A common complaint of liberals in the early 1960s was that Congress was controlled by a conservative cabal of southern Democrats and Republicans that blocked consideration of progressive legislation like President John F. Kennedy’s “New Frontier” agenda.
A spate of political science books identified what I call, “The three horses of the congressional apocalypse”: The Senate filibuster, the House Rules Committee and the seniority system that automatically elevated the longest serving committee members to chairmanships.
Those criticisms faded somewhat in the mid to late 60s, when Kennedy’s successor, President Lyndon B. Johnson, demonstrated that most of the civil rights and domestic agenda items could be enacted without changing any rules.
It didn’t hurt that LBJ had swollen Democratic majorities to work with, and that he had previously served as a skilled and successful Senate majority leader.
Nevertheless, Congress did deal with the liberal critiques, one-by-one. In 1975, the Senate filibuster’s two-thirds cloture vote to end debate was reduced to three-fifths. Much later, judicial and executive branch nominees were exempted from filibusters. The House Rules Committee’s conservative hold on bills was broken by expanding the committee from 12 to 13 members. And the seniority system was replaced by majority caucus votes to elect committee chairs.
Today, criticisms of Congress continue. There’s always something standing in the way of institutional progress and productivity — namely the separation of powers between and within the branches, the widening chasm between the parties, and the dour and angry mood of the American electorate.
Two weeks ago, the House Rules Committee held its required biennial “Member Day Hearing on Proposed Rules Changes for the 119th Congress” (2025-26). Ten members testified at the hearing on their reform proposals and several others submitted their ideas in writing.
A key witness was Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.), who six years ago chaired the first bipartisan Select Committee on Modernization of Congress (2019-2020) with co-chair Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.), to propose changes in the institution to help bring it into the 21st century. The panel was so popular that the House renewed it in the 117th Congress (2021-22), with Kilmer again as chair and Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.) as co-chair. In this Congress, Kilmer and Timmons perpetuated the reform momentum by establishing a bipartisan “Fix Congress Caucus.”
Over the last six years, many of the more than 200 reforms recommended by the select modernization committees have been adopted either administratively or by rules changes. Kilmer’s appearance before the Rules Committee last month was perhaps his formal swan song, as he is retiring from the House at the end of this 118th Congress.
A central finding of the Kilmer select committees was that Congress was failing to get things done because members are practically conditioned not to cooperate with the other party. Former House Speaker Thomas P. (“Tip”) O’Neill, Jr. (D-Mass.) is credited with telling his Democratic caucus, “The House Republicans are not the enemy, they’re the opposition. The Senate is the enemy.”
Nevertheless, partisan warfare quickly overcame that homily. The opposing party’s members are now treated as enemy combatants and not as colleagues you can work with on national problems. The more the combat metaphor is baked in, the less members can even socialize across the aisle, let alone work together.
Kilmer recognized that a vital first step in reversing this trend is to devise ways for members to get to know each personally, regardless of party. To start this process, he recommends a non-policy bipartisan retreat at the outset of every Congress with attendance mandatory. His second proposal (out of five) is that all committees hold planning meetings at the start of a Congress to develop a bipartisan legislative agenda for that Congress. In other words, get off on the right foot by discussing the things you think you can accomplish together.
The comic strip character, Pogo, identified the problem: “We have met the enemy and they are us.” Anna, the teacher in “The King and I,” identified the solution in the song, “Getting to Know You.” The basic truth that resonates in both is that members cannot advance the interests of the institution and country until they first learn to trust and respect each other, regardless of party. That entails getting to know each other personally.
It all sounds so simple, obvious and workable. Unfortunately, most party leaders see their job as doing all they can to keep the two sides apart so they can distinguish themselves from “the other” when it comes to elections. I will not attempt to grapple here with how that dynamic can be changed. That’s what caucus leadership elections are all about.
Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief-of-staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of “Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial” (2000), and, “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays” (2018).
