The sources of congressional dysfunction
Every institution is a hybrid: half human, half machine. We understand intuitively that institutions cannot succeed if the people in them don’t want them to or are unable to play their parts. But just as important is the machinery they must work with – the formal rules and procedures that govern the organization. In Congress, this institutional machinery is fundamental, and perhaps more critical to its success than any other institution.
When we see congressional disapproval rates skyrocket, we are tempted to conclude that the human part is failing: we just need better Members of Congress. But the not-so-dirty little secret of Congress is that Members are (for the most part) capable, serious, and striving to represent their constituents to the best of their abilities. It’s the machine we put them in that needs the upgrade.
When people encounter a system that frustrates their best intentions, they become demotivated, and Members of Congress are no different. In the House, rank-and-file Members have little incentive to do the nitty-gritty work of legislating and oversight because power is so heavily concentrated at the top. The Speaker and other party leaders control all of the procedural levers that make the system run. Members do not have the authority to act – virtually everything they do must be pre-approved by the gatekeepers.
Prioritizing Fundraising Over Governing
In prior eras, Members might have found meaningful work within the committee system. By becoming subject matter experts, they could shape legislation and shepherd it to the floor for votes. But those days are long gone. Committee chairs are now chosen for their fundraising prowess, not for their expertise in the subjects that fall within the committee’s jurisdiction. They are now fully enmeshed in the party hierarchy, attuned to the interests of leadership but highly suspicious of any Member with independent ambitions.
As a result, talented Members are burning out and leaving Congress in droves. They quickly come to understand that there is no reliable outlet for their efforts. They may do great work on the frontlines of the policymaking process – studying the issues, talking to the experts, drafting legislative text. But all of that work is filtered through a highly centralized system that can undermine or undo everything the enterprising Member was trying to achieve.
The problem is, in large part, procedural. As noted, committees are no longer the engines of the House’s substantive legislative work. Admittedly, there is the “Secret Congress” that moves minor, noncontroversial bills through the committee system, often in a bipartisan manner. But many of the most critical issues of the day (e.g. immigration) are avoided because they are politically unpalatable for some subset of the donors that fund party and candidate campaigns. And perhaps more importantly, the routine work of basic authorizing legislation is simply not getting done – to say nothing of the broken budgeting process that has led to ever-frequent government shutdowns.
Policy at the Mercy of Politics
Even if Members are able to successfully navigate the committee system, they run headlong into the brick wall of the powerful Rules Committee. “The Speaker’s Committee” (as it is known) retains sole authority to schedule bills for floor votes via “special rules.” Even committee chairs are dependent on the Rules Committee to put their bills on the floor. And the Rules Committee has no qualms about taking the work product of committees and “adjusting” it to meet the needs of majority party leadership. Whatever work Members put into developing policy proposals can be unilaterally altered at the behest of the Speaker – or blocked outright.
To take a recent example, the House last month passed an updated Farm Bill (the first since 2018). The Agriculture Committee marked up the bill and reported its version to the House on March 5th. By the time it came to the floor on April 29th, however, the committee’s version was summarily replaced by “Rules Committee Print #119-22.” This type of parliamentary sleight-of-hand is now routine, and Members may have little inkling that the text of the bill they’re voting on is not what the committee produced.
The Experts Have Disappeared
The other main source of dysfunction is capacity: Congress has failed to make vital investments in its own internal resources. Committee staff levels are lower than they were in the 1970s. The House long ago eliminated its in-house technology office for assessing scientific research. And the funds allocated to Members to run their offices (the “Members’ Representational Allowance”) has not kept pace with the needs of modern constituent work and communications – leaving almost nothing for legislative and policy staff.
The world of the 21st century is incredibly complex and almost every area that Congress oversees is replete with technical nuances, scientific data, and specialized knowledge that must be translated into actionable information. If Members have any of hope of understanding artificial intelligence, cryptocurrencies, mRNA vaccines, or any scientific or technological innovation, they must have the resources at their disposal to hire the experts, study the problems, and make informed decisions.
Given the inadequate resources and procedural roadblocks, it is no wonder that Members lack the motivation to labor in the trenches and do the necessary legislative work that is at the core of their constitutional responsibilities. Former Rep. Derek Kilmer, who once chaired the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, likened Members to new puppies – if the institution doesn’t “constructively engage” them, they will chew the furniture. And that’s exactly what the public sees: a lot of barking and howling for the TV cameras, but almost nothing that’s responsive to their needs.
It doesn’t have to be this way. In Part IV of this blog series, we will explore how to change the incentives that perpetuate this failed system. The good news is that Congress has a history of periodically reinventing itself, often in response to some crisis. Our constitutional system is once again at a crisis point – and the need for congressional renewal has never been more urgent.