Political bias and ignorance about the functioning of the House of Representatives have led to highly misleading coverage of Kevin McCarthy’s election as speaker. Claims that McCarthy made concessions to his opposition that would endanger his leadership and create chaos in the House were particularly false.

It’s true that some of McCarthy’s concessions, like placing three members of the Freedom Caucus on the powerful Rules Committee, will strengthen the power of that conservative group, but it very much depends on who those members turn out to be. Many members of the Freedom Caucus supported McCarthy’s election as speaker, and it’s likely the members he chooses will be these allies. The idea that one member could file a motion that the speaker vacate the chair was a particular favorite of media commentators, but the rule has had long standing in the House. It was filed twice, once 110 years ago and in 2015, when it was never invoked. Changing it from five members to one member—as McCarthy’s opposition requested—doesn’t make it materially stronger or more likely to be used. The reasons are simple. It’s a gimmick, invoked only twice in over 100 years. No single member would do it without a lot of backers, so whether the motion is filed by one or five doesn’t matter. The whole caucus would have to approve it before it would have any effect, and that’s impossible except under the most implausible circumstances.

The real change that McCarthy and other Republicans were discussing was how to restore “regular order” for House legislative functions. This would be a return to how the House had traditionally functioned, and although it will cause some delay it will be better for the American people, and even for Democratic opposition members.

Under “regular order,” the House follows specific rules for bringing legislation to the floor. The process begins at a committee or subcommittee, where legislative language is proposed, debated, and amended through votes by members of both parties. This often means the minority members acquire a stake in amendments they propose at the subcommittee or committee level. Accordingly, when ultimately enacted, this legislation is often bipartisan in the sense that members of both parties have been able to make changes to meet their ideological or party policies.

“Regular order” was not followed as a rule under Nancy Pelosi’s speakership, nor was it followed by the other Republican speakers who preceded or followed her.

The procedures generally followed by Pelosi as speaker were to have legislation drafted by a committee chair and some staff specialists working for the chair or the speaker. The completed draft might then be adopted by the appropriate committee—usually on a party-line vote—and sent to the speaker’s office, where further changes would be made before it was sent to the floor.

Members of the minority party would have had no opportunity to study or vote on the legislation before it was introduced, and the bill would pass the House if the majority party voted for it, often without actually knowing what was in it. The most recent example of this highly undemocratic way of enacting legislation was the $1.7 trillion omnibus legislation for funding the government that passed two weeks ago. Very few, if any, rank-and-file members knew what was in this monster, but it was certain to have been loaded with gifts from Speaker Pelosi to her key supporters as well as funds for Democratic priorities.

With “regular order,” a lot of the concessions made by Speaker McCarthy would give committees and subcommittees more latitude to modify legislation. Media commentators wrongly assume that this would result in chaos, even though it was the traditional way that legislation was developed and passed by the House throughout its history.

“Regular order” is time-consuming, of course, but it gives members of both parties an opportunity to affect what the House ultimately adopts. Sometimes, as debates ensue “regular order” could also look chaotic, but the value of the system is that it allows every House member to have an opportunity to participate in the legislative process, and encourages legislation that attracts the votes of members from both parties.

Instead of predicting chaos for a House led by Kevin McCarthy, it would have been helpful for the American people to have better informed commentators who understood what Speaker McCarthy and his fellow Republicans were really talking about.

The post Speaker McCarthy’s “Concessions” Will Improve America’s Legislative Process appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.