenure and with an even more reform-minded caucus than she had twelve years ago, walk the walk this time?  Time will tell.

William Gilmartin, leader of the Government Accountability Task Force of Gettysburg Area Democracy for America, can be reached at bgilmartin49@yahoo.com