Four changes in the day-to-day work of Congress that could meaningfully improve governance.

The Supreme Court — a body of nine unelected judges who, once confirmed, can serve for life — plays an increasingly powerful role in shaping the laws that govern our country. In recent decades, on topics as varied as labor, employment law, health care and immigration, the court has served as the final arbiter on issues that should be, at least constitutionally speaking, in Congress’ hands.

For 30 years, Congress has been able to rein in the power of federal agencies through the Congressional Review Act, a law that allows federal regulations to be overturned with a simple majority and a signature from the president. A similar check should be extended to an increasingly heavy-handed Supreme Court when it considers matters of statute. Congress could have, for example, 30 days to decide whether to respond to a court ruling, and another 30 days for a committee to propose a clarification or revision of the statute — under a fast-track process. This reform would put our most representative branch — Congress — back in charge of the public policy decisions that impact us all.

Ganesh Sitaraman is a professor at Vanderbilt Law School and director of the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator.

It’s politically infeasible and downright unpopular to say out loud, but competitive compensation for public servants is a key piece of more effective government. In our government capacity work at the Federation of American Scientists, we think seriously about talent and how placing the best and brightest people in government helps deliver results taxpayers deserve. For instance, we need competitive salaries to attract the best tech talent to government agencies the same way private companies need strong salaries to improve their products. Similarly, we need competitive salaries in Congress to secure top legislators and excellent staffers. Members and staff make sacrifices to serve, and when more lucrative opportunities pull talent off the Hill, it makes it all the more difficult for Congress to retain the people it needs to meaningfully govern.

Gil Ruiz is director of government affairs at the Federation of American Scientists.

Americans can agree on at least one thing: Congress has become dysfunctional. Yet they might be surprised to learn that a simple procedural change — restoring the ability to amend bills — could reverse that trend.

Throughout the 20th century, legislators in both parties could offer amendments on the floor and receive votes on them. This forced negotiation and compromise. To pass a bill, the majority had to engage with the minority’s ideas, debating and often incorporating them.

Today, that system has largely vanished. Floor debate is tightly controlled by party leadership to protect members from “tough” votes. In the House, most bills now arrive under “closed rules” that prohibit any amendments. In the Senate, leaders “fill the amendment tree” to block minority input.

When lawmakers can’t try to improve or moderate legislation, the minority’s only leverage becomes obstruction. The majority responds by further restricting debate. The result is the cycle Americans see today: fewer negotiated laws, more procedural warfare and a Congress that appears incapable of governing.

Guaranteeing a fair opportunity for members of both parties to offer amendments and receive votes on them could singlehandedly improve how Congress functions, and perhaps even help restore public faith in our democracy.

Ben Olinsky is the senior vice president for structural reform and governance policy and a senior fellow for economic policy at the Center for American Progress.

Congress’s day-to-day functioning would improve significantly if the Senate ended silent procedural obstruction and instead required the talking filibuster — thereby promoting visible, sustained debate on major legislation.

Polling consistently shows broad support for mandating proof of citizenship to vote — which means that legislation like the SAVE America Act deserves real debate and a clear up-or-down outcome. Congress should not allow the bill to stall through procedural delay, especially when the public is this aligned on protecting the integrity of our elections. The same is true for core responsibilities like funding the Department of Homeland Security at a time of heightened national security risk. Differences of opinion warrant deliberation — not quiet procedural delay.

Unified government carries responsibility. When voters deliver governing majorities, Congress should deliberate openly and decide decisively. Visible debate strengthens legitimacy, clarifies differences and restores public trust.

Chris Wingate is the government relations director at The Heritage Foundation and a former staffer for Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. He is a retired Army lieutenant colonel and aeromedical evacuation officer. Heritage is listed for identification purposes only. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect any institutional position for Heritage or its board of trustees.