Until the latter part of the 20th Century, proxy voting, a practice allowing Members to have another way to cast their vote, was a regular part of Congress. While this questionable practice may have disappeared, the practice of postponing votes is alive and well and nearly the same.
The election of Speaker Ryan brought with it a commitment to unify the chamber, reform the legislative process, and provide all Members with access to participate in the legislative process.
{mosads}With just a few days on the job, it is already apparent Speaker Ryan is taking the right steps. Simply look at the Surface Transportation bill recently on the floor– it is clear things are different. While not a bill he crafted or wanted, Speaker Ryan honored his word and allowed for an expansive debate and a number of amendments. House Leadership is more inclusive. Momentum is building and change is occurring.
But we cannot rest on the successes that have already come. We need to continue to reform and reinvigorate to transform this institution back into the ‘people’s House.’ To do this, the House should amend its voting procedures and practices to institute real time voting. Currently, whether an open rule, or an extremely stifled modified rule (limiting amendments and debate), the House postpones the majority of requested votes. As a result, when Members come to the floor to vote, the most common question in Congress is, “What does this do.” Postponing votes out of convenience has been to the detriment of knowledge.
The practice we are requesting is very simple. As a bill is debated on the floor and the amendment process is ongoing, we should not postpone any vote. Rather, we should require the House to vote immediately after debate on any vote where a roll call was requested.
Think about it. When a bill is called up, amendment debate begins. 10 minutes of debate, followed immediately by a roll call vote, when requested, and on to the next amendment. Members would have to be on or near the floor until the bill is passed, or until the House recesses. Meaning Members would, practically speaking, be in the floor, listening to debate.
Members working on the floor for extended periods of time, unlike the current practice, would be forced to listen to each other, contemplate their arguments, ask follow up questions, and ultimately work through disagreement. Members would start to get to know each other, know what each other cares about, know what is important to their district and their constituents, and ultimately get to know how they can work together.
This process reduces the possibility of backroom deals, and leadership directing legislation by limiting amendments during the rules process. It allows all Members, both Republican and Democrat, to have a voice, as the new leadership has promised to provide.
It would be painful at the start. The first bill brought up would likely see hundreds of amendments. This is not a bad thing. Ultimately, a slow start would have a positive effect on the legislative process. Members would begin to self-regulate the amendment process, holding each other accountable to offer only germane amendments that add to the debate. Leadership would only bring up legislation that has broad bipartisan consensus, knowing without it the bill could face dramatic changes on the floor.
We know some will doubt this concept, others will dismiss it as heresy, and others will argue real time voting will create complete dysfunction in the House – citing unlimited amendments for every bill as unreasonable, unrealistic, and unmanageable. We could not disagree more.
Separately, we have both advocated for this procedural change with the new Speaker. Instead of being dismissive and reserved, the Speaker, while noncommittal, was open to the idea and quick to engage with insightful follow-up questions. Furthering the discussion, the idea was recently pitched during a House Freedom Caucus meeting, and it was requested that the concept be adopted as an official position.
Real time voting allows, and ultimately requires, all Members to listen, participate, and be on the floor to do the job we were elected to do. The institution would begin to work more effectively, craft better legislation, and have greater unity. Votes would not come down to Republicans vs. Democrats, us vs. them. Legislation and amendments no longer will be centered around party politics, but rather on individuals working together to make their communities and nation strong. At the end of the end of the day, this is why we are all here.
Bishop has represented Utah’s 1st Congressional District since 2003. He is chairman of the Natural Resources Committee and also sits on the Armed Services Committee. Pearce has represented New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District since 2011 and previously from 2003 to 2009. He sits on the Financial Services Committee.