A bipartisan group of congressman is working to change the House rules for next year's congress, essentially, taking power back from the leadership. They way the legislative process works now isn't even really recognizable to how most of us were taught in school (anyone can propose a bill, etc.)
Curious what you folks on both sides think about this. It's just insane to me that things like infrastructure with bipartisan support don't get done because there's no political brownie points to be made off of it:
Full proposal
Curious what you folks on both sides think about this. It's just insane to me that things like infrastructure with bipartisan support don't get done because there's no political brownie points to be made off of it:
If you’ve ever turned on C-SPAN when the House of Representatives is in session, you may have wondered how a legislative body of 435 different people—many of whom have very different priorities—chooses which ideas get a vote. When the House is debating a bill on, say, military spending, who gets to offer amendments, and who doesn’t?
As we’ve explained in previous emails, the speaker of the House gets to decide almost unilaterally which bills come to the floor. But once the speaker sets the agenda, the quiet but powerful Rules Committee shapes how the bill will be considered by passing a “rule” that governs debate. Will every member be given an opportunity to offer amendments? That’s considered an “open rule.” Or will the debate be “closed," meaning that the bill’s consideration will not include any amendments except a few the Rules Committee has pre-approved.
Unfortunately, over the course of the last several years, the Rules Committee has changed, becoming a rubber-stamp for the speaker. And because the speaker gets to choose which bills come to the floor—and often doesn’t want those bills changed by pesky members offering their own improvements—members of the Rules Committee rarely allow members of either party to offer amendments. For perspective, roughly 85% of the House bills considered during the first half of President Jimmy Carter’s one term in office were debated under open rules. In the current Congress, not a single bill has been considered under an open rule.
It’s time to open the process again, giving more voices in Congress real and substantive opportunities to improve legislation, no matter whether they’re in the majority or the minority. How? First, we should change how members are selected to sit on the Rules Committee, making them less beholden to either party’s leadership. Second, we need to make the Rules Committee more representative of the entire House. Right now, the majority party gets nine seats on the Rules Committee compared to just four for the minority. It’s time for the split between majority and minority to be changed to reflect how other committees are divided, with the minority having enough votes to have a real voice when the committee is considering a new rule.
NYT articleAs we’ve explained in previous emails, the speaker of the House gets to decide almost unilaterally which bills come to the floor. But once the speaker sets the agenda, the quiet but powerful Rules Committee shapes how the bill will be considered by passing a “rule” that governs debate. Will every member be given an opportunity to offer amendments? That’s considered an “open rule.” Or will the debate be “closed," meaning that the bill’s consideration will not include any amendments except a few the Rules Committee has pre-approved.
Unfortunately, over the course of the last several years, the Rules Committee has changed, becoming a rubber-stamp for the speaker. And because the speaker gets to choose which bills come to the floor—and often doesn’t want those bills changed by pesky members offering their own improvements—members of the Rules Committee rarely allow members of either party to offer amendments. For perspective, roughly 85% of the House bills considered during the first half of President Jimmy Carter’s one term in office were debated under open rules. In the current Congress, not a single bill has been considered under an open rule.
It’s time to open the process again, giving more voices in Congress real and substantive opportunities to improve legislation, no matter whether they’re in the majority or the minority. How? First, we should change how members are selected to sit on the Rules Committee, making them less beholden to either party’s leadership. Second, we need to make the Rules Committee more representative of the entire House. Right now, the majority party gets nine seats on the Rules Committee compared to just four for the minority. It’s time for the split between majority and minority to be changed to reflect how other committees are divided, with the minority having enough votes to have a real voice when the committee is considering a new rule.
Full proposal
