Paul Ryan’s departure could signal House reform
The election of a new Speaker of the House normally draws scant public notice and follows a predictable script: The majority party, counting on zero help from the other party, elects its leader as the speaker with minimal internal dissent.
But this year, the process may be very different. Speaker Paul Ryan, weary of coping with hard-right ideologues, announced his retirement in April, setting off an intra-GOP scramble to succeed him as party leader. And Nancy Pelosi, the presumptive Democratic nominee if her party wins the House majority this fall, faces a serious revolt from within. Meanwhile, a possible successor, Rep. Joe Crowley of New York, suffered a stunning loss in his primary, throwing the party into further disarray.
All this is unfolding amid the likelihood that the next House will be narrowly divided, no matter which party holds the majority. That means a would-be speaker can lose no more than a tiny number of his or her party’s members and still garner enough votes to be elected. But discontent in both parties suggests such loyalty may be elusive.
If so, party leaders will need to find new formulas to elect a speaker and organize the new House. This would open the door for pragmatic, results-oriented lawmakers to demand reforms in House rules and procedures in exchange for their votes.
The nonpartisan group No Labels, in which I’m active, is working with the House’s “Problem Solvers Caucus,” which is a group of 24 Democrats and 24 Republicans, on a number of reforms that will help Congress become more functional. Their objectives include (1) making it harder for extremist House groups to hold their party’s leaders politically hostage and impose fiercely partisan tactics; (2) giving the minority party fair representation on all House committees; (3) enabling members from both parties to offer and debate amendments on major bills; and (4) establishing viable bipartisan “conference committees” to resolve differences between House and Senate bills without party bosses dictating every move.
To implement these reforms, lawmakers intend to use existing House rules and traditions to change House rules and traditions. This isn’t pie-inthe-sky dreaming. It tracks a successful strategy used years ago.
Effectuating these changes/reforms starts with the new speaker’s election when the next Congress convenes in early January. It currently appears that the would-be speaker, from either
party, may find it impossible to win the 218 needed votes in the 435-seat chamber. Pelosi is facing an intra-party insurrection, and some Republican hardliners (members of the Freedom Caucus) are threatening to oppose Ryan’s successor if GOP leaders don’t accept their ideological demands.
Assume, for instance, the next House is divided 222-213. With no votes coming from the opposition party, it would take as few as five majority party members to withhold their votes to block a nominee’s election.
This would force the would-be speaker to negotiate with the reformers and consider their demands. Conceivably, it could force the would-be speaker to seek votes from the party in exchange for these consensus-building reforms. Crossover voting like that would mark a sea change in bipartisan cooperation in the House.
Whatever route is chosen, reformers are perfectly positioned to demand a fairer, more even-handed Congress. This would revive hopes for widely supported ideas on immigration, health care and other topics that now get buried in congressional committees. These reforms in the rules and practices of the House would empower the moderates of both political parties and pave the way for passage of bipartisan supported legislation addressing many of our nation’s most critical issues.
David J. Lubar is president and CEO of Lubar & Co. and is active in No Labels.