Bipartisanship On Hold

 Bipartisanship On Hold

I've always been an advocate of bipartisanship and compromise in politics. It started in the late 1970's when I was a young civil engineer and community planner that had transitioned from an environmental consulting firm and began working for a prominent environmental advocacy organization. I think my experience in community planning, explaining plans and concepts to diverse groups (industry, government & NGOs) and conducting many public hearings and meetings helped me understand the varying differences of group opinions and perspectives.

Because of my education and experience I was able to bridge a relatively large gap between legal, technical practitioners in the environmental field with citizen activists clamoring for a cleaner, less threatening environment. Both groups had their political pipelines to the movers and shakers at the state capitol. I became a credible negotiator between many diverse groups including the politicians. 

I began to realize the power of accomplishment that could be achieved when these diverse groups worked together, resolved differences and compromised on solutions. Those were my roots in bipartisanship and I later went on to establish a set of bifurcated nonprofit and for profit corporations to focus on bipartisan objectives, unbiased information and compromised solutions to environmental issues. The whole deal consumed 46 years of a lifetime.

So it was only natural when I retired to start a blog on the "Underpinnings of a Broken Government." Through the years I had seen the advantages of bipartisanship, but I had also seen the many obstacles in the way of constructive solutions to problems and issues. 

Back in early 2016, a volatile political year, when I began the blog, I posted a number of missives on gridlock and the dysfunctional Congress. That's when observers were concerned with what I called gridlock gimmicks such as filibusters; cloture votes; senatorial holds; the Hastert rule; Speaker control; Majority Leader control; Rules Committees control; avoidance of Regular Order; refusing to act; timing delays; riders and unrelated matters; and on and on. All in all it's a massive collection of procedures, policies, traditions, formal and informal rules all being used and manipulated by the majority and minority political parties in Congress. 

The concerns were the growing dysfunction of Congress and the near paralyzing effect on government. Then we transitioned to Donald Trump and the evolution of a much different political atmosphere in the country. What I had previously called the traditional, conservative Republicans were captivated by the Pied Piper of Divisiveness and gravitated to his persistent lies and misinformation which they accepted blindly. With schoolyard nicknames, lies, conspiracy theories and a Twitter account, he showed Republicans a new brand of politics and they welcomed it with open arms.

What at first may have appeared as a novel new "kick'm & shove'm" wild west style of politics that turned political norms upside down, quickly started to amplify an already known bigoted underbelly. What followed was a wildly distorted, Republican voted tax cut, appointment of three Supreme Court justices, the Mueller report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, scandal upon scandal, an impeachment, immigration crisis, a mismanaged pandemic needlessly killing tens of thousands, a revolving door of firings, resignations and replacement sycophants; embarrassment and disaffection among our allies, sinister new relations with our enemies and increasingly tyrannical behavior from the Oval Office.

The country waded through the long slog of this hideous epoch of American political history and approached the 2020 election in the midst of a pandemic. The public was confronted with continuous and persistent fabricated claims that the election was guaranteed to be rigged by Democrats and fraudulent if it yielded anything other than a Donald Trump victory. 

Despite the fact that the Trump presidential approval averaged in the low 40s and never reached 50%, his corrupt, despotic style had morphed a large majority of the Republican Party and many Independents into a new political entity with a radically distorted vision of American democracy and the Constitution. Although 81 million persons voted for Joe Biden; 74 million voted for Donald Trump after experiencing four abysmal years of incompentent, bigoted, autocratic leadership. Additionally it is important to note that in spite of the large Biden popular vote victory, Donald Trump, probably the most odious President in U.S. history, could have been reelected by the Electoral College with the shifting of approximately 50,000 votes in 3-4 states. A similar small number of votes (about 80,000) could have allowed Hillary Clinton to defeat Trump in the 2016 Electoral College as well as winning 3 million more popular votes.

Unfortunately, the 2020 election and large popular vote Biden victory did not settle the differences between Democrats and the new, Trump-laced Republican Party. Trump and his compatriots launched a crazed, obsessive, delusional legal rampage challenging the election results claiming widespread fraud and a stolen election. The results were repeatedly conclusive in some 61 separate court cases in federal and state courts including three decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court -- there was no fraud; it was a completely fair and proper election. 

Following the official Electoral College vote on December 14, 2020, the rage did not stop and disassociated itself from reality and is now referred to as the "Big Lie". Despite the conclusion that the election was completely fair and legitimate, Trump continued his fraudulent claims and even threatened state officials in an attempt to find additional votes that would allow him to alter certified results and declare an illegitimate win. A cult-like movement demanding "Stop the Steal" developed around Trump's efforts to perpetuate the Big Lie. 

Finally, at the last official decision point in the process; on January 6, 2021, before the inauguration of President Joe Biden on January 20, Trump and his immediate cohorts made good on what they had promised would be a "wild" time, by whipping a crowd of hostile insurgents into a frenzy with lies and angry rhetoric. They encouraged them to march on the U.S. Capitol in an effort to forcefully persuade House and Senate members and the Vice President to overturn the U.S. presidential election results to Stop the Steel and award the presidency to Donald Trump. The insurgents threatened assassinations, hangings and extreme violence. What resulted was the worst, most violent invasion of the Capitol and assault on the U.S. democracy in American history. [Storming of the United States Capitol]

Hours later, when the insurgence was finally put down, the House and Senate resumed their review and deliberation of the election results. Seventy percent (70%) of House Republicans and twenty percent (20%) of Senate Republicans voted to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. Subsequent efforts to impeach Donald Trump for the second time and hold him accountable and provide consequences for such seditious presidential actions were rejected by ninety-five percent (95%) of House Republicans. Preliminary actions in the U.S. Senate trial on the impeachment have already revealed that ninety percent (90%) of Senate Republicans are opposed to the impeachment trial.

Through their recorded votes to overthrow a legitimate U.S. election and their recorded votes to reject holding Donald Trump accountable for his seditious involvement in the presidential election and the Capitol insurrection, the Republican Party has overwhelmingly demonstrated that it holds a perverse, perverted and far from traditional view of American democracy and the U.S. Constitution. Now, several weeks beyond the egregious insurrection and the inauguration of a new President, Donald Trump continues his contentions and conspiracy theories of a fraudulent and stolen election. Likewise Republicans in Congress and their leadership continue to confer with Trump on the Party's direction, resist imposing any punishment or consequences for his actions and some still believe the election was stolen.

The aftermath of the Donald Trump presidency has left many questions and uncertainties regarding the state of the Republican Party and its future. Large majorities of the Party seem to have a far different view of the representative democratic republic and the traditional norms of U.S. politics. Until the Republican Party examines itself and clarifies its current extreme positions and its expectation for interaction in more traditional U.S. politics and governance, the concept of true bipartisan resolution of problems and issues facing the country is impractical and quixotic. 

While it may be possible to find an exceedingly small percentage of Republican legislators to align with Democrats to address issues and solve problems, the barometer of good governance should be consistency with widespread public opinion -- not the level of bipartisanship.

*See comments below

Americanship v. Political Powership

I wrote about this back in March 2017, but it's time to revisit this historic time in bipartisan politics.

Fall of 2000. It was a tumultuous time in American politics. The November election had resulted in close votes, hanging chads, contested elections, recounts, court challenges, uncertainty, protests, and public unrest. 

The country was deeply divided. Following weeks of uncertainty after the election, George W. Bush was finally pronounced the winner when he received only 537 more votes than Al Gore in a Florida recount. The controversial recount finally ended with a U.S Supreme Court 5-4 split decision to stop the vote recounting and overruling a 4-3 Florida Supreme Court split decision in favor of Gore. That gave Bush 271 Electoral College votes compared to Al Gore's 266; but, Gore received over 540,000 more popular votes than Bush. Adding to the deep political division of the country, Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate received a total of over 2,800,000 popular votes, drawing them away from the primary candidates. The level of national unrest and divisiveness among the American electorate could not have been higher.
  

If it all sounds familiar, it is. And, American politics has never quite been the same since. Further, similarities on top of the dramatic Presidential race arise in the fact that the down-ballot U.S. Senate races resulted in a 50-50 split between Republicans and Democrats. A situation that could easily repeat itself depending on the results of two runoff elections in Georgia in early January 2021.

Washington politicos were in a tizzy. How would they govern? How would the public react to such a narrow and disputed margin of power when Gore actually won the popular vote and the contentious Supreme Court involvement? There were calls for compromise, bipartisanship and getting the parties to work together. Bush's VP Dick Cheney could break what was at the time thought to be numerous tie votes, but what would be the public reaction?

In the midst of the confusion and uncertainty, Senate leaders Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Trent Lott (R-MS) worked diligently through the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season to craft a remarkable and unprecedented "powersharing agreement" based on what they said was the concept of trust and bipartisanship. Among other items, the agreement provided for Republican chairs of all Senate committees after January 20, 2001; equal party representation on all Senate committees; equal division of committee staffs and operating budgets between the parties; procedures for discharging measures blocked by tie votes in committee; a restriction on the offering of cloture motions on amendable matters; restrictions on floor amendments offered by party leaders; eligibility of Senators from both parties to preside over the Senate; and general provisions seeking to reiterate the equal interest of both parties in the scheduling of Senate chamber business.   

At a press conference, Senator Lott said, "nobody can win on 51 votes. . . [it's] not what the American people expect from us". The full Senate (including then Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)) approved the agreement by voice vote without objection and Daschle and Lott praised it as "miraculous", "historic", “a big down payment on the bipartisanship”, “a serious dose of reality”, “a framework for bipartisanship, nonpartisanship, Americanship.” Despite the many accolades, the agreement only survived for five months when the politicians quickly traded its many advantages for a few percentage points of political power as one member switched parties resulting in a 51-49 split. One has to ask, why do Americans have to sacrifice miraculous, historic, reality, bipartisanship, nonpartisanship and above all Americanship for a few votes of political powership?

From the Congressional Record, January 5, 2001, (107th Congress, 1st Session Issue: Vol. 147, No. 3 — Daily Edition). Senators Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Trent Lott (R-MS) on the Senate Floor discussing Senate Resolution 8, The Powersharing Agreement. [See the full text] The agreement was expanded by a leadership colloquy on January 8, 2001.

Mr. DASCHLE. The other day, I quoted the writer Thomas Wolfe who said: 

America is not only the place where miracles happen, they happen all the time.

If the resolution I will soon introduce is not miraculous, it is, at the very least, historic. It is also fair and reasonable. The details and the spirit of this agreement, which I expect the Senate to pass later today, should enable us to conduct our Nation's first 50/50 Senate in a most productive and bipartisan manner.

I especially thank the Republican leader, Senator Lott. We will enter into a colloquy in a period of time to be later determined, but I must say, without his leadership and his sense of basic fairness, this agreement would not have come about. He and I have spent many hours over the last several months, and now weeks, and certainly in the last several days, negotiating the details of this agreement. He spent many more hours consulting with the members of his caucus about it. He and they deserve credit for taking this unprecedented step. . .

Our negotiations involve many difficult issues and many strongly held opinions. Neither party got everything it wanted. Both sides made concessions. Both caucuses made principled compromises. That is the essence of democracy.

This agreement accurately reflects the historic composition of the Senate. More important, I believe it reflects the political thinking of the American people. It calls for equal representation on Senate committees. Every committee would have the same number of Republicans and Democrats. And it specifies that Republicans will chair the committees after January 20. It allows for equal budgets and office space for both caucuses, at 50/50.

One of the most vexing questions we struggled with during our negotiations was how to break ties when committees are divided equally. We have agreed that in the event of a tie vote, either leader can move to discharge a bill or nomination. The Senate will then debate the motion to discharge for four hours, and that time will be equally divided. There will then be a vote on the motion. If the motion passes, the bill or nomination would be placed on the calendar.

Similarly, the resolution allows committee Chairs to discharge a subcommittee in the case of a tie vote and place the legislative item or nomination on the full committee agenda.

We arrived at this process after much thinking and exchange of ideas. Senator Lott has been concerned that equal representation on the committees could lead to gridlock. While I do not share that concern, I believe this was a fair concession to get this agreement. . .

Today's agreement makes a big downpayment on the bipartisanship we owe our country. Democrats and Republicans made significant concessions, putting the national interest first and putting party aside. . .

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wouldn't say this is my preferred result, but I think it is a reasonable one with a serious dose of reality. We have work to do and we need to begin it now, not in a week or two or three or four. We need to conclude the assignment of our Members to the all important committees that will be having hearings on the nominees. . .

I would prefer to have a clear advantage on every committee and a clear advantage number-wise on everything. While that is preferable, it is not the reality. . .

What we have here, as difficult as it may make life for us, as difficult as it may be for our committee members and our chairmen and ranking members to make this situation work, it is going to require additional work, but it can be done. It is going to force us to work together more than we have in the past. No doubt. I do not think that is bad. I think this is a framework for bipartisanship. There has been a lot of talk about that word, and I am sure there are some people in this city, in this Chamber, who smirk at that, laugh at that. People across America are saying: I have heard enough of that; let's get some results here. . .

It is a framework to see if we really mean it. It can force us to live up to the truest and best meaning of that word-- nonpartisanship, Americanship, that is what we ought to call it--to find a way to get to these issues. . .

This is a classic case of extending the hand of friendship, of good faith. Will it lead to tremendous accomplishments or will that hand of friendship be bitten or the posterior kicked by one side or the other? It could, but we have to start from a position of good faith and reach out and say we are going to make this work.

If it does not work, then the American people will see. If these 50/50 committees do not function, then we can talk about obstructionism, and one way or the other, the American people will know who is trying to make it work and who is stalling it. If we come to this floor and have a debate on a tax bill and it passes this Senate by whatever number and does not get to conference or is tied up in conference or is killed in conference, do you think the American people are going to stand for that? I do not think so. We cannot let that happen. [emphasis added]

On May 24, 2001, Republican James Jeffords left the party to become an Independent and began caucusing with the Democrats, thus breaking the 50/50 party split in the Senate. While it only lasted five months, the discussion above is refreshing in today’s extreme, mega polarized Congressional and public atmosphere. There are many lessons to be learned here and we should reflect on the words.

Yes, it's a different time with many different actors. President-elect Joe Biden has promised to try to work with Republicans and get things done in a cooperative and bipartisan way. It is a statesman-like aspiration and endeavor that many would call foolhardy, unrealistic and untenable in today's political environment. 

The 2001 shared power agreement and its rationale may provide a beginning point for discussion of the need to change the committee power structure that currently exists and is doomed to produce one-sided solutions to exceedingly complex problems and issues. The current debate over a nationwide health care system is a great example. What good does it do if one party narrowly passes a comprehensive health care plan by a couple of votes that is then overturned or gutted with the next transition of political power a few years later. 

We keep repeating this senseless act of governance over and over in a political environment that could not be more divided and appears to be entering a new era of obscurity and darkness. Former President Barack Obama recently said something to the effect that our politics have ventured into a new space where not only do politicians spread lies and misinformation without consequences; but, truth itself no longer matters. 

With this as a starting point for the new President, the idea of working cooperatively to devise bipartisan solutions to the great issues of our time becomes dubious at best. It will take a masterful degree of wizardry and communication skills to create a foundation to even begin discussions along these lines. Hopefully President Biden can tap his own years of political experience and construct a governing nucleus by appealing to the more reasoned and informed members of both parties. Additionally he can seek out influencers outside of Congress and input from seasoned party elders that have viewed the current state of affairs and can assist by sharing their insights and positions of leadership to communicate to their political constituencies and the public. I have suggested various powersharing ideas on this blog.

The bottom line as I have said before, what is our choice? We either work together or we settle for continued political chaos, massive unrest and riotous division among the populous. Additionally, nothing is accomplished; problems go unresolved; and our international reputation is diminished to the largest banana republic on the globe. We need to reflect on the words of our very first President in 1785, when he commented on a similar troubling time, "We are either a United people or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation... If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending it."

Backgrounder Document: Congressional Research Service Report RS20785. The Senate Powersharing Agreement of the 107th Congress (2001-2003): Key Features

"Crisis Point" - Sen. Tom Daschle & Trent Lott discuss their January 2016 book. 

New Rules To "Discourage and Restrain"

 New Rules To "Discourage and Restrain" 

If you have followed this blog you know that my focus has been on the dysfunctionality of the United States Congress; a critical element in the three-pronged governance structure of American democracy as established in the Constitution. It has been my contention that Congress sets and controls the tone for our political discourse. ​O​f course the President is a key contributor, however, a rationally functioning Congress has the power through its "checks & balances" and oversight responsibilities to correct or override a bad acting President.

No matter who's President, little if anything good gets accomplished as long as Congressional gridlock and dysfunction persist. T​he survival of the Trump Party ​will be tested in November, but we must remember the gridlock and dysfunction that was present before Trump will not magically disappear. The country will still be divided after Trump and it will take many years for our political system to evolve with the ever changing demographics of the country.

Congress receives extensive media attention and the general public is constantly exposed to the various characters that represent the public and their behaviors. In fact, a recent poll confirms that, "Most Americans think divisiveness is driven from the top down, by leaders, and not driven by the public itself" [https://tinyurl.com/y4kehpea]. In a deeply divided nation, with the political power oscillating narrowly between the parties and chambers, the extreme ends of both parties have had the loudest voice and perpetuated rhetoric that has become increasingly contentious, disrespectful and polarizing. 

Congress is the mechanism that is supposed to provide a “check and balance” on our political direction. Congress -- the House of Representatives and the United States Senate; both Democrats and Republicans -- have so misused and distorted their responsibilities that the nation is now left without the ability to make even basic decisions or provide the oversight necessary for the survival of our country and the democracy itself [https://tinyurl.com/wsmq55o].

The Founders warned us some 240 years ago [https://tinyurl.com/y27gaj3g], and were seriously worried whether the democracy could withstand the relentless influence and power of political parties. They used terms such as "evil" and indicated that the instincts, the "spirit of party" were "inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind." They said the turbulence of those passions in party disputes were so strong that party victory would be more important than truth or right itself. Their predictions have now become the new reality of American government.

Somehow, despite the overwhelming passions for party and political power the nation has survived over the years. But like a slow motion train wreck it has degenerated to its current state of near total dysfunction.  While the Founders were prophetic in their warnings and vision of possible failure of the democracy they were crafting, they ultimately granted too much power and authority to the very political parties that they feared.

In what maybe one of the most insightful visions into the future ever, George Washington warned in this farewell address in 1796: 

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. . ."

​Unfortunately​, the Founders did not include in the Constitution a mechanism that would "discourage and restrain" the behaviors​ and practices of political parties which they feared the most.​ Instead, in a serious error of judgement, counter to their own inclinations, they made the faulty assumption that Congress would act in the best interest of the country and citizens. They simply said in Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution that, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”  

[See, Constitution Annotated for Article I, Section 5, Clause 2: Rule of Proceedings for legal interpretations and citations https://tinyurl.com/y6jnqt7q] ​

So the dysfunctional, tribalistic gridlock that we find ourselves in today is really self-imposed and is the product of years of political maneuvering, manipulation and tweaking of the rules of operation. ​As citizens we want, need and deserve better. Congress, in general, is not responsive to the wishes of large majorities of the population (e.g. gun control, health care, witnesses in the impeachment trial​, policing reforms, mail voting, additional economic stimulus, wearing masks, child care, restrictions on lobbying,​ etc.). 

​"Nearly 75 percent of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, think there is more common ground among the public than the media and politicians portray, according to a Public Agenda report​, Divisiveness and Collaboration in American Public Life [https://tinyurl.com/y4kehpea​].​​ The report on polling conducted one year ago indicates that, "Americans also view political leadership as a central factor that exacerbates divisiveness — and that could help to reduce it.​ [and express]  ​. . .​a powerful yearning from Americans across all party lines for a more collaborative brand of politics that moves the country forward.​"​

​Interestingly, the report also indicates that, "Both Republicans and Democrats indicate that they could imagine finding common ground with about half of people who identify with the opposing party. Republicans and Democrats also see about a quarter of those in their own parties as so extreme they could not imagine finding common ground with them.​"​

​

Congress has proven time and again that it is not capable of determining its ​own ​"Rules of Proceedings" for the good of the country​.​ ​Instead the rules are twisted and designed to benefit ​the party in power​, preserve the party structure and discourage alternatives. ​A new Constitutional Amendment offers a great opportunity to correct this serious oversight of the Founders which is the cause of much of the gridlock and dysfunction of the Congressional system. A new Amendment MUST include some basic ground rules of operation that ​could only be amended with​,​ for example​,​ a ​three quarters (​3/4 ​) ​vote​ of the House or Senate or both, depending on the specific rule​.

Obviously a new Amendment cannot include all of the details of a system of new "rules of proceeding" but it can mandate a process for creating such rules and defining how they relate to the Constitutional requirements of Article I, Section 5. To translate this concept into proposed Constitutional amendment language I would offer as a starting point something like the following:

Proposed Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

 "Section __. There is established in the legislative branch an independent, National Commission On Congressional Rules, whose purpose shall be to review, revise, amend and establish baseline rules of proceedings for the U.S. House and Senate to fulfill the requirements of Article I, Section 5. The Commission shall establish rules of proceedings designed to establish rational, unbiased decision making and to encourage true bipartisanship in fulfilling the Congressional responsibilities in developing legislation, conducting Executive branch oversight and exercising its review and approval functions. Congress shall enact enabling legislation for the establishment of the Commission."

[Note: As a possible model for new enabling legislation for establishment of the Commission I would suggest similar language as the 9-11 Commission legislation, a 10-member bipartisan commission of prominent US citizens, with national recognition and significant depth of experience in such pertinent professions. 
[Title VI i.e. https://tinyurl.com/y6nooym4]

Because it is doubtful that a sitting Congress would propose such an amendment, it may be necessary to pursue a strategy authorized by the Constitution involving a convention where two-thirds (2/3) or 34 of the 50 states make an application for Congress to establish a constitutional convention in order to propose amendments. Amendments would then need to be ratified by either individual state conventions or by individual state legislatures with a three-quarters (3/4) vote. This method has never been utilized and it is noted that the convention method of amendment is surrounded by a lengthy list of questions [https://tinyurl.com/yxl7wbs5].

Whether it would be proposed by the Congress or by at least 34 states, such an amendment would require a nationwide movement similar to the Amendment 28 movement being conducted by the organization American Promise to restore a democracy in which we the people — not big money, not corporations, not unions, not special interests — govern ourselves [https://tinyurl.com/y27ygahj]. In a previous post I have provided a list of organizations and groups that would be capable of organizing and conducting such a movement [https://tinyurl.com/y5qb35ge].

If such a National Commission On Congressional Rules could be established with Constitutional authority it would be able to establish any number of new and revised rules to achieve more rational Congressional operations designed to reflect the best interest of the country as a  whole. In many previous posting I have advocated and provided details on a system of Shared Legislative Power (SLP), however, in this posting I am not strictly advocating SLP but merely suggesting a few specific rule revisions that I believe would force Congress to act in a truly bipartisan manner that would lead to much improved decision making.

Also as an inspiration and validation that Congress can function in a more civil, professional and responsible manner I offer the testimonials from Democratic and Republican representatives in Michigan that actually experienced participation in a Shared Power Arrangement. Their comments give us hope and a vision for a better future for our country. [See: https://tinyurl.com/ycq4xz22]

Starter List of basic ground rules for a more balanced and functional Congress: (Yes, there would be deadlock at times, but there would also be incentives to reach a real compromise. Compare it to the system we have now that simply cannot make a rational decision.)

1. "Regular Order" - Strict compliance with Regular Order all legislative measures must be assigned to a committee and go through the committee process before a Floor vote can be considered.  Debate and amendments may be considered with all amendments and final passage requiring Two-Thirds (66.7%) approval. 

2. Nonpartisan Staff - All Committees shall include combined, unbiased politically neutral staff similar to existing requirements of the House and Senate Ethics Committees, e.g. "a professional, nonpartisan staff...  perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner...  shall [not] engage in any partisan political activity..."   

3. Proportional Membership - Committee membership makeup proportioned to overall chamber majority v. minority

Example: assume Senate split 53-47 so 53/100 = 0.53 so a 20 member committee divided 20 x .53 = 10.6 round to 11. Committee makeup would 11-9. If Senate majority was 60-40; Makeup would be: 12-8. If Senate majority was 51-49; Makeup would be: 10-10

4. Approval Votes -All subcommittee and committee votes require 75% approval. e.g. 20 member committee requires 15 votes to approve.

5. Co-Chairmanships - All Oversight committees, Special Committees, Approval Committees (Advise & Consent, Treaties, etc.) require Co-Chairmanship with equal powers and combined, unbiased, politically neutral staff. Committee membership remains proportioned, but Co-Chairmanship and neutral staff will prevent political grandstanding and political theater with regard to critically important oversight responsibilities

6. Conflicting Rules - Eliminate extraneous rules that would interfere with this process.. e.g. filibuster, holds, Hastert, etc.

7. Petition For Action - To avoid leadership simply refusing to act as a means to delay or avoid critical issues (e.g. refusing to act on SCOTUS approval, stimulus, etc.) a Petition for Action may be submitted by 10% of the total chamber membership and which must be brought to the Floor for a vote and requiring a simple majority for approval. This would require members to be on record with a vote and combined with other changes (e.g. #5 & #1 above) will provide a transparent process to force action on critical issues and put members on the record.

8. Elevate Importance of Bill Cosponsorship - Devise a system that recognizes the total numbers of members and the degree of bipartisanship for each legislative proposal that will be used to determine the priorities for legislative action. This will put more responsibility on individual members to seek support for their ideas and reward individual and cosponsoring members that can develop priority legislation for action.  

9. Eliminate or Revise The Electoral College Process - As an added consideration to the effort to amend Congressional rules, the National Commission should also seriously debate the Electoral College process and consider elimination or revisions similar to the National Popular Vote (NPV) initiative which makes the national popular vote relevant.