Reps. Lipinski and LaHood Lead Bipartisan Effort to Make Congress Work [H. Con. Res. 28]

02/21/2017

[reprint of Rep. Lipinski’s news release]

[J.P. McJefferson comment: I think it is notable that in this effort to reform Congress "The Joint Committee would be made up of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, 12 members of the House and 12 members of the Senate." This shared power arrangement is what I have been advocating in several previous posts as the the Achilles' heel, the linchpin of Congressional dysfunction -- the one thing, that if you could fix it – Congress would function better. See links to previous posts below.]

Congressmen Dan Lipinski (D-IL-3) and Darin LaHood (R-IL-18) have introduced legislation designed to make Congress work again for the American people.  H. Con. Res. 28 would establish a Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, a powerful legislative tool that Congress effectively employed three times in the 20th century to overcome legislative dysfunction.  This bipartisan, bicameral committee would be tasked with analyzing suggestions from congressional experts and the general public, and then making recommendations for reforming congressional procedures so that Congress could more effectively address major issues faced by our nation.

“When I was a teacher, I taught about how Congress operates, but it doesn’t take a congressional scholar to understand that the Legislative Branch is not working effectively for the American people,” said Rep. Lipinski.  “Americans understand that the legislative process is not working effectively when they see Congress failing to act to address major issues until faced with a crisis; even then Congress waits until the last minute to act or sometimes even fails to act as we saw with the government shutdown a few years ago.  In order to conduct the peoples’ business more effectively, Congress must streamline rules and procedures, improve efficiency in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate, increase participation of the members in the legislative process, and encourage bipartisan cooperation.  Hopefully, this Joint Committee would be a good step in creating a Congress that works for the American people.”

The Joint Committee would be made up of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, 12 members of the House and 12 members of the Senate, with a specific mandate to make recommendations across the spectrum of needed change in a timely fashion.  The Joint Committee would focus on restoring Congress’ ability to fulfill its basic responsibilities, including oversight, authorizations, appropriations, legislation, and passing a budget.  Specifically, the Joint Committee would first look to overhaul the legislative rules and procedures that internally dictate how Congress operates.  Then it would work to empower legislators to take ownership of the legislative process, debate issues, introduce amendments, and get laws enacted.  Finally, the Joint Committee would make recommendations to improve the relationship between the people and Congress.  The process would be open to the public and could draw on the expertise and experiences of the private sector.

 “Congress must earn America’s trust back,” stated Rep. LaHood.  “At this pivotal time in our nation’s history, the Legislative Branch must function effectively to address the challenges we face.  No matter how good our intentions, noble our cause, or hard we work, problems won’t be solved if the institution doesn’t function.  There is a plethora of reform ideas, but there is not an official mechanism to motivate Congress to evaluate those recommendations holistically, transparently, and speedily. This bill is a simple first step towards addressing the dysfunction that the American people see and what we, as Representatives, experience in Congress.  Whether reform requires changes in law, like evaluating the budget process, changes in procedure such as committee structure, or changes in the operation between the House, the Senate, and the White House, we need to take a hard look at what systemic improvements are necessary to overcome gridlock, to govern effectively, and restore America’s confidence in our first branch of our government.”

Joint Committees on Congress have been created at crucial periods before, and have yielded real results.  The Joint Committee of 1945, 1965, and 1992 each ultimately resulted in necessary reforms that were adopted in the form of Legislative Reorganization Acts.  These Joint Committees were formed at quarter century intervals, and it’s been 25 years since the last Joint Committee convened. 

The measure already enjoys a broad coalition of support from former members of Congress, bipartisan groups focused on congressional reform, and other interested stakeholders.

“The formation of a Joint Committee to reform Congress is a great step toward eliminating the gridlock and hyper partisanship that has infected Congress for too long and prevented our country from moving forward,” said Mark Strand, president of the Congressional Institute.  “Through the reforms a Joint Committee will be empowered to recommend, the bill-making process can be opened up to more lawmakers so they can truly fulfill their duties as legislators.  A Joint Committee can also help repair the broken budget process and revitalize the standing committees in the U.S. House and Senate so they function as intended.  Significant reforms to the rules and structures will allow lawmakers to better serve their constituents and give America the Congress it deserves.”

“We welcome the introduction of the Congress of Tomorrow resolution as the starting point of a discussion on restoring the legislative abilities of Congress,” said the Bipartisan Policy Center.  “We look forward to working with Reps. LaHood and Lipinski to ensure its prompt consideration.” 

“It is time for Congress to re-examine its structure, processes, and operations through a Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress,” stated the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF).  “For nearly 40 years the CMF has conducted a significant amount of research with congressional offices, Members, staff, and institutional offices.  A thoughtful, bipartisan effort aimed at improving the institution would result in a better Congress, better laws, and better service to the American people.  CMF applauds Representatives Darin LaHood and Dan Lipinski for calling for a Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress.”

Contact Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL)

Contact Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL)

Access H. Con. Res. 28

Democracy.io use subject line #H.Con.Res.28 

This site was designed to make it easy to contact your Senators & Representative

Cosponsors

Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Kind, Ron [D-WI-3]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Walz, Timothy J. [D-MN-1]*	02/16/2017
Rep. O'Halleran, Tom [D-AZ-1]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Murphy, Stephanie N. [D-FL-7]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL-23]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Sires, Albio [D-NJ-8]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-52]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Vargas, Juan [D-CA-51]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Veasey, Marc A. [D-TX-33]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Loebsack, David [D-IA-2]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Reed, Tom [R-NY-23]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Hultgren, Randy [R-IL-14]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-4]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Young, David [R-IA-3]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Graves, Garret [R-LA-6]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Denham, Jeff [R-CA-10]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Kinzinger, Adam [R-IL-16]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Byrne, Bradley [R-AL-1]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Curbelo, Carlos [R-FL-26]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Renacci, James B. [R-OH-16]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Roskam, Peter J. [R-IL-6]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Davis, Rodney [R-IL-13]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Rooney, Thomas J. [R-FL-17]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Messer, Luke [R-IN-6]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Coffman, Mike [R-CO-6]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Gallagher, Mike [R-WI-8]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-8]*	02/16/2017
Rep. O'Rourke, Beto [D-TX-16]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Cooper, Jim [D-TN-5]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-16]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Sinema, Kyrsten [D-AZ-9]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Smucker, Lloyd [R-PA-16]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Joyce, David P. [R-OH-14]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Donovan, Daniel M., Jr. [R-NY-11]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Rouzer, David [R-NC-7]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2]*	02/16/2017
Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21]	02/27/2017
Rep. Cartwright, Matt [D-PA-17]	03/09/2017
Rep. Correa, J. Luis [D-CA-46]	03/09/2017

Links to Previous Postings On Shared Committee Power

Beating The Dead Horse Of Bipartisanship

Congress Could Be Functional; If It Wanted To 

Bipartisanship: How The GOP Could Heal A Divided Nation

Give 'em enough rope. . . Going fishing

I was trying to prepare a blog post on some of the latest statements from the President which I believe are contributing to further divide the country and accelerate further the dysfunction of the government.

I was going to comment on the President’s statement that, “We lived in a divided nation.  And I am going to try -- I will do everything within my power to fix that. . .”

And also his comment about, “I just see many, many untruthful things. And I tell you what else I see.  I see tone.  You know the word “tone.” The tone is such hatred. . .”

And then, of course, I couldn’t pass over the latest comments about the press: “I want to see an honest press. . . it’s so important to the public to get an honest press. . .” And, the follow-up in a tweet: “The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!” And, the Fox News endorsement, “. . .and I have to say “Fox & Friends” in the morning, they're very honorable people.”

I have tried in previous posts to identify and explain some of the critical elements of our broken government and some ways to address or suggest possible solutions to those issues.

I have also tried, even considering the fact that I am biased, to identify the fact that both Democrats and Republicans are contributing to the broken, dysfunctional government and both play the silly “gridlock games.”

However, the events of the last several weeks and the current level of discourse on politics and the state of the American democracy has been revealing to me.

This is not the proper environment for a rational discussion of issues related to broken government. I was reminded of my own words in a previous April 30, 2016, blog post – What Is Broken Government & What Do We Really Want?

There I pointed out that sometimes the fix is not immediate and you must be careful what you wish for and deal with the consequences. I said:

“So, what's the goal? What's the end game to fixing a broken, rigged government? It's to make the politicians listen and do what the majority wants -- Right? Well, before we go too far we should have a little discussion about -- "Being careful what you wish for."

“We have to do a little self examination here. You see, we already have a system that is "rigged" -- where majority doesn't rule. So, what we're seeking is a "majority rule" system. Okay, so what if the majority doesn't agree with you personally? Are you ready to suck it up and live with the "majority rule"?

“You see, that's the hard part. . . at any given point in time. . . sometimes, the majority opinion won't necessarily agree with yours. So what are you going to do? Now what's wrong with the system? You want a system that always delivers the result you want? Sorry, that's not the way it works.

“So, here's the caveat -- over time, the majority system corrects itself. At least it corrects itself to the majority at that time. Sometimes the majority gets fooled or needs to experience a certain policy or ideology. Then, if the vision does not turn into reality, the majority corrects itself by changing direction. You have to trust the majority system. And, if you can't live with majority rule then you should probably seek another alternative, somewhere else.”

Well, I was commenting then on getting to the point of majority rule which I believe in. But, as I have also pointed out, it gets complicated when you consider the Electoral College process -- Another Piece of the Broken Government Puzzle; Does my vote for the president actually count?

My post on “what do we really want” and comment above, written before the November election basically assumed that the person who would win the Electoral College vote would also win the popular vote. As we know now that was not the case and the loser actually received 2.8 million votes more than the winner. Although I disagree with the Electoral College process, it was the legal and known process for last November’s election and I accept that.

But, my point is still the same. “Sometimes the majority [or Electoral College results] gets fooled or needs to experience a certain policy or ideology. Then, if the vision does not turn into reality, the majority corrects itself by changing direction.”

For me, that’s where we are right now. We are waiting to see if this new President’s vision, and the vision of those who voted for him, will turn into reality. If not, the ingrained structure of our democracy which binds us all together will correct itself and we will change direction.

And so it goes. We are in a period of blurred vision, waiting for clarity. We’ll see (pun intended).

In the meantime I’m reminded of my Grandmother’s old saying many years ago when I was a young man – “Give them enough rope and they’ll hang themselves.” That works for me. Spring is in the air and I’m thinking about going fishing.

________________________________________________

Reference: February 16, 2017 Remarks by President Trump in Press Conference

Guns, Politics & Donald Trump

I just have to share this January 20, 2017, article published in The Plaid Zebra by Victoria -- 

What a gun auction taught me about ‘middle America’

Note: The Plaid Zebra is an unconventional lifestyle magazine that aims at broadening the horizons of potential lifestyle choices and uplifting the autonomous with inspiration and example.

[Excerpt] An America divided.

Although I didn’t grow up in Virginia, I’ve been visiting since I was a child and attended Virginia Tech for college. This state is a prime example of the rural/urban divide witnessed across the country. Locals understand the stark contrast between the more liberal and urban, northern Virginia – known as NoVA – and the more conservative and rural, southern Virginia – known as the “real” Virginia. As a user on Reddit pointed out: “I was taking classes over the summer in Blacksburg, and this guy asked me where I was from. I replied Northern Virginia. He referred to people there as Communist pricks…Well, that escalated pretty quickly.”. . .

On the way home, I sympathetically examined the rolling hills of Rocky Mount, Virginia and I tried to make sense of it all. The relationship between God, country and guns no longer sits well in my heart as it once did when I was a little girl. How could a community that evoked the name of Jesus in prayer – a divinity I always believed promoted peace over violence – do so minutes before bidding on guns? Machines built to kill. How could a community similar to the one I hail from, embrace a man like Trump, and all that he represents?. . . 

Comment by J.P. McJefferson:

Nice article Victoria. Can't believe there's only one comment. You have really captured the same feelings I'm having of late. I too have friends and family on both sides of the divide. And you have correctly identified the elephant in the room -- guns. So long as the direct popular vote doesn’t count (which it doesn’t under the Electoral College system) and until Democrats understand guns and the gun culture, they may never win another Presidential election. All you have to do is look at the last election results, i.e. red v. blue by counties 

and you will see the urban rural split amplified. It troubles me that there can be so much hate and vitriol between the two sides. Is this what it was like at the dawn of the Civil War where over 600,000 Americans died killing each other. Democrats, even with the backing of 80-90% of the electorate on background checks, have never been able to deliver a credible, believable or incontestable message on guns – that is, a message that Republicans and rural America could buy. There’s always the argument that ANY regulation or control will lead to another, and another, and another, etc. and NO incident, however horrific, can justify regulation or control. The NRA, for decades, and now Donald Trump, of recent, have tapped into the rural America gun culture and it will be exceedingly difficult, going forward, for any Democrat to ever win their trust.

P.S. For the record I have lots of guns myself: a 410 shotgun; a 22 pistol; a 22 rifle; a 38 revolver; another older revolver; and an old Indian trade musket.

FOLLOW-UP UPDATES

Analysis | Gun ownership used to be bipartisan. Not anymore. wapo.st/2peJqlG?tid=ss…, The Washington Post, By Mark Joslyn and Don Haider-Markel May 9, 2017

America’s Complex Relationship With Guns, An in-depth look at the attitudes and experiences of U.S. adults, June 22, 2017, Pew Research Center. https://goo.gl/tH7aSJ 

Beating The Dead Horse Of Bipartisanship

Here I go again trying to defend the concept of true bipartisanship and ways to achieve it. I scratch my near bald head, watch the political shenanigans in amazement and am at a loss for words to describe the avalanche of governance garbage that is filling the space of our daily lives. "How can this be happening?" I ask. And then I answer, "It's so obvious. Why can't we get this right and move on?

An article, by David Frum,"How to Build an Autocracy", in the March 2017 issue of The Atlantic is enlightening and caught my attention when it talked about the power of Fox News to the typical Republican member of Congress and its ability boost or crush a Member's popularity with their constituency. That power has recently been increased big time with the recent Presidential endorsements.

E.G. 1/24/17 Tweet: "Congratulations to @FoxNews for being number one in inauguration ratings. They were many times higher than FAKE NEWS @CNN - public is smart!" And about his recent CIA speech, Trump said, "That speech was a home run. That speech, if you look at Fox, OK, I'll mention you -- we see what Fox said. They said it was one of the great speeches." He told ABC's David Muir, "Turn on Fox and see how it [CIA speech] was covered."

The end point of the discussion was that "oversight of Trump by the Republican congressional majority will very likely be cautious, conditional, and limited." This is a screaming red flag on the breakdown of governance and the Constitutional system of checks and balances that is supposed to protect us from an over zealous Executive branch.

The article rightly points out that, "As politics has become polarized, Congress has increasingly become a check only on presidents of the opposite party. Recent presidents enjoying a same-party majority in Congress—Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010, George W. Bush from 2003 through 2006—usually got their way."

Also discussed in the article is the incredible power of social media. Frum, in a hypothetical projection envisions, "social media circulate ever-wilder rumors. Some people believe them; others don’t. It’s hard work to ascertain what is true." Additionally, we have all been treated to the barrage of tweets from our new President and his self-proclaimed ability to speak truthfully and directly to the "people" and bypass the filter (i.e. fact checker) of the "mainstream media" which his Administration calls the "opposition party” which should "keep its mouth shut."

We must also not forget the enormous power that goes with the Presidency, i.e. control of all agencies including the FBI and CIA and other intelligence bodies. That power could be misused as it has been in the past to "harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders, and to collect evidence using illegal methods."

So, the Founders, in all their brilliance (and they were unbelievably brilliant) did not foresee the power of Fox News, social media and the high tech capabilities of intelligence gathering by those with nefarious or malicious intent. These factors have and could have a profound disruptive influence on the system of checks and balance they wove into the Constitution to keep the Executive branch in check.

Now back to the dead horse -- bipartisanship. By not engaging in true bipartisanship in governing, Congress relinquishes a considerable portion of its power over the Executive branch. True bipartisanship is not easy, and as I have said in previous posts, it runs counter to the DNA of most politicians, but it is the key to restoring Congress as the strongest branch of government as the Founders intended. It is also the key to ending gridlock, making Congress functional again, and elevating its approval ratings in the eyes of the public.

True bipartisanship begins with a basic recognition that you cannot govern an equally, ideologically divided nation with all of the power on one side. It is a recipe for disaster which is exactly what we have now under the existing power distribution scheme. It is why Congressional approval ratings generally range between 10%-20%. It is why Congress, by demonstrating its gross incompetence, has ceded nearly all of its power to the Executive branch. While Republicans currently have the power, my position and argument applies to both parties, no matter who has the power at any given time. Both parties share equally in their responsibility for Congressional gridlock.

As I have tried to explain in previous postings, true bipartisanship beginning with shared power in the committee and subcommittees system of the House and Senate could completely alter the legislative process dynamics, reduce the incentive for gridlock games and political posturing, maximize and focus staff resources and blunt the affect of excessive lobbying and financial influence.

[See: Congress Could Be Functional; If It Wanted To & 

Bipartisanship: How The GOP Could Heal A Divided Nation]

As atypical as the concept of shared power in Congress is, it is not without precedent. The House and Senate Ethics Committees operate and function with the concept of shared power where there is equal party membership on the committees and the staff is nonpartisan and prohibited from engaging in any partisan political activity by Congressional rules.

Imagine legislative proposals for immigration reform, infrastructure development, health care and a host of other critical issues arriving on the House or Senate floor after being developed through a shared power committee structure.

The process would force bipartisanship at the beginning of the process. Imagine, at the subcommittee level where Members with specific knowledge of the subject matter from both sides of aisle each present their proposals for addressing the issue. They would most likely be markedly different. They would have to argue and debate, have hearings with experts and testimony equally from both sides, utilize unbiased staff resources to investigate and develop suggestions and finally craft a compromise. The process would be somewhat like the Conference Committee process where competing differences between House and Senate bills are resolved; however, it would be much more thorough, comprehensive and nonpartisan.

The compromise would have to achieve a majority vote of the subcommittee and move on to the full committee where it would again be debated, subjected to hearings, further scrutiny and finally a majority vote of the full committee.

As the legislation reached the House or Senate floor there would still be plenty of opportunity for dissent, as it is unlikely that proposal would achieve unanimous consent. Amendments and debate on those amendments would be expected and more conventional political maneuvering would likely occur where the majority party would obviously have the upper hand. However, legislation developed through this process would be much more credible and would have true bipartisan roots and support from Members from both sides with skin in the game.

Similarly, as with legislative development, the idea of shared committee power with nonpartisan staff would vastly improve the other major responsibility of Congress – Executive branch oversight. No longer would oversight be limited to just presidents and agencies of the opposite party; partisan witch hunts and character assassinations would likely be eliminated and effective review of agency programs, budgets and actions would be more normalized.

As indicated above, true bipartisanship would not be easy and is counter to the excessively polarized and partisan political environment that exists inside the Beltway. But, if Congress does not change its ways we are doomed with gridlock, ever increasing Executive branch power and the frightening future predicted in David Frum's article, "How to Build an Autocracy."

If Congress does not change its own ways (which is highly unlikely), the now completely scattered public pressure from interest groups and public demonstrations should be coordinated and focused on what I have called the Achilles' heel, the linchpin of Congressional dysfunction – the broken committee and subcommittee process.

Friday, February 10, 2017

Congressional Job Approval

PPP (D)

Approve 16, Disapprove 68

Disapprove +52

Democracy & Government: Some Advice From The Founders

A Collection Of Relevant Quotes From John Adams

John Adams

(October 30, 1735 – July 4, 1826) John Adams was an American patriot who served as the second President of the United States(1797–1801) and the first Vice President (1789–97). He was a lawyer, diplomat, statesman, political theorist, and, as a Founding Father, a leader of the movement for American independence from Great Britain. His son, John Quincy Adams served as the 6th President of the U.S.

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

. . .

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

. . .

“Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.”

. . .

“Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.”

. . .

“Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.”

. . .

“While all other sciences have advanced, that of government is at a standstill - little better understood, little better practiced now than three or four thousand years ago.”

. . .

“Power always thinks... that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws.”

. . .

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

. . .

“I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in providence, for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.”

. . .

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”

###

Congress Could Be Functional; If It Wanted To

·         November 11, 2015: Congress' approval rating drops to 11 percent - CBS News

·         August 18, 2016: Poll: Americans' approval of Congress up to 18 percent, still historically low

·         October 12, 2016: Ahead of Elections, U.S. Congress Approval at 18% 

·         January 15, 2017: 15.3% Average Congressional Job Approval (11/16/16 - 1/15/17)

 

I’ve been searching for the Achilles' heel, the linchpin of Congressional dysfunction -- the one thing, that if you could fix it – Congress would function better. There are so many individual things that contribute to Congressional dysfunction that result in gridlock and the body’s historically low approval ratings.

Some of the obvious are: intensive partisanship; lobbying and moneyed influencing; gerrymandering; excessive use of the silent filibuster in the Senate; the so-called Hastert rule in the House; riders & unrelated amendments tacked onto bills; Senatorial “holds” that allow any Senator to stall legislation; and many House and Senate arcane rules and procedures that are used to gum-up the works of the legislative process.

One not so obvious mechanism of gridlock that is currently embedded in the foundation of the legislative process is the House and Senate committee system. This system, which gives overriding power to the majority party, is rarely discussed or challenged and is completely self imposed by operating procedures of the House and Senate. There is no Constitutional or legal requirement for the process.

There are some 200 committees and subcommittees in the House and Senate – 21 major committees in each house and approximately 150 Subcommittees between the two chambers.

If you do any research on how government works you will quickly be informed that the committee, and even further the subcommittee, level is where the legislative process begins. As I pointed out in a previous post, the committee and subcommittee level is where specific legislative language is developed, staff research is done, experts are consulted, hearings and public meetings are held, witnesses and interest groups testify and votes are taken to move things forward. This is where lobbyists and interest groups have their greatest influence because they are dealing with fewer legislators that they must win over to their point of view. Also, Congressional committees perform the critically important function of oversight of Executive branch agencies and actions.

Obviously, the committees and subcommittees are where the power structure of Congress begins. The leaders of these bodies have enormous power to control and manage legislative development. One thing that you rarely hear about is the details of how these bodies are structured and how they operate. It is here, at this very basic level of the legislative and governing process where one, so inclined, could begin to repair Congressional gridlock.

Party leaders generally determine the total size of committees and the ratio of majority to minority members on each of them. House committees vary from 10 to 61 members, with an average of about 40. Senate committees are smaller, varying from 6 to 28; most have between 16 and 20. Members of both parties serve on each committee, with the majority party having more seats.

For example, the powerful House Energy & Commerce Committee is currently chaired by Representative Fred Upton (R-MI). The Committee includes 31 Republican members and 23 Democratic members. There are six separate subcommittees. A typical subcommittee, the Environment & Economy Subcommittee is chaired by Representative John Shimkus (R-IL). The Subcommittee includes 12 Republican members and 8 Democratic members.

Thus, all environmental issues (legislation and oversight) that are considered in the House of Representatives begin their journey first in the Subcommittee and then the full Committee and are completely controlled by the Chairmen of these bodies and all matters are decided where the majority party has a significant voting advantage.

Although House and Senate rules provide some concessions to the minority party, the bottom line is that they have no real control over the agenda, all actions are controlled by the majority party; they are provided less budget and staff resources, witness testimony is always lopsided in favor of the majority, and most importantly they are out-voted and out-maneuvered on all differing positions.

In the search for the Achilles' heel of gridlock, this is where we must ask the question: If the country is divided 50-50 along political ideologies why do we give complete legislative and oversight control to the so-called “majority” party?

In the most recent election, Republicans won majority control of the membership in House and Senate and likewise won Executive branch control through the Electoral College. But, to understand gridlock you have to look at and recognize the ideological split of the country. The best measure of that is the recent popular vote where 48.2% of the population voted for Clinton, 46.1% voted for Trump and 5.7% voted for others. For discussion purposes, call it a 50-50 split at best.

It’s not rocket science to understand that if you have a 50-50 ideological split of the population and you are addressing almost any major issue like climate change, immigration reform, jobs, equality, gun violence, health care, family planning, minimum wage, infrastructure, etc.; or, if you are providing oversight of Executive branch agencies, you’re going to have immediate and intense gridlock if only one party controls the complete agenda of activities.

While Republicans control the House by 241-194 and the Senate 52-48, wouldn’t it make sense, considering the political divide of the country, if the committees and subcommittees had an equal number of Republican and Democratic members and a shared power arrangement? This would immediately force bipartisanship and would result in much higher quality legislation and oversight at the start of the process. Legislation that made it to the House and Senate floor under this process would likely pass with overwhelming margins from both sides. Likewise, oversight activities would be much more meaningful and likely result in constructive changes and improvements in agency programs, budgets and actions, rather than witch hunts and political theater.

Under a system of shared committee power, much of the incentive for gridlock, political posturing and what I call “gridlock games” (arcane rules and procedures that are used as political tricks by both majority and minority parties) would be lost.

Another major advantage of a shared power arrangement would be the allocation and utilization of staff resources. In 2000, House committees had an average of 68 staff and Senate committees an average of 46. Under the existing system the majority party gets the largest number of staff resources and staff are biased and aligned with their party leadership.

Staff resources are critical and their main job is to assist with writing, researching, analyzing, amending, and recommending measures to their committee leadership. Most staff and resources are controlled by the majority party members of a committee, although a portion must be shared with minority party members.

If unbiased staff resources were focused on various issues the process would likely move more quickly and much less time would be spent on opposition research and counterproductive activities. Lobbyist and interest groups would not be able to simply focus their efforts on party or a few key legislators, but would have to make more reasoned and compromising proposals that would be acceptable to staff and a majority of committee members.

Many political insiders that have observed or participated in the modern day committee process may say this idea of shared power is simply impractical, too contentious and flies In the face of current political norms. But, before we dismiss the idea, it’s important to take a historical look at the evolution of the committee process.

In the document, An Overview of the Development of U.S. Congressional Committees, by Michael Welsh it is noted that, “. . .it is useful to remember that Congress originally had no standing committees. Its legislative business was conducted either by temporary select committees, or by referrals to cabinet departments like Treasury, War and State, and was largely directed by the budding political parties of the era. Congress, however, soon discovered that it needed its own institutions -- permanent committees – to effectively craft legislation, properly oversee the Executive Branch and assert its standing as the first branch of government. . .

“. . . before 1846, (when the majority and minority party members agreed to use lists of committee members cleared by party caucuses). Majority party leaders often could not control committees. Indeed it has been estimated that between 1819 and 1832 a fifth of Senate committees were controlled by the minority party; and that one-fourth were chaired by minority party members.”

Additionally, before we dismiss the idea of shared committee power we need to take a careful look at the two existing committees in Congress that already operate under a shared power arrangement – the House and Senate Ethics Committees.

The Committee on Ethics is unique in the House of Representatives. Consistent with the duty to carry out its advisory and enforcement responsibilities in an impartial manner, the Committee is the only standing committee of the House of Representatives with its membership divided evenly by party.

For example, the House Ethics Committee rules provide that: “The staff is to be assembled and retained as a professional, nonpartisan staff. . . The staff as a whole and each individual member of the staff shall perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner. . . No member of the staff shall engage in any partisan political activity directly affecting any congressional or presidential election. . .” The Senate Ethics Committee rules contain similar provisions.

It is possible to envision that rules and procedures for a shared power committee and subcommittee arrangement could be devised using concepts contained in the House and Senate Ethics Committees’ rules and those governing Conference Committee procedures where differing issues are resolved.

In conclusion, Congress, which is now controlled by the Republican Party, can continue to govern under a philosophy that half of the population does not exists or it can choose another path. It can continue to proceed under the illusion that it has a mandate to ignore the hopes and desires of half of the population or it can choose another path. It can continue to perpetuate Washington gridlock and further divide the country or it can choose another path. It can continue to diminish its power and respect as a major branch of government or it can choose another path.

A simple change of course could reap huge benefits to a country that is deeply divided and begging for new direction.