The recent Senate Finance Committee hearing featuring Secretary Robert Kennedy only further confused those of us seeking guidance on vaccine recommendations. And it was clear to a national audience that the discourse within Congress is unproductive. We hoped for a consultation with our “nation’s doctor” and, instead of answers, got a brawl.
It wasn’t just that hearing. Hearings, as they’re currently designed—opening statements by the chairman and ranking member, statements by witnesses, and a five minute, per-Senator questions-and-answer session—fail to result in informative, constructive conversation. Mostly hearings are disjointed and boring for everyone in the room not talking.
These hearings are contributing to our faltered legislative process, but they are not the only factor. Administrations are no longer submitting bills to Congress for consideration, and Congress and its staff don’t have the capacity the executive branch has to write comprehensive proposals. And bill writing, once the purview of committees, is being usurped by leadership offices that understandably craft conference-wide deals to pass the House and Senate with narrow margins. Those factors combined cause committees to lose their importance, skills, and expertise. The consequence is a backlog of issues Congress should address (and knows it should) but can’t. There are issues on which no consensus exists. But there’s broad agreement on some like permitting and immigration reform, cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence policy, and Social Security Trust Fund solvency where progress could be made, if a better legislative process existed.
Congress has previously dealt with politically challenging-but-necessary issues through the creation of expedited legislative processes. One of my favorite examples is the Base-Realignment and Closure Commission’s process, which resulted in Congress approving military base closures five times at the end of the Cold War. Another example is the Trade Act, which was designed to authorize and implement trade agreements through its fast-track process. Both examples are straightforward: comprehensive proposals were submitted to Congress for up or down votes, and most were approved.
Some argue that those processes limit Congress’ power to consider and amend legislation. But effective processes empower Congress to act more like a board of directors than a working group that’s bogged down by information gathering about rapidly evolving issues, consensus building, and dealmaking. I mean do we really think Congress will be able to legislate AI policy at an appropriate rate?!
Meanwhile, other countries are creating and implementing new policies faster. While those countries may be autocratic and offend our sensibilities, they are passing the United States in key areas, in part because they can update policies at a pace commensurate with rapid changes in markets and technology. We must be perspicacious that preserving democracy requires a well-functioning democracy.
Congress can address some of the Nation’s more significant challenges more effectively if it’s willing to abandon its long-held working group approach and become our national board of directors. It should create commissions like BRAC to fast-track policy proposals and their approvals or rejections. It would not only ease the dealmaking bottleneck of time-sensitive issues like permitting reform and AI policy, but it would also ease the frustration among Congress and those of us observing from the sidelines.
Being a member of a 435- or 100-person working group is generally miserable. But being a member of the board of directors of the United States would improve the lives of members of Congress and, most importantly, all Americans.