Committee Reform
Ezra Klein says we should get rid of the Agriculture Commitees in the House and Senate. Which we probably should. But it really is worth emphasizing that the committee structure as a whole leaves a lot to be desired. The standing committees work well enough for the basic oversight functions, but as a way of getting legislation written it’s mostly a means of introducing additional veto points and giving special interests disproportionate influence over the process. The case for the committees is that having a group of members who specialize in a given issue could produce better legislation. The fact of the matter, however, is that while congress acting as a check on the executive is important in our system, it’s generally not all that desirable for congress to be actively shaping the details of public policy. The Obama administration has sound tactical reasons for leaving the details of energy and health policy up to congress, but you don’t actually get superior policy this way—among other things, congressional staff don’t have the same level of technical expertise available to the administration.
Traditionally, progressives have understood themselves to have an interest in strengthening the hand of the congressional leadership relative to senior committee members. I think my practical suggestion would be that for major legislative priorities it would make sense to have the leadership appoint special ad hoc select committees, rather than having multiple drafts of a bill circulate (as we’re seeing in the Senate with health care) or have a given bill go through multiple committees (as we’re seeing in the House with climate change). The model would look a bit like the “tri-Committee” process the House is using for health care, but you’d try to keep the membership roster down to a normal size. The idea would be that if you were going to propose a major overhaul of, say, agriculture policy you wouldn’t just leave the henhouse in the hands of the foxes. Instead you’d appoint a special “let’s overhaul agriculture policy” committee with a view to selecting a membership likely to write a bill that’s both good and likely to pass. That would mean some representation for farm interests, of course, but also representation of other kinds of interests.
21 Responses to “Committee Reform”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 1st, 2009 at 5:35 pm
The naive assumption here is that Congress (especially the Democrats in Congress) have any interest at all in good government.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
The thing I wonder is all these great ideas of Matt’s regarding the elimination of the filibuster and the overhaul of the Congressional system to give the leadership and Executive branch greater authority seems to coincide with Democratic leadership. Would Matt feel comfortable removing all the relevant roadblocks he so despises were Republicans in power, thus effectively giving a green light to things like ANWR drilling? I would point out that we can’t change the rules for only when the pendulum has swung left–we have to live with whatever we do when the Republicans take back power.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I would love to see some support for this statement:
“among other things, congressional staff don’t have the same level of technical expertise available to the administration.”
It’s simply not the case. Committees are much more robust and enduring than administrations. A new administration takes a long time to get going in bring in political appointees, who are the ones responsible for policy formation. If Matt is referring to access to career employees, there is very little difference in their availability to Departments and to their relevant oversight Committees.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:53 pm
The fact of the matter, however, is that while congress acting as a check on the executive is important in our system, it’s generally not all that desirable for congress to be actively shaping the details of public policy.
You have got be kidding me.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Wouldn’t you be grateful for the veto points and filibuster powers if there was a government in place trying to push through a bunch of rightwing policies you opposed?
July 1st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
The fact of the matter, however, is that while congress acting as a check on the executive is important in our system, it’s generally not all that desirable for congress to be actively shaping the details of public policy.
I wonder how it is that Congress is supposed to act as a check on the executive without being involved in the details of public policy. Should Congress just be an up or down vote on the initiatives of Obama?
What a total hack-job of a post.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Although congress is ineffective, it does reflect the citizenry and acts as agent.
What if, instead of blaming congress, we began to call out the people they act for? What if we began to ostracize the bankers, doctors, health insurers, pharmas, polluters, etc?
Maybe a campaign to name a ‘villain of the week’ on all progrssive blogs would help.
Probably not. But if being a greedy, destructive asshole had more downside, there might be fewer of them.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:52 pm
I don’t see that this would change anything. The members of the “ad hoc” committees would contain the members that are percieved as being the most qualified to soeak on the topic. These members are most likely already on the corresponding committee.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Talk about taking a good idea (committee reform) and running it off a cliff. “The fact of the matter, however, is that while congress acting as a check on the executive is important in our system, it’s generally not all that desirable for congress to be actively shaping the details of public policy.” Actively shaping public policy is what Congress is for - it’s called legislation.
Now, it’s true that Committees have a problem with being captured by their interests, but there are other better ways to solve the problem by devolving to ad hoc committees without the institutional legacy or staff needed to apply expertise. A much simpler solution would be to have a regional balance requirement on committees (to prevent farm states from overloading the committees), liberalizing the discharge process for forcing a bill to the floor without going through committees, and/or requiring rotation of committee status every, say, 8 years.
However, I do like the idea of tri-committees for major pieces of legislation, just as a way to speed things up and avoid overlap and duplication of effort.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Woops. Forgot to close em tag there.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:23 pm
I might be wrong on the facts here, but I think the Senate lacks term limited committee chairmanships that are (or perhaps were, it appears they were axed in the 111th congress rules?) a feature of the House. It seems like a pretty good idea that would go a small way towards addressing your problem.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Looks like pretty much everyone beat me to it:
“Actively shaping public policy is what Congress is for – it’s called legislation.”
July 1st, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Weak.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Why can’t we just make it illegal for corporations to give money to them? If they had to depend on maximum donations of $2300 per voter they would obviously start representing their constituents instead of the corporations.
How freaking braindead is our system that this could be legal. It’s bribery, pure and simple – quid pro quo. It’s not democracy. It’s ruining our country our economy and our lives.
W T F
July 1st, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Everyone has already (rightly) jumped on Matt for advocating a purely rubber-stamp role for Congress–a truly scary thought if you have any sense of history–so I’ll just add that I think the ability of Congress to seriously investigate and collect information is often highly underrated. Indeed, properly understood, on an important matter the expertise of the Executive Branch just becomes one of the many possible sources of information for Congress.
That said, it is true that we operate in a split rule-making system these days, with Congress making some rules through laws, and agencies making other rules through regulations. But that just means we have to figure out what matters are best dealt with in which way, rather than implying that we should just remove Congress from the system like it was the appendix.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Colin Peterson would smite anyone who even thinks about getting rid of the Agriculture committees.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:10 am
Wouldn’t you be grateful for the veto points and filibuster powers if there was a government in place trying to push through a bunch of rightwing policies you opposed?
No, because they would steamroll right over them and/or just blatantly break the law confident that they would get away with it.
Honestly, have you been living under a rock for the last three decades? The Republican agenda has never been held up even for a second by “veto points and filibuster powers”. The only thing that stopped them was actually losing elections.
So why should the Democrats play with one hand tied behind their back? That will only lead to two giant steps to the right, two tiny steps to the left, repeat until the country falls off a cliff.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
[...] Klein calls for disbanding the agriculture committees. Matt Yglesias comments that the committee structure itself is the bigger problem. I recommend to both commentators Theodore Lowi’s The End of [...]
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Zach Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 7:23 pm
I might be wrong on the facts here, but I think the Senate lacks term limited committee chairmanships that are (or perhaps were, it appears they were axed in the 111th congress rules?) a feature of the House. It seems like a pretty good idea that would go a small way towards addressing your problem.
============================================================
More appalling ignorance of history on MYglesias’ part. Part of the much maligned Republican Contract with America was the imposition of term limits on committee chairs to break up some of the concentrations of committee power. Matt’s progressive friends in Congress ABOLISHED the term limits as part of their “committee reform”. Jeez
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17043.html
GOP protests term limit change
Republican leaders, led by Ohio Rep. John A. Boehner, are protesting a move by Democrats to end the six-year term limits on committee chairmen and roll back other protections for the minority party.
Democrats are expected to include these changes – which would rewrite reforms first established by the GOP in 1995 — in a biennial rules package that will be among the first measures the House takes up later this week.
In a letter to be sent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Monday, Boehner and colleagues in the GOP House leadership promise that “Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.”
But the Democrats’ expanded majority means Republicans have almost no hope of blocking these changes.
Republicans first established the six-year term limits in 1995 after storming to power for the first time in 40 years. The new rules helped then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Calif.) consolidate power by ending the era of all-powerful chairmen. Pelosi has continued to consolidate power in the speaker’s office by regularly circumventing the committee process on priority bills.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
“That would mean some representation for farm interests, of course, but also representation of other kinds of interests”
You are exactly describing lobbyists writing bills.
Something you hated in a past administration.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
You should look at the committee structure in the British Parliament, where there are separate committee systems for oversight/investigation (permanent membership, subject matter ‘jurisdiction’) and for legislating (bill specific, ad hoc membership, government-dominated, lacking effective veto power)