Carl P. Leubsdorf

For months, supporters of the embattled Ukrainians have contended there was a bipartisan House majority that would back continued U.S. military support if only its Republican leaders would allow a vote.

Their contention was proven correct last weekend when the House passed a $95 billion package of support for Ukraine and other frontline democracies with the support of a majority of Democrats and a significant minority of Republicans.

The long-sought House action came after Republican Speaker Mike Johnson yielded to months of “education” and political pressure from the Biden administration and crafted a package that surmounted political divisions. It combined aid for Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine with a GOP plan to force the sale of TikTok and use seized Russian assets for Ukraine’s reconstruction.

But both the result and the way it was achieved showed it was possible to break the partisan gridlock that has made acting so difficult if lawmakers are willing to do something about self-imposed procedural barriers that are often greater impediments to action than substantive disagreements.

For example, many analysts believe that the Senate had the votes to pass the immigration and border control package crafted by a bipartisan group headed by Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford, though it was stricter than most Democrats preferred and less strict than Republicans wanted.

But then, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump pressured the Senate GOP to prevent the measure from being considered. It was even possible that, had the Senate acted, a bipartisan majority could have been mustered for it in this Republican House — if its leaders allowed a vote.

To underscore the point, it should be noted that, despite the bitter partisan divisions in this Congress, its most significant achievements have stemmed from bipartisan agreements that enabled its leaders to override minority factions in both parties — the bill aiding Ukraine and the earlier measures to extend the debt ceiling and fund the government.

Bipartisan agreements were also possible for the main achievements of the previous Congress, in which Democrats enjoyed slim majorities in both houses: the bills to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, restore U.S. leadership in chips production, and deal with climate change.

In all of these cases, the keys to success were surmounting the built-in barriers that make governing so difficult and permitting votes by the full House and Senate.

In the Senate, increased partisanship has undermined a landmark reform adopted nearly a half-century ago that was supposed to make it easier for the majority to prevent a minority from blocking action.

In 1975, a bipartisan majority lowered from two-thirds to 60 the number of senators needed to limit debate. But since 1979, except for a brief period in 2009-10, no majority party has had as many as 60 votes. That’s made it easy for the minority party to obstruct whatever its members didn’t like — including preventing any debate at all.

In the case of the immigration proposal, Trump was more interested in using it as a political cudgel against Joe Biden in the presidential campaign than in actually doing something — and his fellow Republicans acquiesced. Few doubt it would have passed if they had allowed a vote.

Passing important bills might become easier if the Senate agreed to exempt motions to consider them from the filibuster rule, while leaving it in place on the legislation itself. Having some degree of debate would give supporters of important bills an opportunity to increase public pressure on a recalcitrant minority, while preserving its right of extended debate.

In the House, one of the main institutional barriers has been the GOP’s policy — initiated by former Speaker Dennis Hastert — to only consider measures supported by a “majority of the majority.”

That kept GOP Speaker John Boehner from bringing up a 2013 Senate-passed bipartisan immigration compromise that could probably have passed the House. It’s a barrier the current speaker, Johnson, opted several times to ignore, permitting the House to fund the government and pass last weekend’s aid bill.

The House would be more governable if Republicans formally scrapped their “majority of the majority” requirement, which allows a partisan minority to prevent a bipartisan majority from acting.

One reason the previous House could effectively govern was that the Democratic majority had no such requirement. Still, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi always made sure she had the votes before bringing legislation before the full House.

Unfortunately, Johnson’s initiative has opened the way for its far-right GOP faction to seek a possible vote next week on removing him as speaker, like they did with his predecessor, Kevin McCarthy. It would hardly be surprising if, after he allowed the Ukraine aid vote, some Democrats might help save him.

Last weekend’s votes may be the last major congressional action before the November elections. Although Congress will still have to fund the government for the year starting Oct. 1, it’s likely to delay any major decisions until after the election – and possibly next year.

But next year, these institutional issues will again be relevant, given the likelihood that whichever party wins the presidency will likely face close margins in both houses, regardless of which party has formal control.

Removing institutional barriers to consideration of important legislation by the full House and Senate would make it more likely that actions such as last weekend’s votes in the House can become the rule, rather than the exception.Carl P. Leubsdorf is the former Washington bureau chief of The Dallas Morning News.