WHAT’S WRONG WITH CONGRESS?

 

“Congress has become a feeble debating society.” Fareed Zakaria

When the Gallup Poll asks its monthly question: “Do you approve of the way Congress is handling its job?”, as high as 80 percent of Americans answer in the negative. Our constitutionally mandated national legislature consistently fails to accomplish even its most basic obligations. On more complex national emergencies like immigration or election reform, legislation has not been introduced in decades.

The last Congress passed only 274 bills, fewer than any deliberating body since the Civil War. In his first 100 days, Trump has largely bypassed Congress, signing a record breaking low of just five new bills and a record breaking high of 124 executive orders.

James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that opposing political parties would place their own interests ahead of the common good. Madison was concerned that an outlier political phenomenon in control of government, like Trumpism, could tyrannize the out-of-power party and tear apart the Republic.

Congress was the constitutional remedy created by our founding fathers to counter these fears. Its role was to provide a balance against winner-take-all elections in the executive branch and one-sided court opinions in the judicial branch. Only in Congress could those with opposing political views pass legislation through debate and compromise. This power sharing meant that Congress provided a check against despotism, even if the same party held the presidency and a majority in both Houses.

How did Congress become irrelevant at a time when our nation is most in need of its deliberative powers? 

Philip Wallach, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has written a timely book, “Why Congress.” Wallach gives us a compelling historical portrait of Congress as a functioning institution. He points out that before the early 1990s it was common for lawmakers to debate issues. Committees actually drafted bills, and the two political parties compromised to tackle urgent problems. Congress sent Republican President H.W. Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton significant legislation on trade, crime, environmental protection, financial regulation, and civil rights. Its ongoing deliberations actually erased the national deficit and created a surplus.

In the modern era, prior to Newt Gingrich and a decade later the rise of the populist “Tea Party,” the model of congressional action is often referred to as the “textbook” Congress. Under this system, senior lawmakers ran committees specializing in various policy areas. Drafting of legislation occurred at the committee level, and Congressional leadership did not interfere with this committee-driven dominance. The good news was that policy was formulated, and legislation was passed. The bad was that committee special interests sometimes outweighed the common good.

Wallach writes that the turning point in the role of Congress was Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Republican takeover of the House of Representatives. Gingrich encouraged partisan warfare, and demanded party loyalty from committee leaders. For the first time, his leadership brought large amounts of national Republican Party money into district elections to influence Republican primaries.  

Wallach believes that Gingrich’s “Republican Revolution” started the trend toward the deepening polarization of Congress. He concludes that the branch of government designed to address factional conflicts gave in to hyper-partisanship and made things worse.   Over time, leaders from both parties began to suppress dissent within their own ranks. They also assembled divisive agendas not subject to compromise.

Congressional committees were no longer the accepted method to draft bills.  Instead, party leaders formulated policy behind closed doors. With greater frequency legislation was brought to the floor, at the last minute, for up-or-down-votes, when there was a crisis. There was little opportunity for deliberation.

The Senate had a long tradition of unlimited debate. In addition, the “60 vote rule” forced Senators to compromise by blocking a simple majority from taking action without minority support. Today, this rule is ignored when convenient and debate in the Senate is almost non-existent. When a speech is made the chamber is empty, and no one is listening except a few reporters.

It was common past practice for Senators to propose amendments during floor debate. Wallach notes that in the 1991-92 Congress, the Senate adopted more than 1,600 amendments. In today’s Senate, individual Senators are blocked from presenting their own proposals. Only a limited number of amendments are permitted chosen by Senate leadership. The 2023-24 Senate session featured only 200 amendments. Senator Lamar Alexander famously said that serving in the chamber was like, “joining the Grand Ole Opry and not being allowed to sing.”

All of this leads to our unfolding constitutional crisis. Many would argue that the increased partisanship in Congress has led to its inability to address major challenges facing the country. This inaction frustrated voters who elected an autocratic strongman for president. Trump promised to take immediate action on immigration, trade policy, and against government agencies without Congressional input and by ignoring settled law.

The new normal is that fear of presidential retribution keeps Republican members of Congress in line. Alaskan Senator, Lisa Murkowski, admitted last week, “We are all afraid.” Those who believe that Trump has overstepped his constitutional authority, are abdicating their constitutional mandate. They are counting on either the judiciary or the electorate to rescue them from making hard choices to preserve democracy.

Ultimately, our political future depends on Congress’s ability to deliberate.  It is an indispensable pillar of the American constitutional system. Congress must find its backbone and exercise its power.