Friday, September 28, 2018

Reform? Why Didn't They Propose It While Ryan Is Speaker?

>

The chairmen

Normally nothing worthwhile ever comes out of the so-called "problem solvers caucus," which is made up of right-of-center Democrats from the Republican wing of the party and a handful of mainstream conservatives, most of whom are about to be defeated in the midterms. The caucus is connected to the single most corrupt organization operating on the fringes of Congress, No Labels. But they actually came up with something worthwhile, a package of House rules changes that virtually everyone in Congress wants except for the corrupt leadership of both parties. Melanie Zanona wrote it up for The Hill. The "problem solvers" are threatening to withhold support for the next Speaker (i.e., a Democrat, of course) unless they get their way. Basically, they're demanding that Pelosi "agrees to dramatically reform the House rules." So far 19 members of the 48-member caucus-- 10 conservative Democrats and 9 Republican-- have signed on, including Mike Coffman (R-CO), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Tom O'Halleran (D-AZ). The Blue Dog caucus is likely to embrace the idea as well.
Leaders of the Problem Solvers Caucus [Republican Tom Reed of New York and Blue Dog Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey] have been working for months to get lawmakers on board with the effort, which they say is an attempt to “break the gridlock” in Washington.

The caucus, evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, unveiled a package of rule reforms this summer that are intended to make the House more bipartisan and inclusive. That step required agreement from 75 percent of the group and more than 50 percent of the caucus members of each party to formally back the proposal.

The proposal includes giving fast-track consideration to any bill with widespread support, making it easier to add amendments to legislation and making it harder for a small group of rebellious lawmakers to oust the House Speaker.

The package also would grant members a markup on one piece of legislation per session if it has a co-sponsor from the opposite party, as well as mandate a joint bipartisan meeting at the beginning of every Congress.

All of the ideas are designed to redistribute power, which reform advocates argue is too concentrated at the top, and empower more rank-and-file members in both parties.

“There’s too much power in too few hands,” Coffman said.

But for the proposal to actually have spine, the caucus is taking the next-- and more difficult-- step: asking lawmakers not to support the next Speaker unless the candidate agrees to overhaul the House rules.

The idea has picked up some steam, especially as lawmakers grow increasingly frustrated with the gridlock and polarization in Congress. In recent years, the far-right House Freedom Caucus has been highly successful at holding legislation on the House floor hostage by banding together as a unified voting bloc.

“We’re all frustrated. We want to govern again,” Gottheimer said.

Members of the Problem Solvers Caucus hope to sell their “break the gridlock” idea on the campaign trail this fall, where they think it will be a strong selling point.

“Of all the issues that concern residents in the district that I serve, the most important issue is not health care or taxation or immigration,” said Lance, who is in a tough reelection race. “The most important issue is bipartisan cooperation... And that is what we are attempting to do.”

The idea has some precedent for success: In 1923, a group of progressive Republicans demanded congressional reforms and withheld their votes for Speaker until the demands were heeded.

But any effort to loosen the Speaker’s-- or majority’s-- grip on power is likely to face fierce resistance from the old guard in both parties.
Hoyer appears to have endorsed at least part of their proposal. The problem solvers who are either definitely not going to be in Congress next year of likely to lose their reelection battles include:
Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)
Jackie Rosen (D-NV)
Elizabeth Esty (D-CT)
Richard Nolan (D-MN)
Jared Polis (D-CO)
Ryan Costello (R-PA)
Mike Coffman (R-CO)
Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)
Charlie Dent (R-PA)
John Faso (R-NY)
Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
John Katko (R-NY)
Leonard Lance (R-NJ)
Dave Trott (R-MI)
Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)
Tom MacArthur (R-NJ)
Patrick Murphy (R-PA)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
David Young (R-IA)

Labels: ,

1 Comments:

At 9:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't see anything that would force the speaker or the chairmen of any committees to advance a bill that they don't want to advance.

Fast track and markups and so on are only relevant if a bill is being considered in the chamber. They are moot on bills that are at the bottom of the "do not open" drawer in the speaker's/chairman's desk.


 

Post a Comment

<< Home