Renewing the House of Representatives

This study was originally published by Protect Democracy United and the R Street Institute.

How a More Participatory Legislative Process Could Benefit Both Members and Leaders

The U.S. House of Representatives has become nearly impossible to lead, deeply frustrating to serve in, and, worst of all, unable to effectively represent the American people. Reviewing a century and a half of House procedure, this report finds that legislative rules are a substantial contributor to the problem. Power over the legislative agenda is concentrated in the speaker’s office to a degree with little precedent in the chamber’s history, even though more participatory arrangements have consistently produced a more engaged and less rebellious membership — without costing the majority party its agenda. Today’s centralization has delivered strikingly little in return for the widespread frustration it causes. The report therefore recommends four “pressure relief valves”: reforms that give broadly supported measures an orderly, predictable path to the floor while leaving leadership’s core tools intact.

• A workable alternative to the discharge petition: designated calendar days for considering member petitions with substantial bipartisan backing or support from groups that represent a potential chamber majority.
• Guaranteed amendment votes: an up-or-down floor vote for germane amendments cosponsored by a fixed number of members of each party.
• A voice for groups of members in the budget: floor votes on alternative budget resolutions and an expanded motion to recommit on appropriations bills.
• A standing select committee on reform: an empowered body that studies further improvements and places its proposals directly on the floor on a set schedule.

Modest as they are, these changes would make the House easier to lead, and a more rewarding place to serve.