10 ways to help congressional committees get results
Kurt Couchman writes for Americans for Prosperity
Although applicable well beyond the budget process, Kurt Couchman of AFP has a new blog post listing 10 (often straightforward) ways of improving the efficacy of Congressional committees. As you likely know, committees are a giant part of how federal budgeting gets done, especially with the plethora of appropriations that go on every year.
This is what he recommends:
Better budgeting: Congress must repair the dysfunctional federal budget process with a range of transformative reforms and other useful upgrades. A comprehensive budget with reasonable deficit-reducing targets, sustainable automatic enforcement, and additional guardrails could educate members on existing policies, re-invigorate committees, and give Congress greater ability and desire to revisit longstanding programs. Congress’ power of the purse has become so weak that the current administration attempted to spend nearly $1 trillion without congressional approval for taxpayers to assume student loan debt, and it has otherwise abused emergency authorities to advance an agenda that Congress has never approved.
Consequences for expired authorizations: House and Senate rules prohibiting appropriations for programs without an active authorization of appropriations are routinely waived or ignored. This involves hundreds of programs that collectively spend more than half a trillion dollars each year, including our diplomatic corps (last authorized in 2003) and most of the Department of Justice (2009). Legislation like Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers’ Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act to set program-level limits on unauthorized appropriations could push the authorizing committees to update those programs.
Clear expectations: Republican conference (House, Senate) and Democratic caucus (House, Senate) rules don’t – but could – explicitly pair the power of committee leaders with the responsibility to manage all laws in their jurisdictions. The conferences and caucuses should be clear that committee leaders’ main job is facilitating reviews and updates of statutory laws through appropriate multi-year timelines.
Index of responsibilities: No public document matches standing committees with the laws they should oversee. House Rule X(1) and Senate Rule XXV only match committees with general subject areas. Such an index could reduce the learning curve for new members and staff, clarify lines of authority, and help members connect their interests, backgrounds, and district priorities to committee work.
Guaranteed floor time: Even the most publicly spirited committee chair won’t keep working through challenging negotiations that lead nowhere. Committee chairs could take turns bringing committee-reported legislation to the floor along the lines of House Rule 14(4). Alternatively, committee-reported bills in the House with sufficient bipartisan support could get priority, since they’d be more likely to pass the Senate.
Committees as microcosms: Forging agreements in committees that match each chamber overall requires that committee membership of both parties is close to a “microcosm” of each party, as then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy put it. Representative samples on each committee would include ideological commitments as well as regional, seniority, temperamental, occupational, and other characteristics.
Prioritize committee work: House and Senate rules or leader protocols could instruct the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Government Accountability Office, House and Senate Legislative Counsel, and the Library of Congress to prioritize requests related to members’ committee assignments. Such a focus would reinforce committees as the primary — but by no means exclusive — venue for formulating, considering, and advancing policy.
Readable legislation: Most states print bills to show proposed changes to existing laws in their full context. Bringing that practice to Congress, such as with Rep. Alex Mooney’s Readable Legislation Act, would reduce the time, specialized knowledge, and effort needed to read and understand a bill.
Align jurisdictions: Senate and House authorizing committee jurisdictions don’t match each other or the 12 Appropriations subcommittees. Bringing them into greater alignment would improve Congress’ ability to advance legislation and to conduct oversight.
Committee stability: Senate committee slots and funding reflect the ratio of the party caucuses. In contrast, House committee funding is two-thirds to the majority and one-third to the minority. The ratios of House committee slots disproportionately favor the majority party. House adoption of Senate practices would expand House capacity for legislating by protecting institutional memory in both parties, reducing the destructive discontent of being in the minority, and improving committee members’ sense of proposals’ prospects on the House floor.