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.
The first article of this series offered a number of reforms that could refocus Congressional members’ priorities from politics to policy-making. Now, this article takes a closer look at the lawmaking process. When Congress must legislate, it should pass well-reasoned and thoroughly debated laws. Unfortunately, obstacles prevent legislators from conducting rigorous research or holding fruitful debates. This article summarizes three reforms that could help Congress overcome those barriers and improve its policymaking ability.
4. Increase Congressional Research Staff
Even with a more robust schedule for Congressional members, a mostly inexperienced and understaffed legislature cannot tackle today’s critical issues. The world and our country become more complex by the minute, but Congress continues to lag behind. Kosar notes that today’s federal spending is ten times larger than in 1975. Yet the House and Senate employ fewer staff members than that same time period.
Members’ offices are not the only ones that are improperly equipped for the 21st Century. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which analyzes the economic effects of bills by conducting cost-benefit analyses, is unable to publish formal scores of every bill introduced in Congress. In other words, the CBO cannot sufficiently inform the public on every bill’s economic impacts. Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office’s staff has decreased “40% since the 1970s, from about 5,000 to just 3,000.” The Congressional Research Service is no different: its staff reduced by 22% between 1979 and 2011. For conservatives, reducing federal spending is a cornerstone to their platform. For liberals, it is increasing spending by the federal government. However, it is difficult for either party to argue that a staff that is 40% less than the 1970s is appropriate for today’s complex political system.
Because of these reductions, Congress heavily relies on lobbyists for policy analysis, “a less-than-ideal arrangement.” Unsurprisingly, lobbyists have agendas—their clients expect them to deliver results. Relying on them to always provide objective analysis is not in the best interest of Congress. This opinion should not portray lobbyists as liars or devious actors. In fact, most lobbyists are honest, good-natured people. And experienced lobbyists understand that their political currency is proportional to the objective analysis they provide members. If a lobbyist provides slanted research, she will lose significant sway with those members. But, regardless, as President Reagan once said, “trust, but verify.” And that maxim is what Congress should apply in their legislative making process.
Think tanks could replace Congress’s diminished workforce, but policymakers should be wary of this idea as well. Many think tanks provide excellent analysis of legislative issues. However, as Troy notes, an “arms-think-tank-race” has occurred between those inside the beltway. Since World War II, over 1,750 think tanks have been created, and D.C. is home to roughly 400 of those operations. Inevitably, each think tank attempts to “distinguish itself from the others.” But as the playing field becomes more crowded, “strident ideological” research has become the separating factor.
Another concerning trend is many of these think tanks operate on donations. Although not inherently problematic, these donations can force think tanks to focus on the desired results of donors, not the best results. Because of this reality, it seems likely that more and more think-tanks are poised to “become part of the intellectual echo chamber of our politics, rather than providing alternative sources of policy analysis and intellectual innovation.” Therefore, Congress should increase the budget for its own research staff, so it can become less reliant on partisan, donor-influenced think tanks.
5. Reform But Do Not Remove the Filibuster
In the Senate, at least 60 members must vote to end debate on a bill. A filibuster occurs when one or more Senators prevent debate from ending, but there are not enough Senators to reach the 60-vote threshold to force deliberation to conclude. This extended debate provides an avenue to block bills from coming to the floor for a vote.
Today, the filibuster generally causes the majority party in the Senate to moderate their position to win votes from the minority party. If the majority party has fewer than 60 members in the Senate, they need to convince some members of the minority party to join their vote to end debate. Without the filibuster, the Senate would lose a tool of bipartisan cooperation and communication. Completely removing the ability to filibuster might make it easier to pass legislation, but it would increase partisanship because across-the-aisle communication would become almost irrelevant. Instead of eliminating the filibuster, the Senate should reform it to encourage better debate.
One reform is to “limit the use of filibuster to one per bill.” Currently, the legislative process allows the filibuster to be used at any state of deliberation, and the mere threat of a filibuster obstructs the process. This limit could “provide the minority [party] the opportunity to make its point, but still allow legislation to proceed to a vote” in a timely manner. In other words, the minority party should not be able to hold the majority party hostage, but its ideas should not be thrown to the wayside either.
Another reform is to shift the filibuster’s burden from the majority party to the minority party. Currently, the Senate rules require 60 votes to end a filibuster. But instead of placing the burden on the majority party to end a filibuster, the rules should require 41 votes to implement the filibuster. Shifting this burden would make the filibuster more difficult to invoke, and used only in situations where the respective party felt it necessary to filibuster. Additionally, 41 Senators would need to remain near the chamber to continue the filibuster, which increases the burden of filibustering. These changes allow members to still use the filibuster but repurposes it as a tool of bipartisan deliberation, rather than political obstruction.
6. Filling the Amendment Tree
When a bill in the Senate is brought to the floor, a total of 11 amendments are allowed into a bill. When the majority party fills the amendment docket, also known as the tree, this action prevents any proposals from the minority party. Former Democratic Senator Harry Reid used this tactic more than any other Majority Leader in the Senate’s history. Republicans criticized Senator Reid for operating the Senate in this manner. Republican Senator McConnell promised to “return [the Senate] to its old deliberative ways, even if that meant longer hours and Friday votes”, but Senator McConnell has invoked this parliamentary tactic as well.
Debating amendments is central to the Senate’s purpose. As a result, Congress must enact a rule that prohibits this type of congressional gamesmanship. Otherwise, these procedural tactics will be difficult to combat. During Senator Reid’s tenure, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch argued that filling the amendment tree was a poor decision but warned that “the principle had been started and the precedent had been set.” The American people have become numb to this type of behavior, but this unfortunate result does not make its effect on the institution any less detrimental. Although filling the amendment tree may not be the most significant issue within Congress at the moment, it epitomizes the larger issue of controlling debate and silencing opinions. The hallmark of Congress should be debate, not procedural warfare.
Conclusion
Congress is dysfunctional, but it can be fixed. Some of the changes provided in this two-part series may seem superficial, but any reform that makes Congress more functional is worth implementing. Of all the issues that academics and scholars consider, the extinction of debate within Congress is the most troubling. A Congress that debates is a functional Congress—not a Congress that compromises more or passes more laws. Conflating results with functionality is a dangerous path; encouraging debate is the remedy, not lawmaking for lawmaking’s sake.
The public must measure Congress’s success by the quality—not quantity—of laws passed. Both research and debate can improve the caliber of legislation, but today’s Congressional members face challenges to both. The legislative branch has limited resources for research, and certain filibuster rules promote obstruction over deliberation. The recommendations presented could contribute to higher-quality laws. Forcing politicians to have difficult discussions, lay out the details of their plan, and convince other members of why their plan is best is how Congress must function. It is time for Congress to improve—for its sake and ours.
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.
