Top 9 reasons Congress is broken

Congress's approval rating is barely at 10 percent, and the venerable institution is filled with such rancor that moderates such as Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) of Maine are fleeing the place. From people who've previously served on the Hill comes this assessment of the top nine problems Congress faces today.

6. The filibuster

Dennis Cook/AP/File
Republican Sens. Thad Cochran of Mississippi (l.) and Pete Domenici of New Mexico (now retired) discuss the battle over filibusters of judicial nominees on Capitol Hill in May 2005.

The Senate filibuster – the parliamentary procedure that lets a single senator halt any legislation lacking the 60 votes needed to overcome his or her disapproval – has left many a bill to die in the upper chamber. 

But use of the filibuster – and the associated "cloture" vote – has become a choke point in Senate business. 

“The filibuster rule is abused in a way that I think no one ever really contemplated,” says Downey.

Want proof? Votes on cloture – the vote to overcome a filibuster – have skyrocketed in recent years. The last two sessions of Congress have produced 137 and 139 cloture votes, respectively. Before then, no Senate had gone much over 80. It took the Senate 57 years (1917 to 1974) to cross a total of 100 cloture votes. 

A political system with so many "veto points," such as the filibuster, is a key problem, says David Karol, a political scientist at the University of Maryland. Where some might blame today's political parties, Mr. Karol says such fractiousness among parties was common throughout American history. "These political parties are natural and normal, and so it's not that easy to change them," he says. "But we could at least make a government so that when people win the election as Democrats did in 2008 and as Republicans did before that, that they can govern.”

Two senior senators, Carl Levin (D) of Michigan and Lamar Alexander (R) of Tennessee, recently wrote an op-ed arguing that “self-restraint” is the key to improving the Senate and limiting the legislative shackles imposed by frequent use of the filibuster. 

Why the need for self-restraint? “Frequently,” they write, “senators in the majority think those in the minority introduce amendments to delay bills or raise extraneous issues. Those in the minority think the majority unduly restricts consideration of amendments. The result is often gridlock.”

How could the filibuster, an important tool to preserve the Senate's historic function as a body that is more deliberate and more protective of the minority party’s prerogative than is the House, be adjusted to make the Senate work better?

“In exchange for allowing a bill to come to the floor without the 60-vote exercise,” they write, “every senator would agree to limit consideration of amendments to those relevant to the bill before us. Vigorous and extended debate on the substance of important bills would still take place. Senators would have ample opportunity to offer amendments. But our proposal would give senators a more effective way to deal with the issues voters expect us to consider and would help restore public confidence in the Senate.”

6 of 9

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.