Renewing the House of Representatives

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

By Jeremy Dalrymple, Jason M. Roberts, and Alex Tausanovitch

From Protect Democracy and R Street

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.