Fix Congress; change rules
We rightly blame much of Congress’ dysfunction on members’ hyper-partisanship. But another culprit deserves more attention than it gets: the House’s rules and traditions.
One rule in particular discourages the speaker of the House of Representatives from working in a bipartisan way: the “motion to vacate the chair.” It allows a single House member to demand a potentially career-killing vote of no-confidence against the speaker.
Sharply ideological groups (most recently, hard-right Republicans) have used the mere threat of the rule to intimidate speakers, causing them to abandon bipartisan cooperation. Indeed, the threat contributed to John Boehner’s and Paul Ryan’s retirements.
The perfect opportunity to change this rule will come in early January, when the newly elected House chooses a new speaker and a new rules package.
The House is likely to be closely divided, no matter which party wins the majority in this fall’s elections. This will empower a small number of reform-minded members to demand much-needed changes.
Until their demands are addressed, they can withhold their votes and prevent the adoption of a rules package or a new speaker. Party leaders will have to negotiate.
The nonpartisan group No Labels, in which I’m very active, is working with just such a group of House reformers: the Problem Solvers Caucus. The caucus’ plan, which shares No Labels’ core goals, is called “Break the Gridlock.”
Its agenda includes (besides making it harder for extremist House groups to hold party leaders politically hostage): giving the minority
HOME DELIVERY RATES party fair representation on all House committees; enabling members from both parties to offer and debate amendments on major bills; and establishing viable, bipartisan “conference committees” to resolve differences between House and Senate bills without party bosses dictating every move. This strategy has worked before. In 1923, two dozen House Republican “progressives” withheld their votes for their party’s speaker nominee until leaders agreed to their demands for various reforms.
That strategy can work again. Historically, when a new Congress convenes, the majority party elects the speaker and adopts a package of operating rules with zero help from the minority party. This tradition enables a surprisingly small number of majority-party members to demand to be heard, else they’ll withhold their votes and stop the leadership in its tracks.
Suppose the next House is divided 222 to 213. As few as five majority-party members could insist on reforms to make the House operate in a fairer, more bipartisan fashion. The “motion to vacate” rule, for instance, would be changed so that at least one-third of all House members — as opposed to a single member or tiny faction — would have to agree to force a noconfidence vote on the speaker. Then, it would require a full majority to remove the speaker.
I salute two area House members — Reps. Stephanie Murphy and Darren Soto — for endorsing the “Break the Gridlock” plan.
Next January, a handful of results-minded lawmakers can take a page from the past and strike a blow for common-sense problem-solving rules and practices in Congress.