Congress is dysfunctional, but it can be fixed. This two-part series explains why Congress is broken and how to fix it. Although some pundits suggest that the lack of compromise and civility are the reasons why Congress is dysfunctional, those reasons are symptoms of the root cause: a lack of deliberation. More debate will lead to more civility and compromise. But today, Congress appears to provide more sound bites than deliberation. This reality must change.
For citizens that believe in a progressive federal government, Congress does not legislate enough. For citizens that believe in a limited government, Congress creates too many laws. In reality, there are instances where preventing legislation can be more beneficial than passing it; there are also occasions when legislation is necessary. But to make Congress more functional, reforms should seek to improve the quality of legislation, not the quantity. For this series, quality means legislation that considers all parties—even if those considerations do not lead to bipartisan support. Understanding what second and third order effects legislation may have is just as important—if not more important—than its intended effects.
Unfortunately, most proposed solutions for the issues gripping Congress possess a pro-passage bias. Experts and citizens alike advocate for more legislation as evidence to show that Congress works. Others argue Congress’s dysfunction is unrelated to the number of bills passed. Lee Drutman and Kevin Kosar, leading scholars in this area, explain that because Congress operates within an understaffed and inexperienced legislature, the sub-par results are linked to these staffing issues. Kosar further explains that Congress has ceded too much power to the Executive Branch, endangering the balance of the federal government. Kathy Goldschmidt, another leading authority in this area, agrees that staffing issues are problematic to Congress’s institutional health. But she also notes other issues facing Congress—the lack of deliberation, nonpartisan research and a withering technological infrastructure.
Although these recommendations deserve attention, one in particular requires significant discussion: the absence of deliberation. To improve its functionality, Congress must reorient its focus toward the issues facing America and restore the power of deliberation. In its current state, Congress fails to accomplish some of its most basic duties at times, such as passing a budget. The status quo is unacceptable.
Congress is at its best when legislation is not forced through, when ideas and reason—rather than political posturing—prosper, and when the American people are its sole focus. Congress is dysfunctional because it has lost sight of these ideals, not because it does not create enough laws. When Congress must legislate, it should pass well-reasoned and thoroughly debated laws. Today, however, legislators seem to care more about creating sound-bites, fundraising, and traveling. The following reforms would restore deliberation and improve Congress’s functionality.
1. Force Congressional Committees to Debate
Congress is an enigma. The world’s greatest deliberative body no longer debates. Conference committees once provided members an opportunity to debate the merits of specific bills in an intimate setting. Within this setting, members would examine the details of a bill and consider how the bill would affect the American people. In essence, this process would iron out the details of a specific bill.
Today’s Congress is hostile to this type of deliberation. Committee chairs are the final arbiters and unilaterally resolve issues between other committee chairs. In fact, party leadership controls the issues that committees are allowed to deliberate and ensures the process is as insular as possible. The dismantling of debate within committees not only limits Congress’s ability to function, but it also hurts the American people. Without debate, unintended consequences are more likely, and an unintended consequence for a single mother of four can be life altering.
Restoring these committees to their original intent would help produce quality legislation that considers all stakeholders in the legislative process. Both chambers should enact and enforce a rule that demands committees to operate in this manner. Committee chairs should only be able to advance or terminate bills after every member has voiced their opinion on it. Forcing input from all members will slow the legislative process, but it will produce better legislation. Of course, the chambers are only as good as their occupants. Therefore, citizens must elect representatives who are willing to engage in debate—not avoid it.
Hopefully, a byproduct of this reform would be the de-escalation of partisanship because every member of Congress would be heard and understood. Disagreements will still occur, but even in those situations, both sides can argue their position in a constructive manner.
2. Shorten Campaign Periods
Limiting campaign periods would also reduce Congress’s dysfunction. Relentless campaigning wears down members and distracts them from the issues voters expect them to solve. Congressional members that have meetings all day, attend fundraisers at night, then fly to their district to raise money cannot solely focus on the issues facing their district and America. Members may hate this Congressional pageantry contest, but they need the money. Otherwise, they cannot afford to survive in these lengthy campaign periods.
For example, in 2019, “victorious Senate candidates spent an average of $15.7 million, while the average winning House candidate shelled out just over $2 million on average.” In contrast, other countries have established limited campaign periods: Mexico, France, Canada and the United Kingdom all have campaign periods under 150 days. The perfect number may not exist and can be argued at length, but a number under 18 months—the typical campaign period for congressional candidates—would help improve Congress’s performance.
3. Implement a Five-Day Work Week
Congressional members travel between their districts and D.C. too often. In fact, in 2017, members of the House were in session for only 145 days compared to the 234 days the average American worked in 2015.1 To foster more effective governance, Congress should require a full five-day work week in Washington. This reform would provide members more time to deliberate bills and create effective legislation for the American people. Congress would also need to allocate time for campaigning (e.g., an eight-week campaign period), and the chambers would have to coordinate their schedules so both the House and Senate are in session at the same time. However, if limited campaign periods are not enacted, a natural byproduct of a five-day work week would be less campaigning by members.
Some have argued for a five-day work-week three out of every five weeks. But this reform should be more demanding. With the increased challenges our nation faces, Congress needs time in session and together. And although Congressional members already make sacrifices, a five-day work week should be nonnegotiable.
Another result of this reform would be less time for members to visit their district and meet with constituents. Less face time with members could lead to a greater disconnect between Washington and those outside the beltway. But with the availability of technology (e.g. Zoom) and district staff, this measure appears more viable now than in the past. Moreover, meetings that require face-to-face interaction could be scheduled in D.C. or one weekend a month in their district. There would be an adjustment period, but most Americans would likely appreciate what Congress is attempting to accomplish with this reform.
Some argue that the problem is not the number of days in Congress, but the lack of consensus between members. However, within these ideas a proportional relationship exists. The greater number of days that members are forced to communicate and deliberate, the greater chance that consensus will be reached. In other words, stronger relationships between elected officials will create a stronger Congress.
Conclusion
Refocusing Congress is simple, but it will not be easy. However, restoring debate, shortening campaign periods, and implementing a five-day work week will help achieve this result. Of course, a number of other obstacles prevent legislators from engaging in thoughtful debate. The next article in this series will provide more solutions to a healthier Congress.
Notes
- The Pew Research Center found Americans worked an average of 46.8 weeks in 2015. Assuming a five-day work week, this means Americans worked an average of 234 days in 2015 (46.8 x 5 = 234).
Steven Arango is a captain in the United States Marine Corps and currently attending The Basic School in Quantico, Virginia. Upon completion, he will report to Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island and then report to his first duty station at Marine Corps Base Quantico.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Marine Corps, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
1 thought on “Six Ways to Fix a Dysfunctional Congress (Part 1)”
Comments are closed.