The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress — Report No. 116-562 (October 2020)
Summary
This is the Final Report of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, Report No. 116-562, Union Calendar No. 460, dated October 2020, with Chair Derek Kilmer and Vice Chair Tom Graves named on the cover. A cover notation reads October 27, 2020, Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed. The contents list an introduction, a history and background section, and twelve chapters of recommendations covering topics such as transparency, civility and bipartisanship, congressional capacity, House technology, the budget and appropriations process, and the congressional schedule. An opening letter from the Chair and Vice Chair describes the Committee as bipartisan and says it received an extension through the 116th Congress.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
Cite this document
“The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress — Report No. 116-562 (October 2020).”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/crpt-gpo-crpt-116hrpt562-gpo-crpt-116hrpt562/
, SHA-256 4a3b086debd82ed4f5be1bd362a774b88ee7705b24b0627f078ba621ff3955ba.Full text
THE SELECT COMMITTEE
ON THE MODERNIZATION
OF CONGRESS
FINAL REPORT
REPORT NO. 116-562
OCTOBER
2020
CHAIR DEREK KILMER
VICE CHAIR TOM GRAVES
THE SELECT COMMITTEE
ON THE MODERNIZATION
OF CONGRESS
FINAL REPORT
REPORT NO. 116-562
UNION CALENDAR NO. 460
OCTOBER
2020
OCTOBER 27, 2020.—
Committed to the
CHAIR DEREK KILMER Committee of the
VICE CHAIR TOM GRAVES Whole House on the
State of the Union and
ordered to be printed
Contents
I. Introduction
Opening Letter from Chair Derek Kilmer and Vice Chair Tom Graves
Members of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress
Recommendations Passed by the Select Committee on the Modernization
of Congress
Committee Packages that Passed the House
II. History and Background of the Select Committee on the Modernization of
Congress
Past Congressional Reform Efforts
III. Recommendations of the Select Committee on the Modernization of
Congress
Chapter 1 — Make Congress More Effective, Efficient, and Transparent
Chapter 2 — Encourage Civility and Bipartisanship in Congress
Chapter 3 — Improve Congressional Capacity
Chapter 4 — Overhaul the Onboarding Process and Provide Continuing
Education for Members
Chapter 5 — Make the House Accessible for All Americans
Chapter 6 — Modernize and Revitalize House Technology
Chapter 7 — Streamline Processes and Save Taxpayer Dollars
Chapter 8 — Increase the Quality of Constituent Communication and the
Congressional Frank
Chapter 9 — Continuity of Government and Congressional Operations
Chapter 10 — Reclaim Congress’ Article One Responsibilities
Chapter 11 — Reform the Budget and Appropriations Process —
Recommendations from the Joint Select Committee on
Budget and Appropriations Reforms
Chapter 12 — Improve the Congressional Schedule and Calendar
IV. Conclusion
Areas for Future Reform
I. Introduction
Opening Letter from Chair Derek Kilmer and Vice Chair
Tom Graves
Every so often, Congress establishes bipartisan select committees to
look inward, reflect, and propose reforms that allow its Members and
operations to work better for the American people.
At the beginning of the 116th Congress, one of the first votes Congress
took was to establish the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.
As the leaders of this truly bipartisan committee—six Republicans and six
Democrats—we take this task seriously. We are committed to finding a path
forward on some of the tough issues facing the legislative branch, and
delivering durable solutions for the future.
The Committee was tasked with researching and offering solutions to
strengthen the legislative branch. This includes a wide range of issues, from
improving technology and increasing transparency, to reclaiming Congress’
Article One powers, and exploring a more productive congressional calendar.
The scope is massive. The mission is vital to the future of our government and
our nation.
We knew that if we were going to enact real change, a new approach
would be needed. We started by emphasizing bipartisanship at every level of
our committee—we worked together not as Republicans or Democrats, but as
colleagues. We shared our resources and staff, and continually sought out
compromises that an overwhelming majority of our committee members could
support. We engaged in tough discussions and didn’t allow our differences to
block a path forward.
The Committee was originally designed to last only a year, but with the
support of our colleagues and leadership on both sides of the aisle, we
received an extension through the 116th Congress to finish our work. We
worked together, side by side, even amidst political divisions (including an
impeachment process). Civility and bipartisanship were more important than
ever, and we worked hard to chart a path forward.
A few months into 2020, as the entire world faced a once-in-a-lifetime
pandemic, we knew we had to adapt. Our Members identified ways to
communicate our work and deliver solutions for those we serve. And as the
country grappled with a racial injustice crisis, the Committee considered how
to improve diversity in Congress. We hosted virtual discussions to understand
some of the challenges facing our staff and our communities and issued
recommendations specific to the challenges we faced.
The result over the last 20 months was a series of reforms targeted at
improving transparency in Congress, streamlining constituent engagement,
cultivating staff diversity and retention, and revitalizing our Article One
responsibilities bestowed in the Constitution. We also passed reforms to boost
2
civility and bipartisanship throughout Congress, to make the Capitol more
accessible to Americans with disabilities, and to improve technology
capabilities in the House. Several of these reforms have already been
implemented throughout the House, making us the first select committee in
recent history to see our recommendations turned into action. This report
provides an overview of our proposals, as well as areas that warrant additional
attention by future select committees. We also provide background on the
issues we found plaguing Congress and how our recommendations ultimately
address them.
Our guiding principle was to make Congress work better for the
American people. Problem solving isn’t partisan. Over the past two years, we
worked across the aisle, with Members from all parts of the country, and with a
variety of backgrounds and beliefs. At times, it felt like we were going against
the grain by issuing recommendations on some tough topics. But that’s why
this Committee’s work mattered so much—even in times of division, we were
committed to finding a path forward. The result is a roadmap that current and
future Congresses can use to fix both major and minor issues—hopefully with
continued enthusiasm for generations to come.
3
Members of the Select Committee on the Modernization
of Congress
REP. SUSAN BROOKS (IN-5)
“Since I began my time in Congress in 2013, I
have strived to take a leading role in efforts to
promote civility and cooperation across
party-lines. As a member of the Bipartisan
Working Group, along with my good friend
and Chairman Derek Kilmer, we prioritize
working with colleagues from both sides of
the aisle to produce bipartisan legislation for
the American people. It is one of the many
reasons I love being a part of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, which is one of the
most bipartisan committees in Congress.
When the opportunity to join the Select
Committee for the Modernization of Congress
was presented to expand on the work towards a more civil and efficient
Congress, I couldn’t pass a chance to provide my insight and guidance. Over
the many months of this committee’s work, we as a committee have developed
a number of strong bipartisan recommendations that I believe will strengthen
the working relationships and civility within Congress.
"Due to the gridlock and deep partisan division in the country, the American
people have lost confidence in Congress. Restoring this confidence is a goal I
have talked about since the very first time I ran for Congress. I have always
been committed to fulfilling this promise, and I couldn’t think of a better way
to end my career in Congress, thanks to the Select Committee.”
Congresswoman Susan W. Brooks represents the 5th District of Indiana,
which spans eight urban, suburban and rural counties in Central Indiana,
including the north side of Indianapolis. She uses her background as a Deputy
Mayor of Indianapolis, a U.S. Attorney and a community college administrator
to improve education, jobs, health and homeland security. She currently serves
on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and is a member of the
Health, the Communications and Technology, and the Oversight and
Investigations subcommittees. Through her Membership on the Energy and
Commerce Committee, Congresswoman Brooks is working on mental health,
substance abuse, biodefense, public safety, telecommunications issues and
more. She also serves on the House Select Committee on the Modernization of
Congress where she is focused on restoring confidence in Congress and
making it easier for Americans to participate in the business of the People’s
House.
4
Congresswoman Brooks’ strong background in both the public and
private sectors includes experience as a proven difference maker in areas such
as harassment and discrimination, public safety, homeland security,
counter-terrorism and economic development. In the 115th Congress, Susan
served as the Chairwoman of the House Committee on Ethics where she
worked with her colleagues to restore confidence in Congress. She also
previously served on the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the
2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. In the 113th Congress, she was a member of
the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and the House
Homeland Security Committee where she served as Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications.
Congresswoman Susan W. Brooks represents the 5th District of Indiana,
which spans eight urban, suburban and rural counties in Central Indiana,
including the north side of Indianapolis. She uses her background as a Deputy
Mayor of Indianapolis, a U.S. Attorney and a community college administrator
to improve education, jobs, health and homeland security. She currently serves
on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and is a member of the
Health, the Communications and Technology, and the Oversight and
Investigations subcommittees. Through her Membership on the Energy and
Commerce Committee, Congresswoman Brooks is working on mental health,
substance abuse, biodefense, public safety, telecommunications issues and
more. She also serves on the House Select Committee on the Modernization of
Congress where she is focused on restoring confidence in Congress and
making it easier for Americans to participate in the business of the People’s
House.
5
REP. EMANUEL CLEAVER (MO-4)
“It has been one of the great honors of my
time in Congress to serve on the Select
Committee on the Modernization of Congress.
The work this Committee has done is crucial
for our democracy because Congress cannot
possibly work for the people if Congress
cannot function properly. The approaches we
have taken to accomplish this work also serve
as an example of how Congress should
function at all levels—listening, discussion, and
the occasional spirited—but
respectful—debate between colleagues who
all desire only to find the right solution to a
problem at hand. As the Chair of the Civility
Caucus, I was proud of the constructive bipartisan leadership we received from
Chair Kilmer and Vice Chair Graves.
"Out of all of the recommendations made by this Committee, I’m proudest of
our various recommendations that would serve the American people by
promoting this level of bipartisanship and civility throughout the halls of
Congress. If all of Congress could operate the way that the Modernization
Committee has, the nation would be in a much better place. I was also
heartened that the Committee strongly supported recommendations with the
goal of recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce here on Capitol Hill. For
Congress to function at the highest level, civil discourse alone is not enough. It
demands discourse that is informed by a wide variety of perspectives that truly
reflect the diversity of the American people. It is with the combination of
diverse viewpoints and backgrounds along with a system that supports
constructive dialogue between those viewpoints in which we will find a system
that best fights for a better future for the American people. I’m proud of the
work of this Committee because I know that our recommendations will help us
step much closer to that ideal.”
Emanuel Cleaver, II is now serving his seventh term representing
Missouri’s Fifth Congressional District, the home district of President Harry
Truman. He is a member of the House Committee on Financial Services; Chair
of the subcommittee on National Security, International Development, and
Monetary Policy; member of Subcommittee on Housing, Community
Development and Insurance; member of the House Committee on Homeland
Security; member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime
Security; and member of the Select Committee on the Modernization of
Congress.
6
Having served for twelve years on the city council of Missouri’s largest
municipality, Kansas City, Cleaver was elected as the city’s first African
American Mayor in 1991.
During his eight-year stint in the Office of the Mayor, Cleaver
distinguished himself as an economic development activist and an
unapologetic redevelopment craftsman. He and the City Council brought a
number of major corporations to the city, including TransAmerica, Harley
Davidson, and Citi Corp. Cleaver also led the effort, after a forty-year delay, to
build the South Midtown Roadway. Upon completion of this major
thoroughfare, he proposed a new name: The Bruce R. Watkins Roadway.
Additionally, his municipal stewardship includes the 18th and Vine
Redevelopment, a new American Royal, the establishment of a Family Division
of the Municipal Court, and the reconstruction and beautification of Brush
Creek.
Cleaver has received five honorary Doctoral Degrees augmented by a
bachelor’s degree from Prairie View A&M, and a master’s from St. Paul's
School of Theology of Kansas City.
In 2009, Cleaver, with a multitude of accomplishments both locally and
Congressionally, introduced the most ambitious project of his political
career—the creation of a Green Impact Zone. This zone, consisting of 150
blocks of declining urban core, has received approximately $125 million dollars
in American Recovery and Reinvestment funds. The Green Impact Zone is
aimed at making this high crime area the environmentally greenest piece of
urban geography in the world. This project includes rebuilding Troost Avenue,
rehabbing bridges, curbs and sidewalks, home weatherization, smart grid
technology in hundreds of homes, and most importantly, hundreds of badly
needed jobs for Green Zone residents.
During the 112th Congress, Cleaver was unanimously elected the 20th
chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.
In 2016, as Ranking Member of the Housing and Insurance
Subcommittee, Cleaver successfully co-authored the largest sweeping reform
bill on housing programs in 20 years, the Housing Opportunity Through
Modernization Act, a bipartisan comprehensive housing bill that passed into
law with a unanimous vote.
In 2018, Congressman Cleaver received the Harry S. Truman Good
Neighbor Award, the highest honor bestowed by the Harry S. Truman Good
Neighbor Award Foundation. Past honorees include President Bill Clinton, the
late Senator John McCain, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Cleaver, a native of Texas, is married to the former Dianne Donaldson.
They have made Kansas City home for themselves and their four children, and
grandchildren.
7
REP. RODNEY DAVIS (IL-13)
“The Select Committee on the Modernization
of Congress is the first opportunity in over a
decade to take a deep, internal look at how
the House functions on every level and how
we can make real changes to make it work
better for the American people. As a former
staffer and a member of the House
Administration Committee, internal House
operations have always interested me and the
opportunity to get into the weeds to bring
Congress into the 21st century has not only
highlighted for me how much needs to be
done, but also how dedicated my fellow
Members are to make that progress.
"For me, the technological backbone of the
House has always been the most vital.
Unfortunately, we are often left behind technologically as an institution and
seldom have the best networks or equipment available to us to serve our
communities. Through my role on this Committee and working with my friend
and colleague, Suzan Del Bene, we were able to craft several
technology-related recommendations that were ultimately included in the first
package of approved recommendations. Because of this, the operational
support offices of House Innovation Resources and the Chief Administration
Officer will become more service-oriented, and we have created a
procurement environment that enables outside vendors with new, proven
technology to engage with the House in a secure manner without jumping
through unnecessary bureaucratic hoops. This means modernized tools to
make Congress more efficient and save American tax dollars such as fostering
in new and improved constituent management software so that Members and
staff can communicate more directly with people who need help with federal
agencies, receiving VA benefits, and other services.
"It has been a year of trials unlike anything our nation has experiences, and yet
the productivity of this Select Committee shines as a testament to what we are
capable of if we unite, across party lines, to improve our government. This
Committee’s bipartisan structure has led to real change getting done and it
has been a pleasure working with my colleagues regardless of party affiliation.
I hope that while this committee may end after 2020, the spirit of always trying
to build and improve on what we have continues as a principle of the House
and its Members.”
8
Rodney Davis is currently serving his fourth term in Congress serving
the 13th District of Illinois, a 14-county district covering both urban and rural
areas of Central and Southwestern Illinois.
For the 116th Congress, Rodney serves on the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and is Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, which is the largest subcommittee in Congress and will
be a key player in any infrastructure bill Congress passes. Additionally, he is
the Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration—a committee
responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the House and federal
elections. Rodney is also serving his fourth term on the Committee on
Agriculture where he continues to focus on issues important to Illinois farmers
and helping people get out of poverty and into a good-paying job.
Serving on both the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and
the Committee on Agriculture since coming to Congress has allowed Rodney
to be a leader on issues essential to commerce in Illinois. He has played an
integral role in long-term reauthorizations to upgrade our waterway, highway,
railway, and aviation systems. Additionally, his leadership on two Farm Bill
Conference Committees has helped produce farm bills that provide certainty
to our farmers, protect crop insurance, strengthen agricultural research, and
improve protections for organic products.
During his time in Congress, Rodney has established himself as an
effective lawmaker who is able to work with his colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to pass legislation. He has fought to ensure priorities of the 13th
District are represented in Washington.
In 2018, Rodney successfully passed legislation reforming the Federal
Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) disaster declaration process to
help level the playing field for rural communities in Illinois. His legislation,
which was signed into law in October 2018, requires FEMA to place greater
consideration on the localized impact of a natural disaster. This is a major issue
for smaller communities throughout the 13th District.
Rodney has demonstrated his ability to lead even in a divided
government. The Hire More Heroes Act, his bill to help small businesses hire
more of our nation’s veterans by changing Obamacare, overwhelmingly
passed the House with more than 400 supporting votes and was signed into
law in July 2015. This is one of the only legislative changes to Obamacare to
be signed into law.
On June 14, 2017, Rodney was one of several Republicans who were
attacked by a gunman while practicing for the Congressional Baseball Game
at a baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia. Congressman Steve Scalise and
several other teammates were injured, but due to the heroic actions of Capitol
Police Officers David Bailey and Crystal Griner and the Alexandria Police
Department, there were no fatalities. Following the shooting, Rodney has
9
made it his mission to promote more civility in politics. He’s an active member
of the bipartisan Civility Caucus and the Congressional Study Group on
American Democracy and Civics which focuses on promoting civility in politics
to young voters.
Prior to being elected, Rodney served as Projects Director for
Congressman John Shimkus (IL-15) for 16 years helping Illinois citizens and
communities cut through government red tape and secure federal funding.
Rodney resides in Taylorville with his wife, Shannon, and their three children,
Toryn, Clark, and Griffin.
10
REP. SUZAN DELBENE (WA-1)
“Before coming to Congress, my background
was in technology. So, it was a bit of culture
shock coming to Congress which has not kept
up with new devices and tools. One of my
priorities in Congress and on the Select
Committee for the Modernization of Congress
has been incorporating 21st century
technologies so we can be more efficient in
our work and better able to communicate with
our constituents. These issues are even more
relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic for
Congress to continue to carry out its work.
"On the Select Committee, I have successfully
advanced recommendations relating to the
use of electronic signatures, conducting
virtual hearings and more. These efforts will
ensure we can continue to move legislation, conduct critical oversight of
federal programs, and make sure lawmakers and staff have the tools they need
to work remotely during this time.”
Congresswoman Suzan DelBene represents Washington’s First
Congressional District, which spans from northeast King County to the
Canadian border, and includes parts of King, Snohomish, Skagit and Whatcom
counties.
First sworn into the House of Representatives on Nov. 13, 2012, Suzan
brings a unique voice to the nation’s capital, with more than two decades of
experience as a successful technology entrepreneur and business leader.
Suzan takes on a wide range of challenges both in Congress and in the
First District and is a leader on issues of technology, health and agriculture.
Suzan currently serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, which
is at the forefront of debate on taxes, healthcare and retirement security.
There, Suzan is working to ensure all Americans have meaningful access to
affordable, quality healthcare. She serves on the Select Revenue Measures,
Trade, and Oversight Subcommittees.
In the 116th Congress, Rep. DelBene was appointed to the Select
Committee on the Modernization of Congress. The committee was created to
find ways to improve and modernize the way Congress operates.
Suzan also serves as Vice Chair of the New Democrat Coalition, and
co-chair of the Women's High Tech Caucus, Internet of Things Caucus, Dairy
Caucus and Aluminum Caucus.
11
Suzan spent part of her early childhood in Newport Hills and Mercer
Island before her father, an airline pilot, lost his job. After fourth grade, her
family moved all over the country in search of work. With hard work and
financial aid, such as student loans and work-study programs, she earned a
bachelor’s degree in biology from Reed College.
Following Reed, Suzan worked in the biotechnology industry before
earning an MBA from the University of Washington and embarking on a
successful career as a technology leader and innovator. In more than two
decades as an executive and entrepreneur, she helped to start drugstore.com
as its vice president of marketing and store development, and served as CEO
and president of Nimble Technology, a business software company based on
technology developed at the University of Washington. Suzan also spent 12
years at Microsoft, most recently as corporate vice president of the company’s
mobile communications business.
Before being elected to Congress, Suzan served as Director of the
Washington State Department of Revenue. During her tenure, Suzan proposed
reforms to cut red tape for small businesses. She also enacted an innovative
tax amnesty program that generated $345 million to help close the state’s
budget gap, while easing the burden on small businesses.
Suzan’s mix of real world experience in the private and public sector
gives her a deep understanding of how to build successful businesses, create
jobs, implement real fiscal accountability and adopt policies that provide
individuals with access to opportunity.
12
VICE CHAIR TOM GRAVES
(GA-14)
“I grew up in White, Georgia, in a single-wide
trailer on a tar and gravel road. I’m a dad to
Josephine, John and Janey, and husband to
Julie. I’ve been a small business owner, a real
estate investor, and a Georgia State
Representative. I was first elected to public
office in 2002, after winning a seat in the
Georgia House of Representatives. After
serving in the General Assembly for more than
seven years, I was sworn into Congress in June
2010, after winning a special election.
"After serving in Congress for a decade, I’ve
learned the importance of relationship
building and creative solutions in order to
address some of the biggest challenges facing
our country. That’s why I was excited by the opportunity of leading this
committee alongside Chair Derek Kilmer. This committee was committed to
disrupting the status quo to get Congress working better for the American
people.
"Throughout the 116th Congress, this committee has served as a bright spot
and refuge. One of the things I value most about this committee is how
different our backgrounds are, but that as Members we’ve united with a
common goal to improve the way your legislative branch works. Committee
Members hail from opposite sides of the country, with different professional
backgrounds and life experiences. We’ve identified opportunities for bipartisan
learning, found ways to better connect with our constituents, encouraged
bipartisan Member retreats, and showed the American people that regardless
of our political differences, a commitment to those we serve should come first.
"In Georgia, we are constitutionally required to pass a balanced budget. In
Congress, we haven’t followed the regular budget process in almost three
decades. Fixing the way we spend and guard taxpayer dollars has been a
priority for me in Congress and on this committee.
13
"My last year in Congress has been spent working alongside Chair Kilmer and
our 10 committee Members, identifying ways to truly make The People’s House
more efficient, effective and transparent for the people we serve. I can think of
no better way to end my career in Congress. I urge future leaders in Congress
to use these recommendations as a tool kit to build a better Congress for all
Americans.”
Tom Graves grew up in White, Georgia, in a single-wide trailer on a tar
and gravel road. Seeking to turn those humble roots into his own American
Dream, Tom took to heart some advice from his father: Dream Big, Work Hard,
Achieve Much.
That slogan fueled Tom from a young age as he immersed himself in
studies and sports. He had the rare distinction of being both a star athlete and
a mathlete. In high school, Tom was known to love football, algebra and his
mohawk haircut.
Tom entered the work force at an early age, flipping burgers and
delivering pizza to start. At age 17, Tom started his first business, Tough Turf
Land Sculpting, and he hired his first employee. He continued to work and pay
his way through college, graduating from the University of Georgia with a
degree in finance.
After college, Tom worked as an asset recovery specialist for a
department store chain, but his entrepreneurial spirit remained. He saved
enough to buy a landscaping business and eventually became a real estate
investor.
In his spare time, Tom was seen riding around on his motorcycle with
future wife Julie on board. It was on that motorcycle that they left their
wedding ceremony and, some days later, saw a “for sale” sign by a winding
dirt road in Gordon County. They ventured down the road and, after some
rewiring and plumbing, they called that small farmhouse in Ranger their home.
It wasn’t until his thirties that Tom thought about running for public
office. News came that an abortion clinic was planning to open nearby. Tom
supported Julie as she became the founder and president of a peaceful,
pro-life organization that opposed the plans. The community spoke and the
clinic never opened. Inspired by their success, Tom discovered the power to do
good through public action and ran for the Georgia General Assembly. He
served for more than seven years.
In the state legislature, Tom used his work experience to craft legislation,
such as the Georgia Jobs Act, that would grow the economy and create new
job opportunities. He understood the simple fact that when a business pays
less in taxes it has more money to hire people. Tom also gained a reputation
for taking on excessive government after working on a zero-based budgeting
bill that made state agencies justify every taxpayer dollar they wanted to
spend, every year.
14
In 2010, the congressional seat for Georgia’s 9th district opened. Still
dreaming big, Tom decided to run as a “pro-life, pro-gun, tax-cutting
constitutional conservative.” He had to win four elections in 91 days and was
sworn in that summer as a U.S. congressman from Georgia. As a result of
redistricting, Tom was reelected in 2012 to represent the new 14th
Congressional District. In Congress, Tom serves on the House Appropriations
Committee, which determines how the United States Government spends
taxpayer dollars. On this committee, Tom serves as Republican Leader of the
Financial Services Subcommittee, which oversees the annual bill funding our
nation's financial infrastructure, such as the Treasury Department and Small
Business Administration. He also serves on the Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education Subcommittee, and the Commerce, Justice and
Science Subcommittee.
These assignments put Tom on the front lines of the battle to solve
America’s debt crisis, reduce regulatory burdens and increase opportunities
for Georgians to thrive. He works to balance the budget, cut government
waste and reform Congress to focus on saving—not spending—taxpayer
dollars. He’s also championed legislation to keep American businesses and
consumers safe from cyber criminals and hackers. Tom has built a bipartisan
consensus committed to leveling the lopsided cyber battlefield to keep
organizations and companies safe online.
Tom also serves as Vice Chair of the new Select Committee on the
Modernization of Congress (“Select Committee”), tasked with studying,
investigating and offering reforms to make The People’s House even more
effective and responsive to the American people. The Select Committee is one
of only two Committees in the House that are truly bipartisan, with an equal
number of Republican and Democrat committee Members. Tom also serves on
the powerful House Republican Steering Committee, which is responsible for
committee assignments for all Republican Members of the House as well as
selecting committee chairmen.
Tom lives in Gordon County with his wife Julie and their youngest
daughter Janey. Their eldest daughter Josephine and son John attend Georgia
Tech.
Back home he’s one of the neighbors attending gun shows and cattle
auctions. In the early mornings, Tom can be found running mountain trails or
riding his bike through the hills of Georgia in preparation for the next triathlon.
Tom is still dreaming big, working hard and seeking to achieve much for
those he represents in the 14th Congressional District.
The Graves family attends church in Gordon County.
15
CHAIR DEREK KILMER (WA-6)
“I was born and raised on the Olympic
Peninsula and saw firsthand how the region's
economy struggled, and the impact that had
on families and communities. I came to
Congress with two goals in mind. First, I want
the economy to work better for the folks in my
neck of the woods. And second, I want
government to work better for them too.
"I was excited to serve as Chair of the Select
Committee on the Modernization of Congress
because I think it can make a real difference in
making Congress work better for the
American people.
"Having come from a (mostly) functional state
legislature and having worked in private
industry, it was clear right away that Congress is a fixer-upper. It’s strange
being a part of an organization that, according to recent polling, is less popular
than head lice, colonoscopies, and the band Nickelback. From the beginning,
it’s been clear there’s no silver bullet to fixing that, but I’ve been pleased to
engage with the committee Members on some bipartisan reforms to improve
the budget and appropriations process, to ensure Congress can recruit and
retain a talented and diverse staff, and to promote civility.
"As Chair of the Select Committee, I’m grateful for the bipartisan engagement
of the committee Members and have valued the partnership of Vice Chair
Graves and all of our committee Members. This past year helped me get plenty
of mileage out of my copy of the book Getting to Yes (and my Nickelback
jokes).”
Derek Kilmer serves as the United States Representative of
Washington’s 6th Congressional District.
With over a decade of experience working in economic development in
the Puget Sound region, Derek Kilmer is focused on getting our economy and
our Congress back to work. Derek has a strong record as a problem solver for
Washington families and he's been recognized by veterans organizations for
his support of our troops, their families, and those who have served. As the
dad of two little girls, he is working to make sure all our children receive a
quality education. He is committed to honoring our promises to seniors by
protecting Social Security and Medicare. Derek grew up on the Olympic
Peninsula and has worked to promote local economic development and to be
responsible stewards of our natural resources.
16
Born and raised in Port Angeles, Derek saw firsthand how the region's
economy has struggled, and the impact that has had on families and
communities. The son of two schoolteachers, Derek was taught to appreciate
the value of education. Derek wanted to make a difference in his community,
so he chose to study public policy, looking for ways to help economically
struggling communities. He received a BA from Princeton University's School
of Public and International Affairs and earned a doctorate from the University
of Oxford in England.
Derek put his education into practice right here in Washington, first as a
business consultant for McKinsey & Company, where he helped businesses,
non-profits, and government agencies run more efficiently. He moved closer to
the community he was raised in so he could put his experience in economic
development to use helping to retain jobs and attract new employers during
the decade he worked for the Economic Development Board for
Tacoma-Pierce County.
After seeing how the decisions that government made affected
employers in our region, Derek decided to put his experience to work in
Olympia. He served in the Washington state House from 2005 to 2007 and the
state Senate from 2007 until he was elected to the U.S. House in 2012. While in
Olympia, Derek was the principal writer of the state's capital budget, and
helped author a bipartisan infrastructure package that has been credited with
creating 18,000 jobs. He also led a successful bipartisan effort in the
Washington state Senate to balance the budget and reduce state debt.
Derek was reelected to a fourth term in the U.S. House of
Representatives in 2018 and chosen by his Democratic colleagues to serve on
the House Appropriations Committee, one of only four ‘exclusive’ committees
in the House. Derek serves on the Interior and Environment Subcommittee,
Defense Subcommittee, and Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.
Derek is a strong supporter of Naval Base Kitsap and Joint Base
Lewis-McChord and has secured key investments to ensure that these
installations will continue to play an essential role in our national defense and
our local economy. He also believes we must provide servicemembers and
their families, veterans, military retirees, and the civilian workforce with the
support they deserve.
Along with fighting for the region’s military community Derek has
championed bipartisan efforts to better leverage federal research dollars to
spur private sector innovation and job growth and bolster a 21st century
workforce. As a native of the Olympic Peninsula, Derek knows the important
role that natural resources play in our region, and is committed to protecting
our waters and improving the health of our forests. It’s also why he helped
found the Puget Sound Recovery Caucus to bring increased focus and
attention to the cleanup work that needs to be done to restore our region's
waters.
17
Derek has learned that addressing the challenges facing our nation will
require an end to political brinkmanship and a focus on finding common sense,
practical solutions. He's a member of organizations like the Bipartisan Working
Group which works to bring Democrats and Republicans together to forge
greater consensus on a wide variety of issues.
In his time in Congress, Derek has been recognized by a wide variety of
groups for his effectiveness and advocacy. He’s been awarded the U.S. Navy’s
Distinguished Public Service Award, the highest honor a civilian not employed
by the Navy can receive from the Secretary of the Navy. Derek has also
received a Silver Helmet award from AMVETS and a Friend of the National
Parks award from the National Parks Conservation Association, been named a
Hero of Main Street by the National Retail Federation, an Outstanding New
Member by the Voices for National Service, and a Humane Champion by the
Humane Society.
Derek and his wife Jennifer live in Gig Harbor with their daughters
Sophie and Tess and their Australian Shepherd Truman.
18
REP. MARY GAY SCANLON (PA-5)
“As a freshman designee to the Select
Committee on the Modernization of Congress,
part of my mandate was to bring to our work
the perspective of the 2018 congressional
class, historic in both its size and diversity. I
pushed for improvements to new member
onboarding and development, including
revamping freshman orientation, optimizing
member schedules to better accommodate
member obligations to family and public
service, and streamlining new office set up. I
also sought to increase staff diversity and
retention across Congress, in order to increase
institutional knowledge and create a staff that
better reflects America. I was proud to work
on and pass recommendations to advocate for
adoption of best practices in diversity and inclusion from the private and
nonprofit sectors, and to create a centralized HR hub focused on retaining and
recruiting staff with a special focus on increasing staff diversity.
"I give much of the credit for the success of our committee to our bipartisan
co-chairs, Reps. Derek Kilmer and Tom Graves. I am grateful for their
collaborative leadership, which serves as a testament to the merits and
possibility of cooperative bipartisan work.”
Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon, an education and human rights
advocate, currently represents Pennsylvania’s 5th Congressional District. She
was first sworn into U.S. House of Representatives on November 13, 2018.
Congresswoman Scanlon previously served as national pro bono counsel
at a major U.S. law firm, where she directed and supervised over 600 lawyers in
15 offices in providing more than 50,000 hours of pro bono legal services
annually to low-income clients and non-profit organizations. Under her
leadership, the pro bono program worked on critical issues, including voting
rights, child advocacy, immigration, housing, public benefits, criminal justice
reform, free press, and other constitutional rights. The program earned the
2018 American Bar Association’s annual pro bono award.
Congresswoman Scanlon also served as an attorney at the Education
Law Center, as President of her local school board, and as co-chair of the
Voting Rights Task Force of the Association of Pro Bono Counsel.
19
Congresswoman Scanlon’s priorities in Congress include voting rights,
education, common sense gun safety legislation, and protecting the rights of
children, families, veterans and our seniors. She currently serves as Vice Chair
of the House Judiciary Committee, the House Rules Committee, and the House
Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.
Mary Gay is a graduate of Colgate University and University of
Pennsylvania Law School. She and her husband Mark have three children:
Casey, Daniel, and Matthew. Mary Gay and Mark reside in Swarthmore with
their two rescue dogs, Abby and Emma, a cockatiel named TJ, and several
chickens.
20
REP. ZOE LOFGREN (CA-19)
“Congress should continually change in order
to better serve the American people. I knew
that back in the 1970s when I first worked for
this esteemed institution, and I know it still
rings true today. From 1970–1978, I served as
a staff member for my predecessor,
Representative Don Edwards, in both his San
Jose and Washington, D.C. offices, and I was
elected to serve as a Member of Congress
myself in 1994. Putting fresh eyes on the
institution I have committed most of my public
service career to is an honor, a challenge, and
an important mission for a body devoted to
serving ‘we the people.’ As a legislator born
and bred in Silicon Valley, I am particularly invested in finding new
technological ways for Congress to legislate and connect with constituents.
Plus, as a former staff member, I am proud of our recommendations to
encourage service, recruit a diverse workforce, and improve staff retention in
the House of Representatives.
"I always welcome interparty collaboration, and the Select Committee on the
Modernization of Congress has operated in a bipartisan, open fashion. We
need more of that in Congress, and I am heartened by the substantive
conversations that took place throughout the past two years. We have come
together to suggest giving Congress judicial standing to expedite conflicts
between the branches of government. That recommendation on its own has
the potential to greatly improve the efficacy of our democracy.”
"As Chair of the Committee on House Administration, I look forward to
continuing this transformative work as we turn the Select Committee’s
recommendations into real, tangible reforms.”
Zoe Lofgren has been a Democratic member of the United States House
of Representatives since 1995. She represents the 19th District of California,
based in the “Capital of Silicon Valley,” San Jose, and the Santa Clara Valley.
A lifelong Bay Area resident and the daughter of a truck driver and a
cafeteria cook, Zoe attended public schools and attended Stanford University
on a California State Scholarship, graduating with a bachelor’s degree in
political science in 1970. Prior to attending Stanford, Lofgren worked the night
shift at the Eastman Kodak plant in Palo Alto to save money for non-tuition
college expenses not covered by her scholarship. After graduating from
Stanford, she attended, with the help of a scholarship, Santa Clara University
School of Law, graduating cum laude in 1975. She served as a member of
21
Congressman Don Edwards’ staff for eight years in both his San Jose and
Washington DC offices. While practicing and teaching immigration law, she
was first elected to the San Jose Evergreen Community College Board in 1979.
In 1980, she was elected to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
where she served for 14 years. Following Congressman Don Edwards’
retirement in 1994 after 32 years in Congress, Zoe was elected to the House of
Representatives. She currently serves on the House Judiciary Committee, the
House Science, Space and Technology Committee, and the Committee on
House Administration.
As the Chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, and a
former immigration attorney and immigration law professor, Zoe is recognized
as an established champion of top-to-bottom immigration reform and a
national leader in immigration policy. During the 113th Congress she played a
key role in negotiating a comprehensive reform bill in the House
Representatives as part of an eight-person bipartisan working group.
In 2010, in part due to her work on the Development, Relief and
Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi
presented Zoe with the gavel used to preside over the passage of the bill in
the House of Representatives.
Zoe is known for her work on patent reform, copyright issues, digital
rights, and net neutrality. She successfully fought to initiate the “e-rate” that
provides affordable internet access for schools, libraries, and rural health
centers, and she is the author of legislation that would allow the unlocking of
cellular phones and other digital devices to give owners more control over
their devices. She led a bipartisan effort in the House to decontrol encryption
technology.
A staunch advocate for digital rights, Zoe was the lead early opponent
of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and led a successful fight to stop bill in
the House Judiciary Committee. Her Online Communications and Geolocation
Protection Act would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before
retrieving communications and documents stored remotely or geolocation
information about an individual.
In 2014, Zoe led a bipartisan effort to close backdoor loopholes on
unwarranted government surveillance. The Massie-Lofgren amendment to the
2015 Department of Defense Appropriations Act to stop the NSA from
searching Americans’ private communications collected without a warrant,
and to prohibit the NSA from weakening security protections in devices and
software for unwarranted surveillance purposes, passed the House by a
resoundingly bipartisan vote of 293 to 123.
In 2019, Zoe was appointed Chairperson of the Committee on House
Administration by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and confirmed unanimously by the
House Democratic Caucus. The Committee on House Administration (CHA)
was established in 1947 as part of a larger effort to streamline the U.S. House
22
of Representatives' committee system and to modernize its internal
management and operations. After more than 70 years since the committee
was established, CHA’s two principal functions include oversight of federal
elections and day-to-day operations in the House. Historically, the committee
has had a hand in shaping legislation that touches on any and all aspects of
federal elections. Issues concerning corrupt practices, contested congressional
elections, campaign finance disclosures, and credentials and qualifications of
House Members also fall under its purview. Additionally, she is a member of
the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, formed to make
Congress more transparent, unifying and responsive to the needs and
aspirations of the American people.
Zoe is also the Chair of the California Democratic Congressional
Delegation. It is the most diverse delegation in the House and outnumbers all
other state House delegations.
Zoe is married to John Marshall Collins and is the mother of two.
23
REP. MARK POCAN (WI-2)
“As a Co-Chair of the Congressional
Progressive Caucus, I spend the majority of
my time in Congress seeking to advance
policy discussions into the 21st Century. When
the opportunity arose to do the same for the
institution of Congress itself, I was excited by
the prospect. I am proud of the Committee’s
recommendations pertaining to lobbyist
tracking and transparency, and enjoyed
working closely with Congressman Timmons
on recommendations to improve the
Congressional calendar and resolve
committee scheduling conflicts. Such
recommendations are imperative and will
ensure Members have more time to deliberate
together and deliver solutions the American
people demand. Finally, as a fellow member of
the Appropriations Committee, it was an honor to work with Chairman Kilmer
and Vice Chair Graves on the development of a Community-Focused Grant
Program. It is my hope that this effort will serve as the foundation for the
return of robust congressionally-directed spending, consistent with the powers
conferred to Congress in Article I of the U.S. Constitution.”
Congressman Mark Pocan was sworn in as the U.S. Representative for
Wisconsin’s second congressional district in 2013 following 14 years in the
Wisconsin State Assembly. A small business owner, union member, and lifelong
advocate for progressive causes, Rep. Pocan is committed to using his
experience from both the private and public sectors to fight for policies that
promote economic and social justice and support the families of south-central
Wisconsin.
In the 116th Congress, he serves on the House Appropriations
Committee where he sits on the Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Subcommittee; the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and
Drug Administration Subcommittee; and the Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee. He previously served on the Budget Committee and the
Committee on Education and the Workforce. Rep. Pocan is also the Co-Chair
of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), the largest values-based
caucus in the Democratic Party, where he is a strong voice for progressive
values in Congress.
24
REP. DAN NEWHOUSE (WA-4)
“I am proud to represent the rural
communities of Central Washington. As a
third-generation farmer, I know that many in
rural America feel they do not truly have a
voice in our nation’s capital. I wanted to
participate in the Select Committee to ensure
Congress works efficiently to represent every
American.
"To do so, I believe we must increase civility
and bipartisanship within the People’s House. I
have a long history of working across the aisle
with my colleagues—from the Washington
State House to the halls of Congress.
"Unfortunately, it seems as though this
legislative body has become increasingly more
partisan, resulting in separation and division. I believe the Select Committee is
the perfect opportunity for Members of Congress from all walks of life to come
together to work toward bipartisan improvements.
"Not long ago, I had the opportunity to participate in a Civility & Respect tour
with Chairman Kilmer. Both hailing from the great state of Washington, we
traveled across our districts to speak with small businesses, students, and
federal partners about the importance of bipartisanship in Congress. These
trips served as beneficial opportunities to hear different perspectives from
fellow Washingtonians located just hours away from my own congressional
district.
"Members of Congress represent diverse communities across the country. They
come to D.C. to advocate for their district’s priorities—priorities that other
Members may struggle to understand without the opportunity to walk in
others’ shoes. That said, I believe collaboration and relationship-building
among Members of Congress is the best way to promote working across party
lines.
"The Select Committee’s recommendations to create a bipartisan
Members-only space and biennial bipartisan retreats for Members and their
families will not only encourage Members to get to know one another on a
personal level, but it will give us all a chance to understand why we advocate
for our respective policies. At the same time, the Committee has advocated for
Congress’ Article One powers, including recommending a congressional
25
opportunity to provide guidance to the Executive Branch on rulemaking,
restoring the proportionality of funding for House Committees, and ensuring
that Members are using taxpayer dollars efficiently to best represent their
constituencies.
"I am also proud of our recommendations to improve accessibility to our
nation’s capital for individuals with disabilities and increasing our ability to
reach our rural constituencies through increased online access and removing
the arbitrary employee caps on member offices. We call Congress “the
People’s House” for a reason—and the people should have equitable access to
both their Representative and the U.S. Capitol Complex.
"As the Select Committee releases their final report, I am hopeful my priorities
of promoting civility, respect, and bipartisanship within the People’s House are
reflected as we work to better represent the American people and those in
rural communities across our country.”
Representative Dan Newhouse is a lifelong resident of Central
Washington and is honored to represent the 4th District in Congress. A
third-generation Yakima Valley farmer, Dan brings real-world experience to
Congress as a businessman and former state legislator ready to work hard in
support of conservative solutions that encourage job creation and economic
opportunity in Central Washington. Dan understands that looking out for
taxpayers means that Congress must stay on budget and make the
government work efficiently to fulfill its responsibilities.
Dan serves on the Appropriations Committees, which exercises
jurisdiction on critical legislative issues for the 4th District.
Dan served four terms as a legislator in the Washington State House of
Representatives, representing the 15th Legislative District from 2003 to 2009.
In the Legislature, Dan earned a reputation as a principled conservative willing
to work with colleagues to support policies that foster economic growth.
From 2009 to 2013, Dan served as Director of Washington State’s
Department of Agriculture, where he listened to the concerns of Washington
farmers and promoted the state’s agricultural resources.
Dan attended Washington State University, where he earned a Bachelor
of Science degree in Agricultural Economics. Dan is also a graduate of the
Washington Agriculture and Forestry Leadership Program.
Dan lives in Sunnyside with his wife, Joan. He has two adult children:
Jensena, Devon and his wife Halley. The Newhouse family continues to operate
an 850-acre farm where they grow hops, tree fruit and grapes.
26
REP. WILLIAM TIMMONS (SC-4)
“Under House Rules, the Select Committee
was mandated to have two freshman—one
Republican and one Democrat. I was the
Republican freshman selected for the
Committee. I was able to bring a new
perspective to the Committee—a younger,
fresher outlook on challenges that we face in
Congress. As a small business owner, I am
constantly looking for new ways and ideas
that will make my business run more
efficiently and effectively, and I was able to
bring that viewpoint to this Committee.
“My priorities were making Congress more
efficient, effective, and transparent. The top issues that were of most concern
to me, regarding those areas, were the budget process, technology (I was
given a pager his first day on the job…), new member orientation, and the
House calendar and schedule. Under the current schedule, Members spend
more time flying in and out of DC than they do legislating. Naturally, this struck
me as counterproductive, and I sought to make recommendations that would
have Members spending more time legislating and doing their jobs than
traveling.
“When I first got to DC for new member training, the freshmen were promptly
separated into Republicans and Democrats. It almost seemed that working
together was being discouraged from the start. In the second package of
recommendations passed by the Committee, there were recommendations
included that overhauling the onboarding process of new Members by
providing new member training in a nonpartisan way, making training more
comprehensive, and promoting civility during new member training. These
recommendations were also included in the legislation that passed the House
in March of this year. These changes will have significant impact when
onboarding new Members by promoting a bipartisan and collaborative
environment. We shouldn’t see those on the other side of the aisle as enemies;
we should look for ways to work together and find common ground to move
forward.
“I was incredibly impressed with the true bipartisan nature and collaboration of
the Committee. Because of the nature of the committee, Members were able
to have in depth and thoughtful discussions and come to meaningful
agreements and recommendations. More Committees should be run like this
Committee—Members weren’t participating for a soundbite or to make
27
national news. They participated because they were here to make a difference,
make significant recommendations, and because of this, ended up enacting
real change. This was the first Select Committee in several years to propose
and adopt recommendations on a rolling basis, and also the first Select
Committee in recent history to introduce recommendations as legislation to
ensure their implementation, which passed the House in March of this year. I
appreciated the leadership of both Chair Kilmer and Vice Chair Graves and
their encouragement of true bipartisanship and the collaborative approach.”
William Timmons entered Congress in 2019 with a commitment to bring
real reform to Washington. His experience as a former prosecutor and small
business owner inspired him to run for public office. As a state senator, he
fought for accountability and transparency in Columbia. In Congress, William is
a voice for his constituents and South Carolina’s business community as a
member of the Financial Services Committee. He was elected by his freshman
colleagues to represent them on the Republican Steering Committee and was
chosen by the Republican leader to serve on the Select Committee on the
Modernization of Congress. William is a lifelong member of Christ Church in
Greenville and also serves as a JAG Officer and First Lieutenant in the South
Carolina Air National Guard. He and his wife, Sarah, live in Greenville.
28
REP. ROB WOODALL (GA-7)
“When I learned of Representative Derek
Kilmer’s (D-WA) success in including a
provision in the House Rules package to
establish a select committee to modernize
Congress, I was hopeful to be chosen as one
of the Members of that committee. After
decades serving on Capitol Hill as both a
staffer and a member, I thought that I could
provide a valuable perspective. And having
worked last Congress with Mr. Kilmer and his
great team on the Joint Select Committee on
Budget and Appropriations Process Reform, I
knew this committee would be a workhorse
rather than show horse effort. The choice of a
serious legislator like Representative Tom
Graves from my home state to be the
Republican head of the committee removed
any remaining doubts about the seriousness of this reform effort.
"I have pride in this committee for a number of reasons, one of which is the
collegial reprieve it offered during this Congress. As Members castigated each
other in committee rooms and on the House floor, the Modernization
Committee offered a space where Members of both parties were focused on
working collaboratively to make the institution work better for our
constituents, our staffs, and our colleagues. I was also proud to have offered
my perspective and ideas regarding Congressional staff recruitment and
retention, recognizing their vial role in the functioning of the Legislative
Branch. Most significantly, I was proud to incorporate the findings Mr. Kilmer
and I worked so hard on in the Joint Select Committee on Budget and
Appropriations Process Reform as part of the Modernization Committee’s
recommendations for improving Congressional functions.
"I couldn’t have chosen a better place to invest part of my final term in
Congress. These last two years working with such fine colleagues to reform
and improve an institution that I love has been a privilege and an honor.
Several recommendations put forward by the Modernization Committee have
already been implemented by the House, and more are on the way. But there is
still more work left to do to bring this 18th Century institution closer to the
21st Century. I hope that whomever leads the House as Speaker in 2021
29
continues this partnership committee, allows it to continue its works, and tasks
it with even thornier challenges to solve. This committee, its model, its staff,
and its Members give me real hope for the future of People’s House and the
nation it serves.”
Rob Woodall serves the 7th district of GA in the U.S. House of
Representatives and serves on the House Committee on Rules, the House
Budget Committee, and the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee.
Rob was born and raised in Georgia, graduated from Marist School in
1988, attended Furman University for his undergraduate degree and received
his law degree from the University of Georgia.
Rob has served in a variety of leadership roles during his short time in
Congress ranging from Chairman of the Budget and Spending Task Force,
where he authored the most conservative budget to come before Congress in
the last 5 years, to Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the caucus
comprised of the Republican conference’s most conservative Members.
Rob is guided by the principles of freedom, and his proudest
accomplishment is helping Seventh District families one at a time through
casework and creating a Congressional office that functions for the people.
30
Recommendations Passed by the
Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress
MAKE CONGRESS MORE EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT AND
TRANSPARENT
1. Streamline the bill-writing process to save time and reduce mistakes.
2. Finalize a new system that allows the American people to easily track
how amendments change legislation and the impact of proposed
legislation to current law.
3. Make it easier to know who is lobbying Congress and what they’re
lobbying for.
4. One-click access to a list of agencies and programs that have expired and
need Congressional attention.
5. One-click access to see how Members of Congress vote in committees.
6. Publish a list of active Congressional Member Organizations annually to
ensure transparency in the policy making and caucus creation process.
ENCOURAGE CIVILITY AND BIPARTISANSHIP IN CONGRESS
7. Create a bipartisan Members-only space in the Capitol to encourage
more collaboration across party lines.
8. Institute biennial bipartisan retreats for Members and their families at the
start of each Congress.
9. Update committee policies to increase bipartisan learning opportunities
for staff.
10. Establish bipartisan committee staff briefings and agenda-setting retreats
to encourage better policy making and collaboration among Members.
IMPROVE CONGRESSIONAL CAPACITY
11. Create a one-stop shop Human Resources HUB dedicated to Member,
committee, and leadership (MCL) staff.
12. Make permanent the Office of Diversity and Inclusion.
13. Examine the viability of updating the staff payroll system with the goal of
transitioning from monthly to semimonthly pay.
14. Raise the cap on the number of permanent staff and additional staff
allowed to work in Member offices.
15. Regularly survey staff on ways to improve pay, benefits, and quality of
life.
16. Offer staff certifications, in additions to trainings, through the nonpartisan
Congressional Staff Academy.
31
17. Provide institution-wide, standard onboarding training for new
employees, including required training.
18. Remove constituent communications costs from Member office budgets
and create a share account for communications.
19. Reevaluate the funding formula and increase the funds allocated to each
Member office.
20. Establish a nonbinding, voluntary pay band system for House staff that
includes a salary floor and average salary for each position in Member
offices. Regular services should be done to ensure the most up-to-date
salary information.
21. Expand access to health insurance for congressional staff.
22. Provide more financial stability for congressional staff enrolled in the
federal student loan program.
23. Staff pay should be delinked from Member pay and a new cap specific to
staff should be established.
24. Allow Congressional Member Organizations to access benefits and hire
one intern to help support their work.
25. Identify areas in the U.S. Capitol Complex that could benefit from
architectural modernization.
26. Develop a practice of negotiating House district office leases to lower
costs, improve consistency of rental rates and save taxpayer dollars.
OVERHAUL THE ONBOARDING PROCESS AND PROVIDE
CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR MEMBERS
27. Allow newly-elected Members to hire and pay one transition staff
member.
28. Offer new-Member orientation in a nonpartisan way.
29. Make new-Member orientation more comprehensive.
30. Promote civility during new-Member orientation.
31. Create a Congressional Leadership Academy to offer training for
Members.
32. Make cybersecurity training mandatory for Members.
MAKE THE HOUSE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL AMERICANS
33. Improve access to congressional websites for individuals with disabilities.
34. Require all broadcasts of House proceedings to provide closed caption
service.
35. Require a review of the Capitol complex to determine accessibility
challenges for individuals with disabilities.
32
MODERNIZE AND REVITALIZE HOUSE TECHNOLOGY
36. Reestablish and restructure an improved Office of Technology
Assessment.
37. Improve IT services in the House by reforming House Information
Resources (HIR).
38. Require HIR to prioritize certain technological improvements.
39. Require HIR to reform the approval process for outside technology
vendors.
40. Require HIR to allow Member offices to test new technology.
41. Create one point of contact for technology services for each Member
office within HIR who would be responsible for all technology points of
contact.
42. Create a customer satisfaction portal on HouseNet that allows Member
and staff to rate and review outside vendors and HIR services.
43. The CAO should leverage the bulk purchasing power of the House and
provide a standard suite of quality, up-to-date devices and software, such
as desktop and laptop computers, tablets, printers, mobile phones and
desk phones at no cost to the Members’ Representational Allowance
(MRA).
44. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) should prioritize a “rapid
response” program for nonpartisan fact sheets on key issues and
legislation under consideration in Congress.
45. Develop a nonpartisan constituent engagement and services best
practices page on HouseNet.
46. Establish a Congressional Digital Services Task Force to examine the need
for and role of a specialized group of technologists, designers, and others
to support the House’s internal and public facing operations.
47. Make permanent the Bulk Data Task Force and rename it the
Congressional Data Task Force.
STREAMLINE PROCESSES AND SAVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS
48. Update House procedures to allow members to electronically add or
remove their name as a bill cosponsor.
49. Require Members to undergo emergency preparedness training to ensure
our government is fully prepared in the event of a crisis.
50. Identify ways the House and Senate can streamline purchases and save
taxpayer dollars.
51. Encourage House-wide bulk purchasing of goods and services to cut
back on waste and inefficiency.
52. Update travel expenditure policies to improve efficiencies, and boost
accountability and transparency.
33
INCREASE THE QUALITY OF CONSTITUENT COMMUNICATION
53. Consolidate the regulations governing Member office communications,
including digital communications, into one easy to find place.
54. Rename the House Commission on Mailing Standards, also known as the
Franking Commission, the House Communications Standards Commission
to reflect 21st Century communications.
55. Increase opportunities for constituents to communicate with their
Representatives.
56. Increase accountability and tracking for all Member-sponsored
communications mail.
57. Allow for faster correspondence between Representatives and their
constituents.
58. Update House social media rules to allow for better communication
online between Members of Congress and their followers.
59. Allow the public to better access and view the types of communication
sent by Members of Congress to their constituents.
CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS
60. Each office should have a continuity of operations plan, including
minimum safety requirements and an emergency communications plan,
that is made available to all staff so offices continue functioning for the
public.
61. Ensure that staff have the most up-to-date technology and equipment to
continue effectively working on behalf of constituents in the event of a
disruption or emergency.
62. Establish regular maintenance plans for office technology, so the
equipment and technology needed during remote operations and
telework is functional.
63. Crisis communications guidelines for constituent communication,
including outreach plans for extended telework periods, should be
approved and shared with all Member offices.
64. To help streamline casework requests and help constituents better access
federal agencies and resources, the House should implement a secure
document management system, and provide digital forms and templates
for public access.
65. The House should prioritize the approval of platforms that staff need for
effective telework, and each individual staff member should have licensed
access to the approved technology.
66. Committees should establish telework policies on a bipartisan basis.
67. The House should make permanent the option to electronically submit
committee reports.
34
68. Expand the use of digital signatures for a majority of House business,
including constituent communications.
69. Committees should develop bipartisan plans on how technology and
innovative platforms can be best incorporated into daily work.
70. A bipartisan, bicameral task force should identify lessons learned during
the COVID-19 pandemic and recommend continuity of Congress
improvements.
71. Continuity, telework, and cybersecurity training should be given to all
new Members of Congress.
72. Identify changes made to House operations due to the COVID-19
pandemic and determine what—if any—additional changes should be
made.
RECLAIM CONGRESS’ ARTICLE ONE RESPONSIBILITIES
73. Incentivize committees to experiment with alternative hearing formats to
encourage more bipartisan participation.
74. Committees should hire bipartisan staff approved by both the Chair and
Ranking Member to promote strong institutional knowledge,
evidence-based policy making, and a less partisan oversight agenda.
75. Committees should hold bipartisan pre-hearing committee meetings.
76. Encourage subcommittees to pilot rules changes that could have a
positive effect committee-wide.
77. Bipartisan Member retreats should encourage committee agenda-setting
and civil decorum.
78. Establish committee-based domestic policy CODELs.
79. To encourage thoughtful debate and deliberation, establish a pilot for
weekly Oxford-style debates on the House floor.
80. Provide Members and staff with training for debate and deliberation skills.
81. Identify how increased regulatory and legal resources could help
strengthen the role of the legislative branch.
82. Facilitate a true system of checks and balances by ensuring the legislative
branch is sufficiently represented in the courts.
83. Establish a district exchange program to allow Members to use the
Members' Representational Allowance for traveling to other Members’
districts.
84. Increase capacity for policy staff, especially for Committees, policy
support organizations and a restored Office of Technology Assessment.
85. Reduce dysfunction in the annual budgeting process through the
establishment of a congressionally-directed program that calls for
transparency and accountability, and that supports meaningful and
35
transformative investments in local communities across the United States.
The program will harness the authority of Congress under Article One of
the Constitution to appropriate federal dollars.
REFORM THE BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS
86. Require an annual Fiscal State of the Nation.
87. Require a biennial budget resolution.
88. Implement a deadline for Congress to complete action on a biennial
budget.
89. Enhance the budget submission process from the executive branch.
90. Evaluate the effects of the biennial budget process to expediting
congressional work.
91. Strengthen budget enforcement through the reconciliation process.
92. Allow more information to be included in the budget resolution.
IMPROVE THE CONGRESSIONAL SCHEDULE AND CALENDAR
93. Establish specific committee-only meeting times when Congress is in
session.
94. Create a common committee calendar portal to help with scheduling and
reduce conflicts.
95. Establish specific days—or weeks—where committee work takes priority.
96. Ensure there are more workdays spent working than traveling.
97. The congressional calendar should accommodate a bipartisan member
retreat.
36
Committee Packages that Passed the House
Although the Modernization Committee did not have any legislative
authority, per its creation in H.Res.6, Members worked with other committees
to introduce and pass legislation throughout its tenure. This successful
approach made the Modernization Committee the first select committee in
recent history to effectively turn suggested reforms into legislative action.1
This chapter outlines recommendations that were successfully implemented in
the House during the Committee’s tenure. The remaining recommendations,
while passed by the Committee by a bipartisan majority, have not yet received
a vote on the floor, largely due to the abbreviated schedule of the remote
work period.
H.RES.756, THE “MODCOM RESOLUTION”
On March 10, 2020, the House overwhelmingly passed, with bipartisan
support, H.Res.756, “Moving Our Democracy and Congressional Operations
Towards Modernization Resolution” (MODCOM Resolution). This resolution
included 24 of the Committee’s passed recommendations. All 12 Committee
Members co-sponsored this legislative text, led by Chair Derek Kilmer and Vice
Chair Tom Graves. The legislation was passed under the jurisdiction of the
Committee on House Administration. Administration Committee Chair Zoe
Lofgren and Ranking Member Rodney Davis were also Members of the
Modernization Committee—and played a pivotal role in seeing these bills pass
the House.
“The tone that has been set at the Modernization Committee has
been a refreshing reminder that there is still a way to work in a
truly bipartisan manner… Six Members of Congress from each
party came together to work towards a common goal: to make
this institution better. Americans deserve an efficient and
effective legislature. A modernized Congress will increase our
ability to respond to the needs of communities, save taxpayer
dollars, erase layers of bureaucracy, further professionalize the
institution, and revitalize a transparent, understandable and
efficient legislative process.”
Rep. Rodney Davis, March 10, 2020
The resolution included recommendations to streamline and reorganize
House Human Resources (Title I), improve orientation and education
opportunities for Members (Title II), modernize House technology (Title III),
improve accessibility (Title IV), and improve accessibility and transparency by
making congressional documents more accessible (Title V). As Chair Derek
Kilmer said on the House floor, prior to the vote:
1. See more information on past reform efforts, please see Section II.
For
37
“These recommendations are the product of bipartisan
collaboration and a commitment to making Congress work better
for the American people. These recommendations, though
wide-ranging, share a common goal of making Congress more
responsive, transparent and accessible for every American. Today
marks the first time in recent history that a committee like ours
has turned recommendations into legislative text, and it’s thanks
to the collaboration and partnership of Democratic and
Republican members. I am grateful for their time and
commitment to improving the People’s House and I’m hopeful
there will be more to come.”
Chair Derek Kilmer, March 10, 2020
RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED IN H.RES.756
Title I of H.Res.756 included four of the Modernization Committees’ five
recommendations to streamline and reorganize House Human Resources and
attract and retain congressional staff. Chapter 2 outlines the background and
need for these reforms, as well as details of their implementation. Title I,
Section 101 establishes a new, centralized human resources hub for Members
and their Staff. This hub is tasked with the Committee’s other
recommendations to improve staff retention and resources, including
collecting and distributing information on staff resources and benefits, best
practices for retention, and guidance on telework policies. This new,
centralized HR hub will also improve diversity and recruitment by establishing
a resume portal for jobs and applicants, and proactively engaging in outreach
to under-represented colleges and universities. Lastly, this center will perform
biennial staff surveys to collect important information on staff pay, benefits,
and diversity.
Title I, Section 102 requires the submission of diversity and inclusion
reports, mandated in H.Res.6, the House resolution that also established the
Modernization Committee. These reports can be found in the Appendix.
Section 103 initiates a report from the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) on
the feasibility of updating the staff payroll system to bimonthly payments.
Likewise, Section 104 calls on the CAO to examine the viability of adjusting the
staff cap in individual Member offices. More on the need for these studies can
be found in Chapter 3 of this report. Lastly, Title I initiates a new, uniform
employee orientation, so that all staff in both Washington D.C. and the district
will receive the same orientation information upon arrival in the House.
Detailed background on the need for an improved Member and staff
orientation can be found in Chapters 3 and 4 of this report.
38
Section II of H.Res.756 turns to improving Member orientation. Details
on the background of these reforms can be found in Chapter 4. Section 201
calls on the CAO to establish a plan for Members to employ a transition staff
member during the period between a new election and the start of the
Congress. This transition period is an essential period in which Members are
setting up their offices, hiring new staff, and learning the rules of the
House—and it’s important they have the support they need to start off on the
right foot. Section 202 calls on the Committee on House Administration to
improve the overall orientation experience for new Members by making it
more accessible and improving the program material. New Member orientation
provides the foundation to working in Congress, and all Members should be
able to take part no matter when they were elected. Likewise, bipartisanship
and decorum should be emphasized from the get-go. Section 203 and 204
develop new education opportunities for Members and staff—a Congressional
Leadership Academy and updated cybersecurity training, respectively.
Title III contains nine Sections to modernize and revitalize House
technology to better serve the American people and make it easier for
Members to connect with their constituents. Section 301 calls for a report on
how to establish and improve a new House Information Resources (HIR) that
will bring technology-use by Members into the 21st Century. This Title also
calls for the HIR to allow Members to beta-test new technologies (Section
304), and establish a single point of contact within HIR for individual Member
offices (Section 305), which will not only make it easier for Members and staff
to get the help they need, but establishes a way to provide HIR with direct,
helpful feedback for improvement (Section 306). Title III also contains sections
to improve constituency engagement technologies, such as video calls
(Section302); streamline the approval process for outside vendors (Section
303); and enable the CAO to leverage the bulk purchasing power of the House
(Section 307). Lastly, this Title initiates two reforms to assist Members with
constituent communication—directing the Congressional Research Service
(CRS) to provide rapid-response short fact sheets on pressing and timely
topics (Section 308); and establishing a nonpartisan constituent engagement
page on HouseNet so Members and staff can share best practices on vendors
and constituent engagement experiences (Section 209). Chapter 6 discusses
the need for these recommendations in detail. In addition to these reforms,
other technology changes were implemented in response to the COVID-19
remote operating status. These are discussed below, as well as in Chapter 9 of
this report.
Title IV makes much-needed improvements to House accessibility by
mandating three new requirements to ensure all Americans can be involved in
the legislative process. Section 401 requires the CAO to submit a report on
website accessibility for all House offices and committees, and to provide
recommendations on how Congress will improve any shortcomings. Section
402 requires the CAO to submit a plan to standardize closed captioning for all
videos created by House offices—including committee hearings, floor
39
proceedings, and other events. Lastly, Section 403 establishes a
comprehensive review of accessibility throughout the Capital Buildings and
Grounds. More information on the details of these recommendations, and the
background of Accessibility Services in the House can be found in Chapter 5
of this report.
The final Title (V) of H.Res.756 codifies a top priority of the
Modernization Committee—transparency and access to congressional
documents and publication. Section 501 and 502 adopts two sought after
projects to standardize legislative texts and make the amendment process
easier. First, 501 standardizes legislative text to be submitted in Extensible
Markup Language, or XML, which allows for the legislative comparison project
outlined in Section 502 to move forward. Section 503 establishes a
much-needed database of information on the deadlines and expirations for
program authorizations—a task which not only will aid in transparency, but
congressional capacity as well. Lastly, section 504 establishes a database of
votes taken in committee so the American public can know how their
Representative voted at all stages of the legislative process. More information
on the recommendations included in Title V can be found in Chapter 1 and 7.
Full text of H.Res.756 can be found in the Appendix.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THESE PACKAGES NOT INCLUDED IN H.RES.756
While a majority of the Modernization Committee recommendations in
the first two packages were included in H.Res.756, three were not explicitly
included after consulting the Office of Legislative Counsel and the Committee
on House Administration. A recommendation modernizing the lobbying
disclosure system (included in H. Rept. 116-406 “Recommendations to
Improve Transparency in the U.S. House of Representatives”) would have
required a change to the U.S. Code, and therefore a Senate vote on legislation
that included this recommendation. Since the Modernization Committee
drafted legislation with the scope narrowed to mainly House matters, this
recommendation was held for possible additional legislation in the future that
would require a Senate vote.
Additionally, H.Res.756 did not include a recommendation rethinking and
reinstating an Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (included in H. Rept.
116-407 “Recommendations to Streamline House Human Resources, Overhaul
the Onboarding Process, Improve Member Continuing Education
Opportunities, Modernize House Technology, and Improve Accessibility”). The
Committee recognized outside studies were underway on this subject. The
Committee also recognized more work to improve House technology, and
possibly the OTA, was a priority and therefore this recommendation was not
included to provide space for additional, thoughtful work.
40
Finally, a recommendation to regularly survey staff (included in H. Rept.
116-407 “Recommendations to Streamline House Human Resources, Overhaul
the Onboarding Process, Improve Member Continuing Education
Opportunities, Modernize House Technology, and Improve Accessibility”) was
combined with other sections of H.Res.756.
LEG BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS
Before passage of H.Res.756, Chair Kilmer and Vice Chair Graves began
working to secure funding to implement the Modernization Committee’s
recommendations. The recommendations in this section were implemented
through the 2020 House Appropriations Legislative Branch bill, which provides
funding for the federal legislative branch. On March 4, 2020, Chair Kilmer and
Vice Chair Graves testified before the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on the
importance of funding the Modernization Committee’s reforms in order to
make the House more effective, efficient, and transparent.2
“Our goal is simple, but critical: make Congress work better for
the American people…. As we continue our work throughout the
remainder of this year, no idea is too big or too small, and we
encourage you to continue sharing your ideas for reform with us.
Together we’re giving the House a roadmap for a brighter future.”
Vice Chair Tom Graves, March 4, 2020
“Making Congress work better for the American people is a
worthwhile investment. The Select Committee sees value in
modernizing this institution so that we’re not relying on outdated
processes and technologies to address 21st century problems.”
Chair Derek Kilmer, March 4, 2020
The Legislative Branch Subcommittee bill, released on July 6, 2020 and
passed by the full committee on July 10, provides funding for five
recommendations made by the Modernization Committee for fiscal year
2021—the transition to bulk purchasing, transition staff members, a new HR
center and document standardization program, and improved House
Accessibility.3 Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Tim Ryan (OH-13), full
Committee Chair Nita Lowey (NY-17), and full Committee Ranking Member
Kay Granger (TX-12) praised the Modernization Committee for these
investments to modernize the House:
2. Member Witnesses FY 2021 Budget Requests, 116th Congress (2020, March 4). House Committee on
See
Appropriations. https://appropriations.house.gov/events/hearings/member-witnesses-fy2021-
budget-requests
3. H.R.7611, 116th Congress. Report No. 116-447. https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr7611/BILLS-
See
116hr7611rh.pdf
41
“I’m proud to release this bill, which serves as a down payment on
the modernization of the House of Representatives and ensures
we can continue to serve our constituents efficiently and
effectively.”
Tim Ryan, July 6, 2020
“This bill makes key investments in the Legislative Branch—from
funding for House modernization initiatives to increased
resources for diversity and inclusion efforts—to better reflect and
meet the needs of the diverse communities we serve.”
Nita M. Lowey, July 6, 2020
“This bill recognizes the important, bipartisan work of the House
Select Committee on Modernization and takes steps to make
Congress more effective, efficient, and transparent on behalf of
the American people.”
Kay Granger, July 10, 2020
The leg branch appropriations bill establishes a $2 million fund for
House modernization and contains text on the following five
recommendations made by the Modernization Committee and passed by the
House in H.Res.756.
1. Funding for the CAO to engage in bulk purchasing and provide baseline
technology for offices.
Committee recommendation: The CAO should leverage the bulk
purchasing power of the House and provide a standard suite of quality,
up-to-date devices and software, such as desktop and laptop computers,
tablets, printers, mobile phones and desk phones at no cost to the
Members’ Representational Allowance (MRA).
Committee recommendation: Encourage House-wide bulk purchasing of
goods and services to cut back on waste and inefficiency
Leg Branch Bill:4 The Select Committee recommended that the CAO
leverage the bulk purchasing power of the House of Representatives. The
CAO should provide a standard suite of quality, up-to-date devices and
software, such as desktop and laptop computers, tablets, printers, mobile
phones and desk phones at no cost to the MRA. The Committee believes
that fragmented and duplicative contracts cause inefficiencies and
unnecessary costs for Member, Committee, and leadership offices. The
4. Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill Accompanying Report (Rpt. 116-447). 116th Congress.
See
https://www.congress.gov/116/crpt/hrpt447/CRPT-116hrpt447.pdf
42
Committee recommends that the CAO negotiate House-wide contracts
or purchasing services for Member, Committee, and Leadership offices
with the goal of saving taxpayer dollars by purchasing centrally rather
than independently.
Leg Branch Bill: The CAO is also encouraged to develop and pilot
baseline tech packages for new Member offices in order to take
advantage of bulk purchasing rates and streamline the process of
equipping Member offices with necessary technologies. The CAO, in
consultation with the Committee on House Administration, should
determine what constitutes a good, baseline technology package for
Member offices. The CAO may pilot a baseline tech package with
freshman offices, and then expand the pilot to other offices accordingly.
2. $13 million to the CAO to allow the hiring of transition staff for new
Members.
Committee recommendation: Through the Office of the Clerk, newly
elected Members should have the option to hire and pay one transition
staff member for the duration of the time between when they are elected
and are sworn in.
3. Support of the new, centralized HR Hub.
Committee recommendation: Create a one-stop shop Human Resources
HUB dedicated to Member, committee, and leadership (MCL) staff. Led by
an HR Deputy Director and comprised of existing offices and staff of the
House, the office will be responsible for assisting MCL offices to improve
the recruitment and retention of a diverse workforce, develop best
practices that can be utilized by offices, and provide recommendations
for competitive compensation and benefits to House staff.
Leg Branch Bill: The Committee commends the recommendations
produced by the Select Committee, particularly those regarding
centralized Human Resources. A centralized human resources program
would provide standardized hiring, promoting, and managing guidelines
and improve in the retention and recruitment of a diverse workforce. The
Committee requests a report within 120 days of enactment from the CAO
on the feasibility of a centralized Human Resources system.
4. Adoption of a standardized document format for all legislative texts.
Committee recommendation: Adopting one standardized format for
drafting, viewing, and publishing legislation to improve transparency and
efficiency throughout the lawmaking process.
Leg Branch Bill: The Committee is supportive of the Select Committee’s
recommendations to adopt standardized formats for legislative
documents and expedite the legislation comparison project.
43
5. Funding to begin the transition to website accessibly for all Americans.
Committee recommendation: Scan and analyze all House websites and
apps to determine the accessibility level of each congressional website,
and provide resources and assistance to ensure all systems are
compatible with common programs used by major disability groups.
Leg Branch Bill: According to the Bureau of the Census, there are 40.7
million citizens who are non-institutionalized individuals with a disability,
as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Individuals with
disabilities should have full digital access to government digital
properties, especially those made available by Member offices, including
websites, applications, and electronic document retrieval programs. The
Select Committee has highlighted improving access to Congressional
websites for individuals with disabilities as a top priority. The Committee
directs the CAO to provide a report, no later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, on the current state of web accessibility of
Member websites and provide a plan that defines the scope, timeline, and
cost estimates for all Member of Congress websites to be accessible for
the disabled. This report shall be submitted to the Committee and the
Committee on House Administration.
IMPLEMENTED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FRANKED MAIL
Modernization Committee Members and staff worked closely with the
House Franking Commission and the Committee on House Administration to
create seven reforms geared toward increasing the quality of constituent
communication. These recommendations were passed by the Committee on
December 19, 2019, implemented by the Franking Commission, and passed by
the House on July 30, 2020 in H.R.7512, the “COMMS Act”.5
These recommendations address the growing use of digital
communication by the House, changing communication between constituents
and the Member, and consolidates new rules and regulations for official digital
communications in one, convenient place. The COMMS Act also makes some
administrative changes, such as renaming the Franking Commission to the
House Communications Standards Communication, and makes it easier for
Members to track their sponsored mail and receive approval for official
communications. The details of these recommendations and the status of their
implementation are detailed in Chapter 8.
RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTED IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19
Lastly, Modernization Committee recommendations related to electronic
submission were implemented out of necessity to respond to the COVID-19
pandemic and provide support for Congress’ remote operating status. While
some were implemented on a temporary, emergency status, the Modernization
Committee passed an additional set of recommendations encouraging many
5. See the full text of the recommendations in the Appendix.
44
changes be made permanent. These are also detailed below, as well as
Chapter 9. The Committee on House Administration, led by Modernization
Committee Members Chair Zoe Lofgren and Ranking Member Rodney Davis,
was instrumental in the implementation of these recommendations.
In H.Rept. 116-407 “Recommendations to Streamline House Human
Resources, Overhaul the Onboarding Process, Improve Member Continuing
Education Opportunities, Modernize House Technology, and Improve
Accessibility”, the Modernization Committee recommended updating House
procedure to allow Members to electronically add or remove their name as a
cosponsor. While this was originally recommended out of convenience for
Members and their staff, the remote work period made this a necessity for not
only cosponsors, but for official letters to administrative officials, document
requests, and constituent communications.
On April 7, 2020 the House Office of the Clerk, with the Committee on
House Administration and the Speaker of the House, began accepting
electronic submission of committee reports and legislative documents that
require a Members’ signature.6 The Modernization Committee recommended
making this change permanent and expanding the types of documents and
signatures permissible for electronic signature in their July 31, 2020 package
of continuity recommendations. See Chapter 9 for more detail on these
reforms.
6. Dear Colleague: Electronic Submission of Legislative Documents (6, April 2020). Office of the Clerk.
See
45
II. History and Background of the Select
Committee on the Modernization of Congress
Congress is no stranger to reform. Each legislative session Members
work to pass new laws, reform old practices, and amend existing laws. But
while the world around us changes rapidly, as an institution, Congress has
been slow to keep up.
“Every few decades Congress takes a look inward and decides it
needs to fix itself. In most of these instances Congress forms a
select committee and charges them with figuring out what the
problems are and recommending solutions. The Select
Committee on the Modernization of Congress is the latest
incarnation of that. The last one was in 1992.
"I have been incredibly impressed and encouraged by the
collaboration of the Members of the Select Committee, and I
believe that we are proving that it is possible for Members on
both sides of the aisle to sit down together, engage in tough
discussions, and ultimately find bipartisan solutions to the
challenges that we face.”
Derek Kilmer, November 21, 2019 before the Committee on
House Administration7
The 116th Congress is not the first to initiate a select committee tasked
with improving legislative branch operations and identifying opportunities for
reform. Unlike the 20 permanent, standing committees of Congress, temporary
select committees are established with a specific investigative task. Select
committees can include Members from both the House and Senate, making
them a “joint” select committee. While some select committees, like the House
Select Committee on Intelligence or the Select Committee on the Climate
Crisis, are tasked with external investigations, some committees, like the 116th
Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress (“Modernization
Committee”), are asked to look internally, research the areas of Congress that
are ripe for reform, and propose ways to improve the institution.
Over the past century, there have been three joint select committees,
four House select committees (including the Modernization Committee), and
two commissions focused on reforming Congress. This section will review past
congressional reform efforts by these committees, beginning with the 1946
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, and concluding with the
Modernization Committee established in January 2019. After providing a brief
overview of past efforts, this section will then detail the processes of the
Committee including its formation, jurisdiction, and legislative output.
7. Member Day—The Committee on House Administration, 116th Congress (2019, November 21).
See
46
Past Congressional Reform Efforts
Figure A: Timeline of congressional reform select committees of congress. Larger
circles indicate the committees’ jurisdiction was congress-wide reforms, versus a
sector of congressional activity.
Joint
Committee
on the
Organization
of Congress,
79th
Congress
¢ Focus:
Committee
Jurisdiction of
Congress
© Outcome:
Legislative
Organization
Act of 1946
Joint
Committee
on the
Organization
of Congress,
89th - 91st
Congress
¢ Focus:
Committee
Jurisdiction of
Congress,
Article One
powers
° Outcome:
Legislation
granting
committees
oversight
capability,
requirements
for scheduling
and minority
participation
on
committees
House Select
Committee
on
Committees,
93rd
Congress
© Focus:
Committee
jurisdiction in
the House
* Outcome:
Legislation
establishing
minimal
reforms in
committee
jurisdiction,
increased
staff for
minority
members on
committees
1973 1975
House
Commission
on
Information
and Facilities,
94th
Congress
¢ Focus: House
operations,
technology,
and capacity
¢ Outcome:
Report
suggesting
coordinated
communication
between
service
organizations,
changes in
Capitol
building
complex
House
Commission
on
Administrative
Review,
94th - 95th
Congress
¢ Focus:
Schedule and
Calendar,
Ethics Rules,
Administrative
Processes
¢ Outcome:
Report that
ultimately
established
Ethics
Committee,
changes to
the
congressional
record, and
franking
regulations
1979
Joint
Committee
on the
Organization
of Congress,
102nd -
103rd
Congress
© Modernizing
Congress,
larger reforms
¢ Outcome: No
passed
legislaton;
some report
recommendations
were
adopted by
new
Republican
Leadership in
the 104th
Congress,
including
creation of
the CAO,
eliminating
resources for
congressional
caucuses,
changes to
rules and floor
procedure.
1981
House Select
Committee on
Committees,
96th Congress
¢ Focus:
Congressional
jurisdiction
© Outcome: No
reforms were
passed;
Commerce
Committee
was renamed.
House Select
Committee
on the
Modernization
of
Congress,
116th
Congress
me ®
Joint Select
Committee
on Budget
and
Appropriations
115th
Congress
¢ Focus:
Reforming the
budget and
appropriations
process.
* Outcome: No
passed
legislation.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS,
79TH CONGRESS
As Congress evolved, its legislative activity mirrored the expansion of
the country. By 1913, there were 61 standing committees in the House,
including 11 centered solely on federal expenditures. Internal and external
criticisms about the inefficiencies of committee jurisdiction eventually led
House and Senate leadership to establish the Joint Committee on the
Organization of Congress.®
8. Schneider, J., Davis, C.; Palmer, B. (2003). Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Modern
Reform Efforts. https://archives-democrats-rules.house.gov/archives/RL31835.pdf
47
This Committee was comprised of 12 Members, six from each chamber,
divided equally by party, and was tasked to “make a full and complete study of
the organization and operation of Congress,” and to propose
recommendations to strengthen and simplify Congress. The Committee was
authorized for the two years of the 79th Congress (1945–1946). Over these
two years, the Committee held 39 hearings, received testimony from 102
witnesses, and drafted a final report on March 4, 1946 with 37
recommendations.9
The House and Senate committee structure was the focus of the Joint
Committee’s report. The Committee proposed reducing the number of
standing committees to 18, and the majority of the standing committee
jurisdictions proposed in the 1946 legislation are still intact today. The report
also recommended that every standing committee have its own oversight
authority to investigate the executive branch departments that fall under its
jurisdiction, another practice still in place today.
The Joint Committee successfully passed into law the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, which in addition to committee reforms, included
proposals to raise member pay and regulate lobbyists. It was signed into law
by President Truman on August 2, 1946.10 Other recommendations regarding
congressional staff, such as hiring non-partisan professional staff for each
committee, and granting administrative assistants to each individual member
for constituent services, were not passed. However, while these staffing
proposals were not ultimately passed into law, they were later adopted and
passed by future select committees.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS,
89TH–91ST CONGRESS
The next substantial reforms targeting Congress passed in the 91st
Congress and were the byproduct of five years of work spread over three
Congresses. The second Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress
was made up of six Senators and six Representatives, equally divided by party,
and met from March 1965 through September 1965. Like the joint committee
before it, the focus was the organization of Congress and its committees. In
addition, as the original proposals weaved their way through the legislative
hurdles of Congress, tensions between the executive branch and the legislative
branch increased. Thus, the final reforms also included proposals intended to
move Congress to reclaim its Article One powers, particularly its power of the
purse.
The 1965 Select Committee proposed around 120 changes to
congressional operations in a July 1966 report. Legislation was introduced
alongside the report but saw no action until the Senate reintroduced the
9. Ibid.
See
10. Office of the Historian. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. https://history.house.gov/
See
Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Legislative-Reorganization-Act-of-1946/.
48
Committee’s legislation in 1967. Although the proposals were overwhelmingly
supported in the Senate, they gained no traction in the House until the House
Rules Committee’s Special Subcommittee on Legislative Reorganization
drafted a bill based on the Joint Committee’s proposals. This legislation
ultimately passed the House and Senate and was signed into law by President
Nixon in 1970.
The approved proposals of the 1965 committee largely focused on
congressional committees, in an attempt to temper the power of committee
chairs and give the minority party more involvement in committee activity.
Specifically, it was recommended that each committee adopt written rules,
establish consistent meeting days, publish committee hearing dates in
advance, allow the minority to bring forward their own witnesses, and allow
Members to call a hearing without the approval of the committee chair. Again,
many of these reforms are still in place today—public and televised hearings,
recorded votes in committee markup, and minority inclusion in committee
activity—and can all be traced back to the 1965 reforms.
Like the 1946 Joint Committee, the 1966 report also included staffing
suggestions, such as establishing bipartisan committee clerks, granting the
minority a committee staff, and providing funding for administrative assistants.
To address increased executive power, the Committee recommended
increased oversight of the executive branch via the appropriations process.
The Committee also recommended increasing the capacity of nonpartisan
research organizations, most notably the Congressional Research Service.
HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES, 93RD CONGRESS
Committee structure and jurisdiction were again the focus of the 1973
House Select Committee on Committees (commonly referred to as the Bolling
Committee, named for then-Rep. Richard Bolling, D-MO, who introduced the
committee’s final legislation). The Committee makeup was bipartisan, with five
Republican and five Democratic Members. Their hearings, from May through
October 1973, relied solely on committee staff and congressional leadership as
witnesses.
Committee jurisdiction was the focus of the House Select Committee on
Committees, but the Committee also recommended that “major” committees
develop oversight subcommittees, improve the communication between
committees and related executive branch agencies, and eliminate proxy
voting. But when the select committee released its initial draft in December
1973, its work was met with extensive criticism. The report suggested
abolishing several committees and reducing the scope of jurisdiction of others.
Members, territorial of their committees and their jurisdiction, were opposed
to the initial suggestions.
Ultimately, after four days of contentious House Rules Committee
hearings, six days of House floor debate, and numerous proposed
amendments, the House adopted a package as amended by Rep. Julia Butler
49
Hansen, D-WA, (also referred to as the “Hansen Alternative”). The report
appeased critics by keeping all committees intact and suggesting only minor
changes to committee jurisdiction. In addition, the approved legislation
maintained proxy voting and increased committee staff for the minority party,
specifically for purposes of executive oversight. These reforms also
established the requirement that any committee-issued subpoenas be
authorized by the majority of committee Members.
HOUSE COMMISSION ON INFORMATION AND FACILITIES, 94TH
CONGRESS
The next congressional session created a House Commission on
Information and Facilities (commonly referred to as the “Brooks Commission”,
named after chair Rep. Jack Brooks, D-TX), and was tasked with practical
matters of House operations—technology, constituency communications, and
the physical capacity of congressional buildings. As a commission, alongside
the GAO, CRS, and House Information Systems, it was able to implement
changes without passing legislation.
The Commission, made up of five Democratic and four Republican
Members, focused its recommendations and pilot programs on ways to make
the House more efficient and modern, particularly given the increasing
demands of constituency size and technological developments in
communication. Throughout the Commission’s tenure (1975–1976), it
produced six “information inventories, conducted a comprehensive study of
congressional support agencies, and undertook numerous pilot projects.”11
Using this research, the Commission’s final report, released in January 1977,
identified two main areas for reform: information and facilities.
First, in the information sector, the Commission recommended increased
coordination among information agencies like GAO, CRS, and CBO. It also
encouraged Members to use these legislative services more frequently, even
installing a shared computer center for Members and committees to increase
access to these information services. Second, as for facilities, the Commission
concluded that the House lacked adequate space for its growing needs. Its
suggestions were specific: The Document Room was moved from Capitol to
the Longworth Building, the Ford Building was adapted as a House Office
Building, and bulky furniture was removed. The report also called for a
comprehensive study of member meeting rooms and the usage of the Cannon
and Longworth courtyard space.
11. Schneider, J., Davis, C.; Palmer, B. (2003). Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Modern
See
Reform Efforts. https://archives-democrats-rules.house.gov/archives/RL31835.pdf, p. 38
50
HOUSE COMMISSION ON ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, 94TH–95TH
CONGRESS
Continuing the period of reform, the next congressional session
established the Commission on Administrative Review (often referred to as
“the Obey Commission,” named after Chairman Rep. David Obey, D-WI). Unlike
other committees, this Commission also included private citizens—all of whom
were presidents or former presidents of large organizations or interest groups.
The Commission began by gathering a vast amount of data on the
administrative practices of the House, including House-wide surveys of
Members and their staff. It ultimately focused its work on three areas: the
schedule and calendar of the House, ethics rules governing Members, and the
administrative processes of the House. It introduced reforms with a rolling
approach, passing each set of recommendations as individual packages.
To address the “chaotic and frequently ad hoc” scheduling practices of
the House, the Commission recommended that congressional leadership
develop a “firm schedule,” so that Members knew when they needed to be in
Washington, D.C., for official business. The Commission also suggested
changes to House floor procedure that could make scheduling easier,
including cutting back time of general debate, reducing the number of roll call
votes, and allowing standing committees to meet when the House debated
measures under the five-minute rule.
The Joint Commission addressed ethics reforms against a salient
backdrop of ethical misconduct. Many of these reforms are still in place today,
including financial disclosure statements, a limit on outside earned income,
and the use of public funds for personal use. Franking privilege were also
limited to congressional districts, 60-days prior to any election. The
Commission proposed a Select Committee on Ethics to implement these
reforms—now a standing committee in Congress.
Lastly, the Commission recommended several administrative changes for
House operations, including a new House Administration Officer, and the
inclusion of information beyond floor speeches in the Congressional Record.
This Commission also echoed an earlier suggestion from the 1970 Select
Committee that called for a central office to help recruit staff, handle staff
grievances, and create congressional maternity and disability policies.
HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES, 96TH CONGRESS
A continued realization of the inefficiencies of the committee
structure—this time a proliferation of subcommittees—led to the creation of
the House Select Committee on Committees in the 96th Congress. Charged
with studying committee structure, jurisdiction, staffing, rules and procedures,
facilities, and media coverage, the Committee ultimately made five
recommendations, with only one ultimately being considered for passage on
the House floor. This suggestion was to create a new Energy Committee,
51
outside of the current jurisdiction of the House Commerce Committee, but this
was ultimately rejected. The House instead opted to simply change the name
of the committee to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS,
102ND–103RD CONGRESS
The motivation behind the bipartisan and bicameral Joint Committee on
the Organization of Congress (JCOC) in the 102nd and 103rd Congress closely
mirrored the purpose of the very first Joint Committee of 1946: Congress was
not keeping up with increasing demands and technological changes. The
increasingly negative public perception of Congress motivated Members to
seek reforms that would make them more responsive to their constituents.
From January through July 1993, the committee held 36 hearings,
receiving testimony from 243 witnesses, several of them current and former
Members of Congress. The result was the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1994, introduced in both the House and Senate chambers. Ultimately, attempts
to pass this legislation failed. However, some of the recommendations outlined
in the legislation were eventually adopted by party leaders and through party
caucus rules.
After Republicans gained the majority in the 104th Congress—ending a
long-lasting Democratic majority in the House—new congressional leadership
adopted the JCOC’s proposal to abolish some committees, including the
District of Columbia Committee and Post Office Committee, placing them
under the jurisdiction of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
Other committee changes were also made, including new term limits for
committee and subcommittee chairs, the end of proxy voting, a limit on the
number of committee assignments for rank and file Members, and a vast
reduction of committee staff.
Beyond committee reforms, the new Republican majority also made
administrative changes, including creating a Chief Administrative Officer
(CAO), consolidating several security positions into the Sergeant at Arms, and
limiting resources for Legislative Study Organizations (caucuses). Changes
were also made to the rules and procedures of the House, including a retooled
use of the Motion to Recommit, limiting earmarks on appropriations bills, and
publicizing signatures on discharge petitions. These reforms are largely
credited with strengthening party leadership and centralizing party leaders’
control over legislative activity.
52
JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS
PROCESS REFORM, 115TH CONGRESS
Prior to the Modernization Committee, the most recent select
committee was established in the 115th Congress with the specific purpose to
“significantly reform the budget and appropriations process.”12 This bipartisan
and bicameral committee was made up of 16 Members from the House and
Senate divided evenly by party. From February to November 2018 the
Committee held five hearings, hearing from 12 outside witnesses and 27
Members.
The Committee’s primary recommendation was for a budget resolution
to be adopted for a two-year cycle. Ultimately, the draft legislation was not
agreed to by the Committee, and the final vote to report the bill as amended
fell along party lines, with seven Democratic Members voting for it, and seven
Republican Members voting against it. Chapter 11 details this Committee’s
recommendations.
THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE MODERNIZATION OF
CONGRESS, 116TH CONGRESS
The reforms put in place by these historical committees have had lasting
effects on how Congress functions—from lofty guidance on rules and
procedures, to specific changes in how Members communicate and legislate
for the American people. The Modernization Committee was developed with
these precedents and previous reforms in mind. Like select committees before
it, the Modernization Committee was established with the intention of reform:
“to investigate, study, make findings, hold public hearings, and develop
recommendations on modernizing Congress.”13
And like the select committees that came before it, the Modernization
Committee was established at a pivotal point in the U.S. Congress. The goal of
reform in the 116th Congress was motivated by what Members on both sides
of the aisle viewed as unprecedented levels of partisanship, decreasing claim
to constitutional powers vested in Article One, the inability to pass essential
legislation, and unrelenting disapproval from constituents.
These challenges were visible for all to see. The Modernization
Committee’s initial hearings were delayed by the longest government
shutdown in U.S. history.14 In the fall and winter of 2019, the impeachment and
Senate trial of President Donald Trump dominated the news and congressional
12. Lynch, M. S. (n.d.). The Joint Select Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reform.
See
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45111.pdf
13. Adopting the Rules for the 116th Congress, H.Res.6, 116th Cong. (2018). https://docs.house.gov/
See
billsthisweek/20181231/116-HRes6-SxS.pdf
14. Restuccia, Andrew, Burgess Everett, Heather Caygle (2019, January 25). “Longest shutdown in history
See
ends after Trump relents on wall” POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/25/trump-
shutdown-announcement-1125529
53
attention.15 In the Spring of 2020, Congress was thrown into extraordinary
uncertainty as the novel Coronavirus spread globally and hit the United States,
forcing the U.S. Congress to move to a nearly remote format.16 Throughout the
Spring and Summer of 2020, protests throughout the country highlighted
longstanding racial inequalities, mirrored in the lack of diversity in Congress.
All the while, Congress remained extremely unpopular with voters—hovering
around a 20 percent job approval rating.17
However, amidst this tumultuous background, the Modernization
Committee stayed focused on what we chartered as our end goal and mission:
making Congress work better for the American people. Not only was our
mission pertinent, but our innovative and modern approach facilitated
productive legislating. For one, the Committee was truly bipartisan, with
Members from all areas of the country, motivated to improve Congress on
behalf of the American people, and aware of the success—and failures—of the
reform committees before us.
Unlike the majority of the previous select committees, the Modernization
Committee introduced and passed recommendations on a rolling basis in a
series of packages, rather than in one concluding report. As legislative text
was successfully introduced in committees of jurisdiction, Members served as
bipartisan co-sponsors. Throughout the process the Committee practiced our
own recommendations: bipartisan meetings without the glare of camera lights,
round table discussions with reform experts, and one shared bipartisan
committee staff.
The remainder of this chapter will further detail the creation and
membership, jurisdiction, and subsequent hearings and successful legislative
output of the Modernization Committee in the 116th Congress.
CREATION AND MEMBERSHIP
CREATION AND EXTENSION
Title II of H.Res.6, the Rules Package passed at the start of the 116th
Congress, established the Modernization Committee. As established by Title II
of H.Res.6, topics for investigation included: (1) rules to promote a more
modern and efficient Congress; (2) procedures including the schedule and
calendar; (3) policies to develop the next generation of leaders; (4) staff
recruitment, diversity, retention, and compensation and benefits; (5)
administrative efficiencies; (6) technology and innovation; and (7) the
Franking Commission.
15. Shear, Michael D., Peter Baker (2019, December 31). “Key Moments: The Day the House Impeached
See
Trump”. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/us/politics/impeachment-vote.html.
16. Taylor, Derrick B. (2020, August 6). “A Timeline of the Coronavirus Pandemic”. New York Times.
See
https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-timeline.html
17. Gallup Poll, “Congressional Job Approval” (2020) Congress and the Public. https://news.gallup.com/
See
poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
54
Title II of H.Res.6 required the Modernization Committee “to provide
interim status reports to the Committee on House Administration and the
Committee on Rules. It authorized the Select Committee to report the results
of investigations and studies to the House on a rolling basis, along with
detailed findings and policy recommendations, and required a final such
report at the end of the first session of the 116th Congress.”18
In February 2019, the House voted to extend the Modernization
Committee’s work to the end of the 116th Congress.19 This extension was
supported by a broad coalition of House Members and reform-oriented
organizations, many of whom submitted letters of support to Speaker Pelosi.20
The House Rules Committee first approved H.R. 4863, which included
language to extend the Modernization Committee, after which the full
chamber voted on November 14, 2019 to make the extension official.21 H.Res.6
was thus amended to make the final report due on October 30, 2020, with a
new expiration date of January 3, 2021.
MEMBERSHIP
Title II of H.Res.6 directed the Speaker to appoint 12 Members,
Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner to serve on the Select Committee,
including two Members serving in their first term, two Members of the
Committee on Rules, and two Members from the Committee on House
Administration. Six of the 12 Members were required to be appointed on the
recommendation of the Minority Leader, including one Member from each of
the three described categories. The Speaker was directed to designate a Chair,
and, on the recommendation of the Minority Leader, a Vice Chair. Full bios of
the Members can be found in Section I, Chapter 2.
The following Members were named to the Modernization Committee:
Chair, Derek Kilmer (WA-6) Vice Chair, Tom Graves (GA-14)
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5) Susan Brooks (IN-5)
Suzan DelBene (WA-1) Rodney Davis (IL-13)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19) Dan Newhouse (WA-4)
Mark Pocan (WI-2) William Timmons (SC-4)
Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-5) Rob Woodall (GA-7)
HEARINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In total, the Modernization Committee held 16 hearings between March
19, 2019 and February 5, 2020. The Committee also held six business meetings
to pass the recommendations outlined in this report. Following the transition
18. Adopting the Rules for the 116th Congress, H.Res.6, 116th Cong. (2018). https://docs.house.gov/
See
billsthisweek/20181231/116-HRes6-SxS.pdf
19. See the Appendix.
20. Ackley, K. (2019, November 14). House leaders give modernization panel more time.
See
https://www.rollcall.com/2019/11/14/house-leaders-give-modernization-panel-more-time/
21. United States Export Finance Agency Act of 2019, H.Res.4863, 116th Cong. (2019)
See
https://rules.house.gov/bill/116/hr-4863#rule-information
55
to remote work in the wake of the Coronavirus Pandemic in March 2020, the
Committee held an additional six virtual meetings. In these hearings and
meetings, Committee Members heard from dozens of witnesses that spanned
from current and former members, academic experts, advocacy organizations,
and state and local policymakers. A full list of the hearings, Members present,
and witnesses can be found in the Appendix.22 In addition to congressional
hearings, Members participated in round-table discussions and member-only
meetings to discuss potential reforms.
At the direction of Select Committee Chair Derek Kilmer and Vice Chair
Tom Graves, the committee operated on a fully bipartisan basis. Bipartisan
practices included: 1) scattered seating rather than partisan seating at
committee hearings; 2) regular bipartisan Member meetings and issue
briefings; 3) bipartisan staff operations, including all staff briefings and
meetings; 4) regular bipartisan “listening sessions” at the Member and staff
levels; and 5) regular joint media appearances and interviews by the Chair and
Vice Chair. Chair Kilmer and Vice Chair Graves met regularly with bipartisan
groups of colleagues to hear their suggestions for modernizing Congress, and
the Committee’s staff director and deputy staff director regularly met with
bipartisan groups of congressional staff to hear their suggestions for
modernizing Congress.
On March 19, 2019, the Select Committee held a Member Day Hearing,
as required by Title II of H.Res.6. Thirty-two House Members testified before
the Committee and a total of 35 House Members submitted written testimony.
Member testimony covered a wide range of reform topics, including but not
limited to: increasing pay for congressional staff and interns; updating House
technologies; increasing legislative branch capacity; improving the House
schedule and calendar; and, improving civility and bipartisan collaboration in
Congress.
The Select Committee held a hearing entitled “Congressional Reforms
of the Past and Their Effect on Today’s Congress” on March 27, 2019. This
hearing explored the work and recommendations of previous select
committees. The hearing also considered how the Committee jurisdiction
intersects with previous efforts and how the current political and institutional
environments will impact the Committee’s agenda and work.
The Select Committee held a hearing entitled “Former Members
Hearing: Speaking from Experience” on May 1, 2019. This hearing featured a
bipartisan panel of six former Members of Congress who shared their
experiences while serving in Congress and highlighted a number of possible
areas for reform. The witnesses focused on a broad range of issues including
staff recruitment, transparency, technology, building civility and trust, and
improving the quality of life for those working in the legislative branch.
22. See Appendix.
56
The Select Committee held a hearing titled “Opening up the Process:
Recommendations for Making Legislative Information More Transparent” on
May 10, 2019. This hearing explored the benefits of making more legislative
information available online, the challenges of making information available at
scale, and the unintended consequences of too much transparency in the
legislative process. The hearing also considered recommendations for making
the legislative process more transparent.
The Select Committee held a hearing entitled “Improving Constituent
Engagement” on June 5th, 2019. This hearing focused on the current state of
constituent communications, new technologies for improving deliberative
dialogue between Member offices and constituents, the future of constituent
engagement, and recommendations for improving the way Members and staff
interact with constituents.
The Select Committee held a hearing titled “Cultivating Diversity and
Improving Retention Among Congressional Staff” on June 20, 2019. This
hearing focused on fostering diversity in the staff recruitment process, as well
as how an inclusive work environment improves staff retention. The hearing
also considered benefits available to staff, as well as current trends in public
and private employee benefits.
The Select Committee held a hearing titled “Fostering the Next
Generation of Leaders: Setting Members up for Success” on July 11, 2019.
This hearing focused on the transition to serving in Congress, current
resources available for incoming Members, what Congress can do to improve
the onboarding experience for new Members, and how Congress can help new
Members succeed. The hearing also focused on leadership training best
practices at the state level. The hearing was chaired by the Freshmen
Members of the Committee—Reps. Mary Gay Scanlon and William Timmons.
The Select Committee held a hearing titled “Modernizing Legislative
Information Technologies: Lessons from the States” on July 24, 2019. This
hearing focused on innovative uses of legislative information technologies in
the states. The Committee heard from top technology officers from the
legislatures of Washington, California, and Virginia about how they are using
new technologies to improve Member and staff access to legislative
information, constituent engagement, and legislative processes. The hearing
was designed to stimulate discussion about legislative information technology
and constituent engagement innovations that might be relevant to Congress.
The Select Committee held a hearing titled “Recommendations for
Improving the Budget and Appropriations Process: A Look at the Work of
the Joint Select Committee” on September 19, 2019. This hearing focused on
the work of the Joint Select Committee on Budget and Appropriations
Process Reform (JSC), with emphasis on recommendations made by the JSC
that attracted broad bipartisan and bicameral support. The Select Committee
57
focused on perceived problems with the budget and appropriations process
and explored recommendations for improving the process in ways that
ultimately help Congress better serve the American people.
The Select Committee held a hearing titled “Promoting Civility and
Building a More Collaborative Congress” on September 26, 2019. This
hearing explored recommendations for promoting civility and encouraging
more collaboration across the aisle. The goal of this hearing was to generate a
set of realistic, institutional-based recommendations for promoting civility and
collaboration.
The Select Committee held a hearing titled “The House Calendar and
Schedule: Evaluating Practices and Challenges” on October 16, 2019. This
hearing explored the challenges of establishing and managing a House
calendar and schedule, including historical and contextual information about
prior attempts by Congress to address the calendar and schedule, what
happened with prior attempts, and the challenges of imposing one calendar
on Members who have multiple, competing demands and different ideas about
what the calendar should look like. The hearing also included a look at how
Virginia manages its legislative calendar and schedule, including efficiencies
undertaken to help members better manage time. The goal of this hearing was
to generate a discussion about how the House calendar and schedule might
be improved and what measures might be taken to make Member schedules
more predictable and efficient.
The Select Committee held a hearing titled “Congress and the Frank:
Bringing Congressional Mailing Standards into the 21st Century” on October
31, 2019. The purpose of this hearing was to understand the history of the
frank, how it’s been regulated and reformed over the past few decades, and
current trends in Member use of the frank. The hearing also considered the rise
of social media as a means for constituent and political outreach, trends in
how Member offices use social media, and whether Member digital outreach
should be regulated in any way. Outside vendor experience in dealing with the
frank, along with recommendations for streamlining the way Members
communicate with constituents was also discussed.
The Select Committee held a hearing titled “Administrative Efficiencies:
Exploring Options to Streamline Operations in the U.S. House of
Representatives” on November 15, 2019. This hearing considered a range of
options for encouraging administrative efficiencies in Member offices and
more generally in the House. Witnesses provided perspective on the House’s
historic preference for autonomy in administrative related decision-making,
administrative centralization efforts in the Senate (including, for example, IT
services, printing, subscriptions, and district leases), and federal agency best
practices.
The Select Committee held a hearing titled “Rules and Procedures in
the U.S. House of Representatives: A Look at Reform Efforts and State Best
Practices” on December 5, 2019. The hearing considered the recent history of
58
proposed changes to House rules and procedures, including efforts to update
the rules governing the House floor and committee operations. Witnesses
addressed how and why rules reform efforts evolved in the past, whether
those reforms were successful, and why changing the House’s rules and
procedures often presents challenges. The hearing also considered innovative
rules and procedures that state legislatures have implemented, particularly
those that promote bipartisan collaboration.
The Select Committee held a hearing titled “Article One: Restoring
Capacity and Equipping Congress to Better Serve the American People” on
January 14, 2020. This hearing explored Congress’ diminished capacity to
function as a co-equal branch of government. The goal of this hearing was to
understand why the executive branch has expanded while the legislative
branch has not, and to consider recommendations for building capacity and
ensuring that Congress can perform its Article One obligations.
The Select Committee held a hearing titled “Article One: Fostering a
More Deliberative Process in Congress” on February 5, 2020. This hearing
explored the impact of increased political polarization and partisanship on
Congress’ ability to execute the Article One principle of debate and
deliberation. Witnesses addressed recent historical changes in the procedures
and politics of the House that have contributed to this trend and suggested
recommendations for fostering a more deliberative process on the House floor
and in committee.
The Select Committee held a virtual discussion titled “Continuity of
Committee Work Virtual Discussion” on May 7, 2020. The meeting explored
how to continue working effectively on behalf of the American people during
the ongoing global pandemic. The Select Committee met virtually with Marci
Harris, CEO of PopVox, and Beth Simone Noveck, Director of The Governance
Lab and Chief Innovation Officer for the State of New Jersey. The Members
and guests discussed best practices for remote committee and Member
operations, and ways other legislatures around the world are handling
business.
The Select Committee held a virtual discussion titled, “Congress’ Tech
Capacity” on May 15, 2020. The goal of the meeting was to evaluate current
technical needs for Congress, given the abrupt transition to remote work.
Members heard from Travis Moore, Founder and Director of Tech Congress,
and Lorelei Kelly Leader of the Resilient Democracy Coalition & based at the
Beeck Center for Social Impact and innovation Georgetown University.
The Select Committee held a virtual discussion titled, “Conversation on
Remote Work and Best Practices from Federal Agencies” on May 20, 2020.
The two guests discussed best practices and identified the challenges facing
district staff while working remotely, and the steps federal agencies put in
place to protect employees once they return to work in an office environment.
Peter M. Weichlein, Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. Association of Former
59
Members of Congress (FMC), and Kristine Simmons, Vice President for
Government Affairs at the Partnership for Public Service, joined the Select
Committee virtually to share their expertise.
The Select Committee held a virtual discussion titled, “Conversations on
Congressional Staffing” on June 4, 2020. Casey Burgat, director of the
Legislative Affairs program at the Graduate School of Political Management at
George Washington University, and Kathryn Pearson, Associate Professor at
the University of Minnesota, joined the Members to share their expertise and
research surrounding congressional staff and staffing trends on Capitol Hill.
The Select Committee held a virtual discussion with the American
Political Science Association task force on June 18, 2020. The Members and
guests discussed ongoing recommendations for congressional reform, with a
specific focus on congressional capacity, the need for a diverse congressional
staff, and the congressional schedule and calendar. The witnesses reflected on
the 2019 APSA Task Force on Congressional Reform, comprised of more than
30 congressional experts from the academic, think tank and advocacy
community that examined the same set of issues given to the Select
Committee, and produced a report on their findings along with own
recommendations for reform in the House.
The Select Committee held a virtual discussion on boosting internal
expertise in Congress on June 25, 2020. The meeting examined the
importance of congressional staff expertise, and the role that Congressional
Member Organizations (CMOs) play in providing Members with additional
information and resources to assist them in their policy making and
representational roles. The Select Committee was joined by Lee Drutman,
senior fellow in the Political Reform program at New America Foundation; Paul
Brathwaite, former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus
(CBC) under three CBC chairs, and; Maria Meier, former senior leadership
staffer and director of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Senate
Democratic Diversity Initiative.
LEGISLATIVE OUTPUT
On December 10, 2019, Select Committee Chair Derek Kilmer introduced
H.Res.756, the “Moving Our Democracy and Congressional Operations
Towards Modernization Resolution.” The “MODCOM” resolution implemented
the first 29 recommendations adopted by the Committee and was
co-sponsored by the other 11 Committee Members. Upon introduction,
H.Res.756 was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and was
passed by the House of Representatives on March 10, 2019, in an
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote.
H.Res.756 included recommendations to streamline and reorganize
human resources, improve orientation and continued learning opportunities
for Members-elect, modernizing and revitalizing technology in the House,
improving accessibility both on the Capitol Grounds and online, and improving
60
public access to documents and publications. Full text of the legislation and
recommendation can be found in the Appendix, and Section I, Chapter 4
details these, and other, recommendations implemented by the full House.
In addition, the Committee passed two additional packages of
recommendations in 2020. While these recommendations did not receive a
vote on the floor, largely due the limited congressional schedule during the
remote work period, they successfully passed the Committee in a unanimous,
bipartisan vote. Full text of these recommendations is provided in the
Appendix, and will be detailed throughout this report.
61
III. Recommendations of the Select
Committee on the Modernization of Congress
CHAPTER 1 —
Make Congress More Effective, Efficient, and Transparent
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Streamline the bill-writing process to save time and reduce mistakes.
2. Finalize a new system that allows the American people to easily track
how amendments change legislation and the impact of proposed
legislation to current law.
3. Make it easier to know who is lobbying Congress and what they’re
lobbying for.
4. One-click access to a list of agencies and programs that have expired and
need Congressional attention.
5. One-click access to see how Members of Congress vote in committees.
6. Transparency of active Eligible Congressional Member Organizations
(ECMOs) should be improved, and a list of approved ECMOs should be
published and updated accordingly each Congress.
62
INTRODUCTION
There is a reason that Congress is often referred to as “The People’s
Branch.”23 Compared to the Executive and Judiciary, the Legislative is the
most representative branch in the U. S. Government—and the U. S. House is
considered the “closest” to the American people.24 Members of the House,
elected by Americans in each congressional district across the nation,
represent the needs of their communities in Washington. The close connection
between constituents and their Representative in Congress requires
accessibility, communication, and transparency.
Over the past several decades, Congress has periodically implemented
new practices to encourage transparency both within and outside the
chamber. The House of Representatives allowed C-SPAN cameras to film floor
proceedings beginning in the 1970s, lobbying is subjected to more intensive
regulations, floor votes are now recorded electronically, and social media has
made it easier for constituents to directly connect with their Representative.
However, many of the tools used to monitor the development and passage of
legislation remain unnecessarily cumbersome and outdated. For constituents
and Members of Congress alike, it is still difficult to track legislative changes,
monitor lobbyist involvement in the legislative process, and see how Members
vote in committee.
In order to truly work on behalf of the American people, Congress must
be accessible and transparent. When the Select Committee on the
Modernization of Congress (henceforth referred to as “the Committee”) began
crafting their first package of recommendations, improving transparency
throughout the House was a top priority.25 Chair Derek Kilmer said in a May 10,
2019 hearing dedicated to transparency reforms:
23. Fisher, L. (2009). On appreciating Congress: the people's branch. Paradigm Pub., Chafetz, J. (2017).
See
Congress’ Constitution: Legislative Authority and the Separation of Powers. Yale University Press.
24. Oleszek, Walter J. (2011). Congressional Lawmaking: A Perspective on Secrecy and Transparency (CRS
See
R42108).
25. Opening up the Process: Recommendations for Making Legislative Information More Transparent.
See
116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2010). The first set of Committee Reforms were passed on May 23, 2019.
Opening up the Process: Recommendations for Making Legislative Information More Transparent.
116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2010). The first set of Committee Reforms were passed on May 23, 2019.
63
“Providing public access to legislative data is a good idea.
Ultimately, it is the people who pay for the data Congress
collects, so they should be able to access basic information about
what happens here, whether it is following a bill through the
process or seeing how we vote in committee and on the floor or
tracking what bills we sponsor and cosponsor. Transparency
actually promotes accountability to our constituents, and that is a
good thing.”
Chair Derek Kilmer, May 10, 2019
To identify the challenges around legislative transparency, the
Committee turned to congressional experts, current and former lawmakers,
and drew from their own experiences as Members of Congress. Ultimately, the
Committee passed six recommendations to make Congress more effective,
efficient, and transparent. These recommendations will not only make
Members more transparent to the people they were elected to serve—but will
make the legislative process within Congress more efficient and accessible for
the American people.
Specifically, the Committee proposed streamlining the bill-writing
process by implementing one, standardized system to draft legislation and
track changes in order to save time and reduce mistakes. The Committee also
recommended finalizing a new system to easily track how amendments
change legislation, and the impact of proposed legislation to current law. To
support committees and make it easier to follow complex reauthorizations, the
Committee proposed creating a list of agencies and federal program,
accessible with just the click of a mouse. The Committee also recommended
new reforms to make it easier to see who is lobbying Congress and what
they’re lobbying for, tracking the relationship between lobbyists, Members,
and legislative outcomes, the Committee recommended a centralized source
for all committee and subcommittee votes to make it easier for the public to
see how their representative voted in committee during bill markups and other
committee activity.
The Committee held several hearings specifically dedicated to
transparency and accessibility in Congress, but other hearings throughout the
Committee’s lifespan have also addressed the importance of these types of
reforms.26 The recommendations discussed in this chapter were passed on
May 23, 2019, December 19, 2019, and September 24, 2020. After passage by
26. Congressional Reforms of the Past and Their Effect on Today’s Congress. 116th Congress. (2019, March
See
27); Opening up the Process: Recommendations for Making Legislative Information More Transparent.
116th Congress (2020, May 10); Improving Constituent Engagement. 116th Congress. (2019, June 5);
Modernizing Legislative Information Technologies: Lessons from the States. 116th Congress. (2019,
July 24); Promoting Civility and Building a More Collaborative Congress. 116th Congress. (2019, Sept.
26); Rules and Procedures in the U.S. House of Representatives: A Look at Reform Efforts and State
Best Practices. 116th Congress. (2019, Dec. 5).
64
the Committee, the first five of these recommendations were incorporated into
H.Res.756, and successfully passed by the House Chamber, by a vote of
395-13, on March 10, 2020.27 Several of these reforms are already being
implemented by the Clerk of the U. S. House or the House Administration
Committee.
Perhaps just as important as the formal action taken by the Committee,
the Committee also led by example. Chair Kilmer and Vice Chair Graves made
transparency part of the Committee’s practice: hearing topics and witnesses
were selected in a bipartisan manner, committee briefings and hearing
preparation were done with the full committee staff, not by party line, the
Committee’s website was ADA-accessible, and transcripts and hearing
materials were promptly shared with the public. The Chair and Vice Chair
regularly met with bipartisan groups of colleagues and with reform-oriented
organizations to share the Committee’s progress and plans. The Committee’s
dedication to transparency was reflected through thoughtful, purposeful
actions that could easily be adopted by other committees.
This chapter details the efforts and Committee recommendations to
make the House of Representatives more transparent, efficient, and accessible.
The chapter begins by describing past reform efforts—lessons that the
Committee built upon. It then details the motivation, expertise, and
background that led the Committee to adapt these recommendations. Finally,
this chapter concludes by considering ways to combat the repercussions of
past transparency reforms—namely a decline in confidential and substantial
policy negotiations between Members, and an increase in congressional
partisanship in public.
PAST REFORM EFFORTS
Article I, Section 5 of the U. S. Constitution explicitly states:
“Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to
time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their Judgment
require Secrecy.”
Today that directive takes the form of the daily digest of the Congressional
Record, which includes transcripts, votes, and legislative text. Likewise, since
the start of Congress, the House visitor’s gallery allows the public to observe
chamber proceedings. While there have been periods of limited public
accessibility, this tradition of openness remains.28
This foundation, as well as the very notion of democratic representation,
has created a natural inclination to keep Congress open and accessible. Yet as
constituencies have grown, and technology has developed, Congress has
27. Moving Our Democracy and Congressional Operations Towards Modernization Resolution, H.R. 756,
See
116th Cong. (2020). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/756
28. See during The War of 1812 there were several secret sessions. More recently, the Capitol was closed
E.g.
to public visitors during the COVID-19 outbreak in Spring 2020.
65
grappled with tensions between transparency and confidentiality.29 While
Congress is more accessible than ever before, legislating still requires
opportunities to negotiate outside the glare of camera lights. National security
concerns should be conveyed to the public, yet also granted private,
confidential committee hearings. Lobbying, often viewed as a boogeyman,
plays an essential role for the American people and organizations by
representing their goals throughout the legislative process.
The Committee took this tension into consideration. Former Members
and congressional experts testified on the importance of considering
transparency reforms that would still grant Members of Congress necessary
confidentiality for good faith negotiations. While “sunlight is the best
disinfectant,” it can also blind people to the realities of negotiation. On May 10,
2019, the Committee held a hearing titled, “Opening up the Process:
Recommendations for Making Legislative Information More Transparent.” Dr.
Frances Lee reflected on some of the unintended consequences of past
transparency reforms:
“As we open up committees, what that opens Congress up to is
more pressure from organized interests, because they are the
ones with the strongest incentives to pay attention… as we try to
reach out and make the system more representative and more
accountable, we wind up making it less representative and
accountable to organized groups as opposed to that broad
public… Congress is the people's House. But Congress needs to
protect its ability to do that, do the work of the institution.”
Dr. Frances Lee, May 10, 201930
The Committee took these lessons into consideration. Past reforms have
sought accessibility and transparency, while still making it possible to legislate
effectively—and some have been more successful than others. Congressional
reforms have addressed transparency largely through procedural changes,
document accessibility, and lobbying regulations. In addition, external changes
like television and social media have introduced new forms of congressional
transparency.
PROCEDURAL REFORMS
The first of the procedural reforms in the modern congressional era were
included in the 1970s Legislative Reorganization Act (LRA)—arguably the
largest legislative transparency reform effort in the history of Congress.31 At
29. Oleszek, Walter J. (2011). Congressional Lawmaking: A Perspective on Secrecy and Transparency (CRS
See
R42108).
30. See bios and hearing details can be found in the Appendix.
Full
31. D'Angelo, J., King, D. (2020, March 22) The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 & Other 1970s
See
Sunshine Reforms. The Congressional Research Institute.
http://www.congressionalresearch.org/LRA.html.
66
the time of passage it was considered “a major shift in the House’s sense of
itself,” and “by the time an innocuous legislative reorganization bill reached
the floor… it was apparent to Congressmen of every shade of opinion that
secret voting on major amendments had become indefensible.”32
The legislation, originally developed by the 1965 Joint Committee on the
Organization of Congress, utilized procedural changes to encourage
transparency among Members. In the House, roll call votes on the floor were
limited to 15 minutes (as they are today), electronic voting was initiated, and
Members could request recorded votes on amendments. Committee hearings
were required to be public, with exceptions made for issues of national
security. Roll call voting in committees was also required to be made public.
These reforms, still in place today, undoubtedly made it easier for the public to
follow their Representative’s actions in Congress.
More recently, Congress passed the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 to
update the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that passed Congress in 1967.
FOIA allows the public and Members of Congress to request information from
federal agencies—an important resource for oversight. Other procedural
reforms, such as those governing congressionally directed spending, have
come and gone.33
While records of committee and subcommittee votes are still not in a
public, centralized location, important reforms have made committee
proceedings more accessible. The Rules package of the 112th Congress
ushered in greater transparency in committees by requiring text of “a measure
or matter being marked up” to be publicly available for 24 hours prior to a
meeting or hearing. It also built upon the 1970 committee vote reforms by
adding a deadline: recorded votes needed to be public within 48 hours, and
accessible electronically.
ACCESSIBILITY TO LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS
Recent reforms have focused on making data and legislative documents
more accessible and understandable to the American public. Despite—or
perhaps because of—the size and scope of Congress, and the vast output of
legislation, letters, and other documentation, public accessibility is
cumbersome and complicated. Legislative documents should not only be
accessible for the American Public, but easy to understand.
While government data is public, it is not easily accessible for the
average person. Without availability of free public information, private
organizations have filled the gap. In 2005, GovTrack.us began the process of
compiling information on legislation—including bill sponsors, bill text, and vote
32. Nordheimer, J. (1970, August 2). The House Decides to Stop Being So Secretive. New York Times.
See
33. See Congressional Lawmaking: A Perspective on Secrecy and Transparency (CRS R42108). (2011,
November 30). and House and Senate Procedural Rules Concerning Earmark Disclosures (CRS
RL34462). (2009, November 18).
67
outcomes—for public consumption in a downloadable format. Over time,
Congress found that third-party websites like GovTrack.us, the Sunshine
Foundation, and OpenCongress.org, were being used much more frequently
than Congress’ own resources.
In an effort to increase congressional bulk data accessibility, the House
established the Bulk Data Task Force in the 112th Congress. This Task Force,
funded through the Legislative Appropriations Act of 2013, was instructed to
examine the accessibility of bulk data for constituents and member offices.
The Bulk Data Task Force has continued to meet, through the 116th Congress,
and connects data scientists and private and public organizations with
Members of Congress to discuss how to better use and share congressional
bulk data. The Committee recommends making this task force permanent, and
renaming it “the Congressional Data Task Force.” This recommendation, and
how the task force pertains to technology in Congress, is discussed in greater
depth in Chapter 6.
From a transparency standpoint, having accessible, downloadable data
makes understanding and following legislative development more accessible,
and Congress has continued to develop and improve these resources. The
House Clerk has developed a “technology timeline” to improve transparency.
For example, Congress.gov was recently updated in 2018 to include
Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports and committee data; the House
Bulk Data Task Force and Government Publishing Office (GPO) are uploading
bills and public laws in XML format, making it easier to analyze and observe
legal changes; and an ongoing Legislative Information Management System
(LIMS) is being updated to include floor activity, committee information, and
congressional communication on one platform.
In addition, following a 1999 feasibility study, the Committee on House
Administration adopted XML as a data standard for the exchange of legislative
documents. Since 2013, the Bulk Data Task Force has led the conversion of
legislative documents into United States Legislative Markup (USLM) format
beginning with the U.S. Code.34 In 2016, the Bulk Data force worked to convert
enrolled bills, public laws, and the Statues at Large into USLM format.
But even with these impressive reforms, accessing congressional data is
still cumbersome. The lack of a centralized area for all federal documents in
data form makes it difficult to see how legislation is changing as it is amended.
For Members and staff, this complicates the bill-writing process, making it
time-consuming and prone to mistakes. And for constituents, this makes it
difficult to track how amendments impact legislation and ultimately public law.
34. Public Law 116-135 (03/26/2020), except 116-113. https://uscode.house.gov/download/
See
download.shtml
68
LOBBYING AND SPECIAL INTERESTS
Lobbying was largely unregulated until after World War II when
lobbyists had to officially register with the federal government under the 1946
Lobbyist Disclosure Act. But as the bureaucracy grew, the role of lobbyists did
as well. By the 1990s, the 1946 Act was painfully outdated.35 Congress passed
the Lobbying Disclosure Act in 1995, requiring that individuals register as
lobbyists if they spent at least 20 percent of their time on an individual client.
But this legislation, too, was soon susceptible to loopholes.36
Following the 2005 Jack Abramoff scandal in which several Members of
Congress resigned after being convicted of bribery, Congress was
motivated—and pressured—to reform the relationship between K Street and
Capitol Hill. In 2007, the Senate passed the Honest Leadership and Open
Government Act. In a show of the bipartisan effort behind the legislation, the
bill was introduced jointly by the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders (Sen.
Harry Reid (NV) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY), respectively) at the start of
the 110th Congress.
These reforms included a required waiting period before former
Members of Congress could register as a lobbyist following their retirement,
and a ban on member travel funded by special interests. But the legislation
has done little to temper the growth of lobbying firms and their relationship
with Congress—some critics even say it has made lobbying more pervasive
and hidden.37
Lobbying reforms have repeatedly been introduced as legislation—but
passing comprehensive reform remains difficult. Yet it’s undoubtedly essential
for purposes of transparency that lobbying disclosures be not only honest, but
publicly accessible.
TECHNOLOGY AND MEDIA
The last arena of congressional transparency reforms—in technology and
media—has been implemented by natural force. Most obvious to today’s
observers of Congress is the continuous presence of television cameras. On
March 19, 1979, C-SPAN broadcasted the first television feed from the floor of
the House of Representatives.38 The Senate followed suit in 1986. Today,
C-SPAN captures all live proceedings from the House and Senate floors, as
well as many committee hearings.
35. Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 Is Ineffective (1991, July 16). Government Accountability
See
Office. https://www.gao.gov/assets/110/104007.pdf.
36. Often called the “Daschle Loophole”, named after former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle
See
(SD-01), who, despite earning over $2 million from a D.C. lobbying firm, never registered as a lobbyist
because he “never directly contacted Members.”
37. Arnsdorf, I. (July 3, 2016), The lobbying reform that enriched Congress. POLITICO.
See
38. C-SPAN, “Our History”, https://www.c-span.org/about/history/.
See
69
Likewise, the Capitol Hill Press Corps has grown tremendously with the
advent of technology. More than 1,500 correspondents from print, digital,
radio, and television news media on Capitol Hill cover Congress every day.39
But as the presence of regional correspondents have declined, media attention
has increasingly turned to the “horse race” of politics—the negotiating and
party politics that drive lawmaking—rather than the policies themselves. In
addition to their on-the-ground reporting, social media has provided reporters,
as well as Members of Congress and their staff, a chance to quickly
communicate legislative updates—making it easier for the public to follow
along with Members’ every move.
On a positive note, these tremendous changes in technology have also
made it easier for Members of Congress to communicate with their
constituents. Today, every member of Congress has his or her own website
and Facebook page, and nearly every member has a Twitter page or
Instagram. Constituent correspondence is largely handled through email, and
technologies like Tele-town Halls have made it possible for Members of
Congress to virtually meet with constituents around the country from the
comfort of a D.C. office. Still, congressional communications methods have not
kept pace with the private sector. Reforms should consider how to make
constituent communications not only easier, but more effective. Chapter 8
discusses additional recommendations in this space.
But while this tremendous shift in media presence—particularly
television cameras and social media—has opened congressional proceedings
to the public, these public conversations have not necessarily translated to
private ones. It has become easier for Members to use cameras to postulate or
tweet their criticism at each other, rather than negotiate in-person.40 Ensuring
opportunities for Members of Congress to negotiate and work confidentially,
while still being transparent and accessible to the American people is a
balance transparency reforms should seek.
Over the past few decades, Congress has worked to improve
transparency, and the Committee built upon the lessons of past reform efforts.
The following recommendations are intended to improve transparency and
ease public access to legislative information in the U. S. House of
Representatives.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCESSIBILITY
Bill writing is, by its very nature, complex. There are multiple stages to
developing legislation, and often multiple actors involved. In the 115th
Congress, 68 percent of legislation had bipartisan cosponsors—that’s
39. See
U. S. House of Representatives Press Gallery, “About the Gallery”, https://pressgallery.house.gov/
about-the-gallery
40. Lee, Frances E., 2016. Insecure majorities: Congress and the perpetual campaign. University of Chicago
See
Press.; See also: Caygle, Heather and Sarah Ferris. 2019. “Do Not Tweet: Pelosi scolds progressives in
closed-door meetings”, POLITICO.
70
thousands of bills being developed between two or more offices, at times
involving upwards of 200 offices.41 In addition to cosponsors, the legislative
process must incorporate input from congressional committees of jurisdiction,
the Rules Committee, and the House Floor. Party and committee leadership
can also impact the legislation, often with the intention to ease passage on the
House floor.
These complexities are exacerbated by the technological limitations of
creating legislation. There are inconsistencies in formatting between offices, it
can be difficult to track changes in different versions of legislation and fully
understand how legislative proposals will impact current law. The Committee
set out to address these seemingly minor, but ultimately impactful hindrances
to legislative transparency. As Vice Chair Tom Graves said in the May 10, 2019
hearing dedicated to transparency:
“Now, a lot of transparency is focused on what Members of
Congress are up to, and that is certainly an important piece of
what we are going to be talking about today, but we should also
explore how transparency can truly improve how we do business
and execute our responsibilities.”
Vice Chair Tom Graves, May 10, 2019
Fortunately, the past decade of transparency reforms targeting
document accessibility have built an infrastructure adaptable to change. The
Bulk Data Task Force, established in 2012, has worked to standardize bulk files
of legislative data. Rather than reinvent the wheel, the Committee sought ways
to best utilize the existing success of the Bulk Data Task Force, ultimately
proposing two solutions.
1. Streamline the bill-writing process to save time and reduce mistakes
During the May 10, 2019 hearing, the Committee heard from several
experts directly tied to the Bulk Data Task Force, including Robert Reeves,
Deputy Clerk for the U. S. House of Representatives and head of the Bulk Data
Task Force; Dr. Joshua Tauberer, founder of GovTrack.us; and Daniel Schuman,
co-founder of the Congressional Data Coalition.42 Speaking on recent
transparency endeavors, Mr. Schuman remarked:
41. Quorum Analytics. (2018, May) Enacted Bills with Bipartisan Support at 20-Year High.
See
https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/may-2018-congressional-activity-report/292/
42. See bios and hearing details can be found in the Appendix.
Full
71
“The most important of these efforts over the last decade have
been the Bulk Data Task Force, which Deputy Clerk Bob Reeves
facilitates. It fosters communications and collaboration with the
public and across internal congressional silos. It has been a
tremendous success.”
Daniel Schuman, May 10, 2019
Despite its success, the Bulk Data Task Force can still improve. Currently,
the House uses four different formats to write and view legislation. So, as a bill
is moving from office to office, or to a new stage in the procedural process,
the document is converted and reconverted between multiple formats. This
inefficient process not only expends valuable time and resources, it
encourages errors. When data provision is delayed to the American public, or
in a hard-to-read format, this hinders transparency.
The Committee recommends that one standard format for drafting,
viewing, and publishing legislation be adopted. The U. S. Legislative Markup
(USLM)—one of the four formats currently used—is the recommended
standard, in machine-readable, XML format. This format was recommended
with the support of the House Bulk Data Task Force, Government Publishing
Office, and legislative data partners. USLM is an international technical
standard for representing executive, legislative and judiciary documents in a
structured manner. This “second generation” XML format will allow the House,
Senate, and the Executive branch to seamlessly share data. In his testimony
before the Committee on May 10, Dr. Tauberer highlighted the benefits of
selecting the USLM as the standard format:
“The Bulk Data Task Force started out with the goal of making
legislative documents that were already available individually
available in bulk data format. Along the way, we developed the
new standardized machine-readable format, United States
Legislative Markup, USLM, evolved a technical relationship and
opened communication lines among legislative branch entities
and civil society groups.”
Dr. Joshua Tauberer, May 10, 2019
Establishing one, standardized format for legislation is the first step to
easing transactions between offices. An easy-to-follow legislative process
benefits the public not only from a transparency perspective, but it increases
congressional responsiveness and productivity as well. A unified format will
make it easier for Members to work together to create legislation for the
American people.
72
2. Finalize a new system that allows the American people to easily track how
amendments change legislation and the impact of proposed legislation to
current law
When developing and passing legislation, it’s important for constituents
and Members of Congress alike to understand how bills and amendments will
impact current laws and legislation. But the U. S. Congress lacks the
technological capabilities to efficiently compare legislative changes. In some
cases, amendments and edits are made by hand—making it immensely difficult
to ensure that documents are fully up to date. And the U. S. Congress falls
behind state legislatures in some cases. As Vice Chair Graves noted in the May
10 hearing:
“Many Members come out of the general assemblies in the states,
and the technology that’s being utilized in the states is
remarkable for comparative language perspectives, being able to
see how does a proposed law or an amendment interface or fit
within existing law. And that’s something we don’t have access to
here as Members of Congress.”
Vice Chair Tom Graves, May 10, 2019
To address this concern, the second recommendation made by the
Committee again builds upon previous endeavors. The Comparative Print
Project was established in the House Rules for the 115th Congress (Rule XXI,
Clause 12) to help Members and staff accurately compare legislative text by
using computational text analysis.43 Using a computational approach avoids
human error, making it easier and more efficient to compare edits and
amendments.
Specifically, the Comparative Print Project was directed to complete
three “phases”: 1) a document-to-document comparison, 2) how an
amendment changes current law, and 3) how an amendment changes an
ongoing legislative proposal. Phase One of the Comparative Print Project
concluded in 2017 and can be found for congressional staff use at the website
BillCompare.House.Gov. Figure 1.144 below offers an example of comparative
print. Phase 2 and Phase 3 are currently underway, and according to Mr.
Reeves from the House Clerk’s Office, the project is “in the 90 percent range”
of being completed.45
43. Also referred to as the “Posey Comparative Print Project”, named for Rep. Bill Posey (FL-15) who
See
introduced a House Resolution to establish the project in the 115th Congress.
44. Comparative Print Project: Comparing the base document H.R. 2083, as reported, with the Rules
See
Committee Print 115-79. https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180625/CP-115HR2083RH-
COMPARED-RCP115-79.pdf
45. Opening Up the Process: Recommendations for Making Legislative Information More Transparent.
See
116th Cong. (2019, May 10) (testimony of Robert Reeves).
73
Figure 1.1: An Example of Comparative Print
Despite this success, the Committee identified possible areas of concern,
and recommended adjustments to the Comparative Print Project to ensure
greater transparency and efficiency for all Members and their constituents.
First, the Committee emphasized the need for this resource to be available for
House-wide use. Currently, the Comparative Print Project is accessible on a
limited basis, as only the Office of the Legislative Counsel and the Rules
Committee have access to the amendment comparison tool. This creates a
“bottleneck” within the Office of Legislative Counsel, as they address
House-wide questions. In his testimony to the Committee on May 10, Mr.
Reeves expressed an intention to make this tool available to all House
offices.46
Second, the Committee recommended that resources be provided to
train and support staff as they learn the new comparative print application.
The Committee tasked the Clerk’s Office to develop training, as well as
anticipate challenges to ensure a smooth transition. The Comparative Print
Project holds profound possibilities for how Congress develops legislation and
communicates statutory changes to the American people. A smooth transition
and robust understanding across Congress is essential to the success of this
project.
3. Make it easier to know who is lobbying Congress and what they’re
lobbying for
In addition to improving legislative efficiency and accessibility to
documents, the Committee also considered reforms that would open other
aspects of the legislative process. Interest groups have always played an
important role in legislation by uniting like-minded individuals behind political
action. The First Amendment explicitly guarantees the right to “petition the
Government for a redress of grievances”, and lobbyists help facilitate those
requests by conveying organizations’ legislative goals to Members of
Congress.
46. Opening Up the Process: Recommendations for Making Legislative Information More Transparent.
See
116th Cong. (2019, May 10) (testimony of Robert Reeves).
74
Lobbying can also assist in the legislative process by providing
policymakers and staff with policy background, legislative assistance, and a
sense of stakeholder perspectives on proposals. Faced with limited
advancement opportunities and plateauing salaries, the amount of
experienced congressional staff in Congress has decreased overtime.47 This
decrease in staff capacity has ultimately affected the relationship between
lobbyists and Congress in two ways: one, by creating jobs for experienced
congressional staff, and two, by filling a forced informational gap.48 Faced with
decreasing capacity to tackle the immense congressional responsibilities, staff
often rely on lobbyists and interest groups to assist with complex policy
information and legislative support. Recognizing that this reliance is far from
optimal, efforts to deal with many of the capacity issues of Congress are
addressed elsewhere in this report.49
While lobbying can provide an avenue for the American public to have
perspectives heard by policymakers and can contribute helpful information
and research to policymakers, it can become problematic when lobbying is
conducted in the dark or without regulation. Prior reforms have attempted to
limit undue outside influence on Congress. Yet despite these reforms, the
lobbying industry has continued to grow at a rate that far outpaces the growth
of congressional staff. Figure 1.2 compares the rate of expenditures between
lobbying and Congress (staff) since 2000.
47. Please see Chapter 3 of this report for recommendations pertaining to staff capacity, recruitment, and
See
training.
48. Often referred to as “the revolving door”. See more here: Nilsen, E. (2019, June 19). “Capitol Hill’s
See
revolving door in one chart,” Vox. https://www.vox.com/2019/6/19/18683550/capitol-hill-revolving-
door-in-one-chart
49. See Chapter 3 on improving resources for congressional staff, and Chapter 10 on recommendations to
strengthen Article One.
75
Figure 1.2: Lobbying and Congressional Expenditures, Over Time
Source: The APSA Select Committee Final Report
Member experience echoes this reality. In testimony to the Committee
on March 12, 2019, Rep. Bill Pascrell (NJ-9) remarked:
“Our tiny staffs are overwhelmed by the army of corporate
lobbyists, roaming our halls and a world growing more socially,
economically, and technologically complex at a stunning rate.”
Rep. Bill Pascrell, March 12, 2019
Congress and its constituents are at a disadvantage when it comes to
resources, and reforms should work to level the playing field between
lobbyists, Congress, and the American people. Currently, efforts to track
lobbying activity are made more difficult by a complicated registration
process. Legislative changes such as the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995,
requiring lobbyists to register and file quarterly reports with the Clerk of the
U. S. House and Secretary of the U. S. Senate, were a start—but inconsistencies
still permeate the registration process. As Committee Member Rep. Mark
Pocan remarked in the May 10 hearing:
76
“I just learned yesterday that there are almost 1,500 lobbyists for
the pharmaceutical industry in Washington, so that means three
per every member… In Wisconsin we have a great website,
lobbying.wi.gov, which is put up by the Ethics Commission. I can
easily go there right now and see who every lobbyist is, who they
work for, what any given company is lobbying on right now.
"And I tried that on the Federal site, and because there is a House
site and a Senate site and a DOJ site, there is not like one location
to find all of this information. And to be perfectly honest, I looked
at it, I can't figure out what I am trying to find out… I want to
make it something that average person can look up something
and see who is really behind something.”
Rep. Mark Pocan, May 10, 2019
The current lobbyist registration process is convoluted—making it
difficult for Members of Congress and their constituents to trace who is
lobbying whom, and who is impacting legislation. As Rep. Pocan noted, there
are several different registration requirements and options for lobbyists. The
same person can be registered several times—for example, one can register as
a foreign lobbyist or corporate lobbyist, or with the FEC or SEC depending on
the client or employer. Likewise, an individual will have two separate
registrations for the Senate and the House. Even more frustrating, if a name is
spelled incorrectly, or is abbreviated in one location but not the other (Mike vs.
Michael), this generates two separate entries.
Filing and finding lobbyist disclosures should be straightforward and
simple. Thus, the Committee recommends a Congress-wide unique identifier
for every lobbyist, to eliminate inconsistences in the registration and disclosure
process. This recommendation is practical and makes good, common-sense. In
testimony to the Committee, Mr. Reeves confirmed that the Clerk’s office
favored unique identifiers and was open to developing such a system.50
Congress may not be able to match the financial resources of the
lobbying industry, but it can make it easier to track outside influence. A
centralized resource that utilizes unique IDs as lobbyist identifiers is an
important first step to increasing transparency in one of the darkest areas of
the legislative process. The American public and Members of Congress alike
should be able to know exactly who is lobbying their representatives and who
is influencing legislation.
50. Opening Up the Process: Recommendations for Making Legislative Information More Transparent.
See
116th Cong. (2019, May 10) (testimony of Robert Reeves).
77
4. One-click access to a list of agencies and programs that have expired and
need congressional attention
Arguably one of Congress’ most important responsibilities—if not the
most important—is the power of the purse. Article 1, Section 7 states that “All
Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” This
responsibility takes the form of appropriating money, as well as authorizing
and reauthorizing federal programs. The reauthorization process facilitates
congressional oversight by requiring Members of Congress to review federal
programs they have previously authorized and provided funding for. Congress
has a responsibility to make sure these programs are working as intended to
ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent efficiently and appropriately.
Yet, over the last few decades, Congress has increasingly failed to
reauthorize federal agencies and programs. For example, the State
Department has not been reauthorized since Fiscal Year 2003—a key
responsibility of the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations
Committees.51 Not only has this lack of reauthorization decreased
congressional input in the foreign relations process, but it has created
confusion for the State Department who are unable to plan without consistent
budgetary and regulatory guidance. Overall, these “zombie” programs account
for around $310 billion in government spending according to the
Congressional Budget Office.52
Without the reauthorization process operating as it should, Congress is
too often providing appropriations without adequate oversight, ceding its
Article I power and responsibilities. Management of wide expanses of the
federal government has shifted to the executive branch, and many programs
and departments operate on autopilot without meaningful congressional
input. Not only does this lack of oversight invalidate powers under Article 1 of
the Constitution, but it severely limits the ability of the American people to see
how their tax dollars are being spent. For Congress and government as a
whole to be truly transparent, reforms must address the decline in
authorization and reauthorization that permeates congressional appropriating.
However, there are immense roadblocks facing congressional
authorizers. For one, the size and scope of the federal government has
ballooned over the past few decades. As the jurisdiction of federal regulation
has grown, so has the federal workforce and operations.53 Federal agency
spending is on a consistent uphill climb, totaling trillions of dollars every
year.54 In addition to the massive scope of federal agencies, there is substantial
variation in reauthorization deadlines and committee jurisdiction.
51. Gill,
See C. R. and Morgenstern, E. M. (2019, June 27). Foreign Relations Reauthorization: Background and
Issues (CRS). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10293.pdf.
52. Opening Up the Process: Recommendations for Making Legislative Information More Transparent.
See
116th Cong. (2019, May 10) (testimony of Robert Reeves).
53. The True Size of Government, Tracking Washington’s Blended Workforce, 1984–2015, Volcker Alliance,
See
(2017, September 29). https://www.volckeralliance.org/true-size-government.
54. DataLab, “Federal Spending Overtime”, 2018. https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-
See
guide/spending/trends.html.
78
But this is no reason for Congress to shirk its Constitutional
responsibilities. Therefore, the Committee recommends streamlining
information about reauthorizations by creating a one-stop shop for agency
and program reauthorization deadlines. This information should be public for
Members, staff, and constituents, and should provide easy-to-access
information about the current status of executive branch programs and the
Committees that are responsible for authorizing those programs.
Congress should collect this information in an easily digestible format to
not only help committees meet their reauthorization deadlines but provide the
public with clear information on how their tax dollars are being spent.
Committee Members should use this resource to structure the reauthorization
process, an endeavor that could help Congress return to a timely
appropriations process. And the American public should be comfortable
accessing this information, not only so they can hold their representatives
accountable, but so they can perform their own, individual oversight on the
federal government.
5. One-click access to see how Members of Congress vote in committees
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 ushered in electronic voting
on the House floor, making the process more efficient and transparent. Today,
it’s easy to find out how specific Members voted on roll call legislation. But this
accessibility is limited to legislation in the chamber—not committee votes or
activity. Understanding how legislation and issues are voted on in committees
is sometimes more important than the final floor vote. Committees and
subcommittees are where legislation is developed, issues are debated
in-depth, and witnesses provide expertise. By the time legislation arrives to
the House floor, it often has been refined and amended several times through.
Despite the importance of committee and subcommittee activity, it is
difficult to see how Members vote on legislation and issues in committee.
While the information is public, it’s not easily accessible for most Americans,
or even Members and their staff. Because each committee sets its own
procedures for recording votes and choosing when and how to make this
information publicly available, there is no centralized source for committee
votes. With 20 permanent committees and well over 100 subcommittees (plus
four select committees, including this Committee), following how Members
vote and respond to issues is difficult and time-consuming to collect. While
some subscriber services collect and provide this information to paying
subscribers, for the average person this information is inaccessible.
This lack of transparency advantages those who have time and
resources to attend and monitor congressional hearings—often lobbyists and
interest groups. While these groups often communicate votes to citizens or
other Members, they are selective in their attention. As Mr. Schuman noted in
79
testimony to the Committee, “some of the issue here is not about transparency
yea or nay. It is about managing the consequences that some people have
access to things in advance and some people don't.”55
This lack of accessibility not only impacts citizens, but Members of
Congress and their staff as well. To make committee and subcommittee
activity more transparent and accessible for citizens, Members of Congress,
and their staff, the Committee suggests publishing committee votes online in a
centralized location. The Committee envisions a centralized, electronic hub of
committee votes, accessible via House.gov and in machine-readable format.
Each standing and select committee should provide the House Clerk with
detailed information on recorded votes within 72 hours.
6. Transparency of active Eligible Congressional Member Organizations
(ECMOs) should be improved, and a list of approved ECMOs should be
published and updated accordingly each Congress
Congressional Member Organizations (CMOs) are organizations of
Members that are registered with the Committee on House Administration to
support a common legislative objective. Beginning in the 114th Congress, the
House began allowing certain CMOs to be designated as Eligible
Congressional Member Organizations (ECMOs). “To qualify for ECMO status, a
group must have been a registered CMO in the preceding Congress, with
shared employees from at least 15 House Member offices; register as a CMO in
the 116th Congress; designate a single House Member as administrator of the
group; and have at least three House employees assigned to perform work on
its behalf.”56
Member organizations have increased in number and influence, yet there
is no publicly available list of these organizations. This lack of transparency
prevents the public from accessing basic information about these
organizations and their legislative objectives. This recommendation ensures
that the public can easily access an updated list of approved ECMOs and learn
more about their policy concerns.
CONCLUSION AND ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS OF
TRANSPARENCY REFORM
Transparency is key to a working democracy. Citizens need information
to hold their representatives accountable, communicate their policy
preferences, and understand the legislative process. Members and
congressional staff need transparency to make well-informed decisions and
55. Opening up the Process: Recommendations for Making Legislative Information More Transparent.
See
116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2010).
56. Eckman, S.J. (2019, January 23). Congressional Member Organizations (CMOs) and Informal Member
See
Groups: Their Purpose and Activities, History, and Formation (CRS). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/
R40683.pdf
80
legislate on behalf of the American people. But we would be remiss to not
mention potential consequences of increased transparency. As past reforms
have shown us, in some cases the solution intensifies the problem.
The Committee invited Dr. Frances Lee to the May 10 hearing on
transparency to shed light on the unanticipated consequences of
transparency. Dr. Lee highlighted two areas for concern in the pursuit of
uninhibited transparency: a lack of opportunity for necessary deliberation, and
increased incentives for partisanship. As she testified to the Committee:
“Members need to be able to talk frankly with one another so that
they can search for common ground, explore possible solutions,
and build trust with one another… Transparency makes it easier
for organized groups, for lobbyists to monitor and pressure
Congress. This was not reformers' goal, but transparency's effect
is often precisely contrary to its intended purpose.
“A second effect of transparency is that it turns congressional
deliberation outward towards messaging. Deliberating in public
encourages Members to direct their attention towards external
constituencies and audiences rather than to engage with other
Members… Transparency encourages Members to use the
legislative process to score political points against their
opponents in front of broader audiences. In committee and on
the floor, Members continually propose amendments, not in an
effort to improve legislation, but instead to put their opponents
on the wrong side of public opinion."
Dr. Frances Lee, May 10, 2019
Similarly, in a February 2020 hearing, Dr. James Curry offered an
example of repercussions of the 1970 transparency reform. Amendment votes
on the House floor have been increasingly used as political messaging to
express an ideological, but ultimately unpassable, legislative position.57 Curry
suggested taking into consideration the potential for such highly visible votes
to further increase partisanship in Congress.
Other witnesses, including former Members of Congress, echoed
concerns of increased transparency and encouraged the Committee to
consider reforms that could counteract the potentially adverse byproducts of
increased transparency. The Committee addressed these concerns in a
two-fold approach:
First, as outlined in this chapter, the reforms recommended by the
Committee are targeted and specific. They offer practical updates to make
Congress not only more transparent, but efficient and accessible: streamlining
57. Article One: Fostering a More Deliberative Process in Congress. 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2020,
See
February 5).
81
the bill writing process by using a standardized, electronic format paves the
way to other reforms, including an easier editing and adoption process. These
reforms to document accessibility make it easier to create legislation, limiting
error and encouraging efficiency. They also make it easier for the American
public to follow how the legislation and amendments will affect existing law.
Likewise, streamlining the lobbying disclosure and registration process
will make it easier for citizens to know who is lobbying Congress, and who is
involved in the legislative process. And developing a centralized, accessible
website for federal authorization deadlines, as well as committee and
subcommittee votes, will help Congress fulfill its Article One responsibility and
even the playing field for constituents keeping tabs on congressional activity.
Lastly, requiring transparency at the ECMO level ensures that all stages of the
policymaking process are open to the American people.
The second way the Committee worked to avoid the errors of past
transparency reforms was to pair these transparency recommendations with
reforms that facilitate bipartisanship and civility. The common critique of
transparency reforms is that the increased spotlight ultimately encourages
Members to postulate to the attentive public. However, by pairing these
targeted transparency reforms with reforms that facilitate bipartisanship,
committee compromise, and substantial deliberation, the Moderation
Committee strove to avoid the mistakes of past reforms. These civility reforms
are the subject of our next chapter.
Future committees should consider this careful balance of transparency
and facility, particularly when considering large procedural changes such as an
open rules process or unlimited debate on the House floor. While these issues
were oft debated in the Committee, our final recommendations reflect
thoughtful consideration of the tension between productivity, transparency,
and the realities of legislating in a body with 435 individual lawmakers.
Ultimately the recommendations in this chapter make important changes that
will make Congress more transparent, efficient, and accessible for the
American public, as well as for all Members of Congress.
82
CHAPTER 2 —
Encourage Civility and Bipartisanship in Congress
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Create a bipartisan Members-only space in the Capitol to encourage
more collaboration across party lines.
2. Institute biennial bipartisan retreats for Members and their families at the
start of each Congress.
3. Update committee policies to increase bipartisan learning opportunities
for staff.
4. Establish bipartisan committee staff briefings and agenda-setting retreats
to encourage better policy making and collaboration among Members.
83
INTRODUCTION
For the last decade, few things have ranked lower than Congress’
approval rating. Since Gallup began measuring it in the 1970s, the highest
congressional approval rating was 84 percent, right after the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. The lowest it has been was 9 percent in 2013, right after a prolonged
government shutdown (Figure 2.1). But this constant fluctuation and generally
dismal approval rating is often attributed to one thing: partisan bickering that
undermines the ability of the institution to operate effectively for the
American people.58 Partisanship is cited as the reason for gridlock, inaction,
ugly campaigns, and vitriolic arguments seen everywhere from the House floor
to social media.
Figure 2.1: Congressional job approval, Gallup
Source: Gallup Polling
This perception of a “broken Congress”—and in many cases,
reality—made civility and bipartisanship a top priority of the Select Committee
on the Modernization of Congress, in terms of both its recommendations and
its own practice. Since its inception in January 2019, the Committee decided
to operate differently than a standard committee on Capitol Hill. Not only did
the Committee pass four recommendations to encourage bipartisanship and
civility in Congress, but Committee Members worked daily to lead by example.
In September 2019 the Committee held a hearing specifically dedicated to the
topic59, and a discussion of how to encourage civility and bipartisanship was
part of nearly every hearing and member meeting.
58. Gallup Polling. (2013). Turning back to Congress, earlier you said you disapprove of the job Congress is
See
doing. Can you tell me some of the reasons why you disapprove of the job Congress is doing?
[OPEN-ENDED] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
59. Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress hearing (@ModernizeCmte) Promoting Civility
See
and Building a More Collaborative Congress. September 26, 2019.
84
Structurally, the Committee was evenly divided by party (six
Republicans and six Democrats). Aside from the House Committee on Ethics,
it was the only committee with an even partisan balance in the House during
the 116th Congress. Instead of two separate staffs divided by party, the
Committee established one bipartisan, unified staff. Hearing materials and
committee news and updates were communicated through one bipartisan
voice and social media account.
Figure 2.2: Screen grab from Twitter
Decisions on hearings and committee recommendations were bipartisan,
led in tandem by Chair Derek Kilmer and Vice Chair Tom Graves. Committee
Members met regularly for bipartisan, closed-door meetings. The Committee
established a Civility Working Group, led by Representatives Emanuel Cleaver,
Susan Brooks, and Dan Newhouse. Ahead of recommendation votes, hearings,
or Member-level briefings, the Committee Members’ staff were briefed
together in a nonpartisan manner. These practices epitomize several of the
reforms outlined in this chapter—and indicate that reforms at the committee,
House, and party level can have a meaningful impact on decreasing
partisanship and increasing civility in the Congress.
85
“But the goal in airing conflict shouldn't be simply to highlight
our differences. The goal should be to establish clear positions,
have meaningful discussions, test different compromises, and
ultimately, to find a path forward. Congress actually does this a
bit more than the American public is aware of. In fact, this
Committee is a great example of how Members who represent
different constituencies and have different views can actually
engage in civil productive discussions and find compromise, find
solutions.”
Chair Derek Kilmer, September 26, 2019
It is important to note that the Committee did not operate in a vacuum.
The day before the bipartisanship and civility recommendations were passed
by the Committee (December 19, 2019), the 116th Congress voted to impeach
President Donald Trump along party lines. Despite an increasingly partisan
environment, the Committee Members worked hard to pass meaningful
reforms and to practice those reforms through our continue work. Every
recommendation made at the committee level was unanimous and bipartisan.
And every vote on the House floor—from the establishment and
reauthorization of the Committee, to the recommendations ultimately passed
in the Committee’s first major piece of legislation (H.Res.756)—received
overwhelming bipartisan support.60
These recommendations, and the chamber-wide support for them,
indicate that Congress is hungry for change, and capable of making it. Many
Members crave bipartisanship and a functioning body of government to
address the problems important to their constituents; to write better
legislation; and to strengthen trust in the institution. This chapter outlines the
Committee’s bipartisanship and civility recommendations, following an
examination of historical trends and the congressional practices that informed
them.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF PARTISANSHIP IN CONGRESS
Our country’s two major political parties play an important role in how
Congress operates. In the House, majority control of the chamber carries with
it the power of the Speaker of the House and the House’s 20 standing
committees. These advantages allow the party in power to set the agenda on
the House floor and pass legislation with a simple majority, if it chooses to do
so.
60. Establishing the Committee, H.Res.6, Title II, voted on January 4, 2019 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/
See
2019/roll012.xml); extension of the Committee, self-executing rule attached to H.Res.695, voted on
November 14, 2019; and recommendations, H.Res.756, voted on March 10, 2020
(http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2020/roll093.xml).
86
Likewise, conflict plays an important role in the legislative process. The
Founders, to some degree, presumed that conflict would play a constructive
role in our politics and that Congress should be a place where disagreements
are publicly aired. As Dr. Jennifer Victor noted in a Committee hearing on
September 26, 2019:
“As we are all concerned about partisanship… because we think of
partisanship and parties as the same thing, when in reality, the
political parties are the key institution that organizes our
democracy. It organizes Congress. It organizes the elections. It
organizes how we fund our elections.”
Dr. Jennifer Victor, September 26, 2019
While these institutional and ideological realities are nothing new for the
House, the intense level of partisanship and polarization that now grip
Congress are more recent phenomena. The roots of this increased partisan
conflict in Congress is multi-faceted. The realignment of the “Solid South” led
to more ideologically unified Republican and Democratic parties.61 Politics is
often viewed as a “team sport,” stoking further division along social and
demographic lines which have only continued to widen in the last half
century.62 Within the chamber, control of Congress has become more
competitive, discouraging incentives for bipartisanship.63 As Former Rep.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27) noted in a hearing on May 1, 2019 featuring
former Members of Congress:64
61. U.S. House of Representatives, History, Art, and Archives. “Party Realignment”,
See
https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Essays/Temporary-Farewell/
Party-Realignment/
62. Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
See
63. Lee, F. E. (2016). Insecure majorities: Congress and the perpetual campaign. Chicago, IL: The
See
University of Chicago Press.
64. Former Member Day Hearing: Speaking from Experience, 116th Cong. (2019, May 1) (Select
See
Committee on the Modernization of Congress),
87
Image 2.1: Former Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen testifies about her experiences in
Congress during the Select Committee’s former Member Day hearing.
“What is different now is that control of the House can change
from one election to the other. Everyone worries about their
votes and how they are going to be scored, what their colleagues
are doing and what they are saying and what it means for the
next election. Bipartisanship, sadly, gets lost in all of that.”
Former Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, May 1, 2019
These trends have led both Republican and Democratic Members to
become more united in how they vote, the bills they cosponsor, and their
party’s communications—and the rift between the two parties has grown
wider as a result. Figure 2.3 illustrates the two main congressional party’s
ideological trends, measured by DW-Nominate scores, which are widely used
to describe the political ideology of political actors, political parties, and
political institution, using floor votes.65 The scores below capture individual
Member’s House floor votes on an ideological scale over time. The increasing
divergence between the two parties can be explained by the type of issues
Congress chooses to address, and the cohesive vote patterns by Members of
both congressional parties.66
65. Carroll, R., Lewis, J., Lo, J., Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (2009). Measuring Bias and Uncertainty in
See
DW-NOMINATE Ideal Point Estimates via the Parametric Bootstrap. Political Analysis, 17(3), 261-275.
66. Miller, J. (2019, February 29). Party unity on congressional votes takes a dive: CQ Vote Studies. Roll
See
Call. https://www.rollcall.com/2019/02/28/party-unity-on-congressional-votes-takes-a-dive-cq-
vote-studies/
88
Figure 2.3: Average ideology in the U.S. House, 80th–116th Congress
Note: Party averages are calculated by using the first dimension of DW-Nominate
scores of every member of the party conference during that congressional session.
The closer to one, the more conservative the vote; closer to negative one is a more
liberal vote.67
It’s important to recognize that as Congress veers towards more
partisanship, the country is becoming more partisan, too. As Dr. Jennifer
Victor noted in her testimony, “there is a very strong correlation between the
level of polarization in the U.S. Congress” and societal factors like income
inequality and racial demographics that encourage polarization among
constituents. Furthermore, changes in technology, population shifts, and the
growth in the executive branch have expanded the challenges Congress
faces.68 Congress has adapted a new style of lawmaking to respond to these
growing pressures from the electorate and party leadership.
67. Lewis, Jeffrey B., Keith Poole, Howard Rosenthal, Adam Boche, Aaron Rudkin, and Luke Sonnet (2020).
See
Voteview: Congressional Roll-Call Votes Database. https://voteview.com/
68. Jones, B. D. and Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes
See
problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
89
Today, rather than pass individual pieces of legislation, leaders know it’s
easier to package together legislation into “must-pass” omnibus bills.69 This
has further entrenched the role of political parties in Congress. These large
pieces of legislation are complex, and the level of expertise and negotiation
practically requires party leaders to take charge. Thus, Congress has used the
power of political parties to change how it operates and how legislation is
passed.
Figure 2.4 depicts the number of bills enacted per Congress, along with
the average number of pages per statute from the 80th Congress to the 115th
Congress. While the number of individual bills enacted has steadily declined
since the 1940s, the average number of pages per bill signed into law have
largely increased. This is indicative of the increased use of omnibus legislation
and large, legislative packages crafted and passed by party leaders.70
Figure 2.4: Bills enacted, 80th–115th Congress
Source: Vital Statistics on Congress, the Brookings Institution
The proclivity towards omnibus legislation and party leadership can also
be seen in the decline of committee activity and legislation. Although
Congress is in session for a similar number of days each Congress, there has
been a consistent decline in the number of subcommittee and committee
69. Curry, J. M. and Lee, F. E. (2020). The limits of party: Congress and lawmaking in a polarized era.
See
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
70. Ibid.
See
90
meetings. Whether this schedule shift can be attributed to partisanship is
unclear, but the byproduct is an increased reliance on party leadership to
shape and pass legislation. Since the 1990s, the percentage of legislation that
has bypassed the committee process has steadily risen—for example, in the
113th Congress (2013–2014), 40 percent of the major legislation that came to
the floor of the House did not include a committee report.71
Members rely on party leadership for access to, and information about,
the provisions in legislation and how to talk about it with constituents. And
this partisan separation is instilled from the moment newly-elected Members
arrive for orientation.72 Members are not encouraged by party leadership to
meet their peers and form genuine relationships across the aisle. In
committees, each party has their own separate staff, meetings, and brings
forward their own hearing witnesses. Over time, Members naturally become
more insular. The American people often see interactions that are boiled down
to viral soundbites, which parties can use for fundraising, social media, and
media coverage.
It is important to note that leadership-centered lawmaking is successful.
Although it is non-traditional, or what political scientist Barbara Sinclair called
“unorthodox lawmaking,”73 significant legislation is still being passed, and
most of it is passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.74 This is indicative
of Members’ desire to pass meaningful legislation to solve problems for
constituents. But the realities of the party-leadership process and the partisan
arguments to appeal to partisan constituents has contaminated the public
perception of Congress.75 The legislative process is akin to sausage making,
and public-perception is informed by televised shouting matches, shortened
policy arguments on social media, and party-driven policy messaging. So,
while bipartisan lawmaking still occurs, it is no wonder, given the evidence
available to constituents, that accusations of gridlock and partisan bickering
are common. As Vice Chair Tom Graves noted in a February 5, 2020 hearing:
71. Davis, C. M. (2019, May 20). “The Legislative Process on the House Floor: An Introduction” (CRS:
See
95-563). https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/8098f506-ee7b-42c7-a003-92f13aaec0bc.pdf.
72. Alberta, Tim (2019, September 27). “When Impeachment Meets a Broken Congress” POLITICO.
See
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/27/impeachment-trump-congress-house-228346
73. Sinclair, B. (2016). Unorthodox lawmaking: New legislative processes in the US Congress. CQ Press.
See
74. Curry, J. and Lee, F. E. (2016, December 20) “Congress is far more bipartisan than headlines suggest”,
See
Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/20/congress-is-
far-more-bipartisan-than-headlines-suggest/
75. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans' beliefs about how government
See
should work. Cambridge University Press.
91
Image 2.2: Vice Chair Tom Graves offers remarks about civility in Congress.
“A recent survey found that 93 percent of Americans see incivility
as a problem in our society. And, according to those, Congress
and politicians are the ones to blame. So, it seems like we have a
lot of work to do, a lot ahead and on our plate. But this challenge
and this known information here, it presents an opportunity. It
actually presents an opportunity for us to seek out, to identify,
and ultimately fix the root of this problem.”
Vice Chair Tom Graves, February 5, 2020
Members are eager for change—not only in how they are perceived, but
in the legislative process itself. Increased bipartisanship and civility at all levels,
from the House floor to the smallest subcommittee, will increase the quality of
legislation. Floor debates, committee hearings, and legislation can only
improve if Members work together. As Committee Member, Rep. William
Timmons said in a hearing on September 26, 2019, “Civility is the pathway to
solving our big problems, and without it, we will never solve them. We will not
resolve these challenges on Twitter, no matter how much people want to
try.”76
While decreased partisanship and polarization requires multi-faceted
solutions inside and outside of Congress, the Committee focused on perhaps
the simplest, yet most essential building block: encouraging civility and
strengthening personal relationships in Congress. The Committee focused on
establishing opportunities that would allow Members of Congress to better
76. Promoting Civility and Building a More Collaborative Congress (2019, September 27) 116th Congress.
See
92
know one another and form the trust required to engage in bipartisan
lawmaking. The Committee focused on physical spaces for the chamber at
large, bipartisan retreats for new members and committees, and bipartisan
opportunities for staff with the hope, and understanding, that personal
relationships encourage public bipartisanship and civility. Rep. Susan Brooks
summarized the challenge facing Congress in the September 26 hearing:
Image 2.3: Committee Members Reps. Susan Brooks, Emanuel Cleaver, Rob Woodall
and Chair Derek Kilmer listen to witness testimony.
“What is needed is a process that creates an ongoing
relationship, not just one to deal with an immediate crisis; one
that builds trust among the various players, recognizing there are
always alternatives and policy disputes, and allows key
negotiators to sit down and talk long before decisions are made.”
Rep. Susan Brooks, September 26, 2019
93
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Create a bipartisan Members-only space in the Capitol to encourage more
collaboration across party lines.
While transparency should remain paramount, it’s important to
recognize that Members need opportunities to develop relationships away
from the glare of camera lights. The House floor and the area leading to it are
often filled with journalists and television cameras. In these situations, and
under constant scrutiny, it can be difficult to have candid, bipartisan
discussions. Former Representative Charles Boustany Jr. (LA-3), in a panel on
the Organizational Climate of Crisis, offered telling insight about the negative
repercussions of constant, public interactions:
“Social media gives us no space. One time, I was on the floor
managing a bill… I was debating Sandy Levin. Good debate,
high-level, on the issues, got a little heated at times, but it was all
issue focused. As soon as the debate was over… I walked over to
where he was at the microphone and I shook his hand and patted
him on the back, and said ‘that was a really good debate, Sandy.
You got me on a couple points, but I think I got you on this point,’
and we laughed.
“People in my district who happened to see this on CSPAN, who
were very partisan from the right—my own party—got upset, they
lit up social media… My staff said, ‘What happened? What did you
do on the floor?’ I said, ‘What are you talking about? I just shook
hands with the guy I was debating with,’ and now I’m getting all
these hostile calls. We have no space. There’s no space to have a
debate, an honest conversation to deal with policy issues. It’s all
zero sum.”
Former Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., October 24, 201977
While Rep. Boustany may have been referring to figurative “space”, this
sentiment applies to physical limitations as well. Currently, there are no areas
in the U.S. Capitol Complex where Members can gather to privately
collaborate or socialize. Often, the only opportunity Members must discuss
policies in private is with their own party caucuses, or in their own party’s
cloak room. Bipartisan discussions cannot occur there.
The Committee recommends establishing a dedicated space in the U.S.
Capitol for private, bipartisan discussions. The space should be easily
accessible, preferably close to the House floor, and open only to Members
from both parties. Something as simple as private space would facilitate
77. Conference on the Organizational Climate of Congress. (2019, October 24, 2019). University of
See
Maryland, College Park Maryland. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcYRKquLk&list=
PLwlvq8EJzDziHv_2f_KAICRmeKprDBjuJ&index=6&t=0s
94
much-needed collaboration with colleagues across the aisle. Civility will not
grow if Members do not even have the opportunity to socialize with one
another and develop bipartisan working relationships.
2. Institute biennial bipartisan retreats for Members and their families at the
start of each Congress.
The divisions that are public on the House floor begin in private. New
Member Orientation is divided by party. Likewise, each of the party caucuses
have their own separate, yearly retreats. These retreats are essential for
building relationships—but right now, the only relationships they are
supporting are within their own party. Aside from the rare congressional
delegation (CODEL) trips, Members have few opportunities to interact with
and get to know their colleagues across the aisle. Jason Grumet, Founder and
President of the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), testified to the Committee on
September 26, 2019 about the importance of bipartisan trips to establish
personal relationships:
“People have talked about trips, CODELs, field hearings. Cannot
overstate the importance of that at this moment. You know, it is
the 15-hour flight to Kazakhstan when you realize you both have
hip pain, you love the show Succession, you root for hockey…
Those are the threads of humanity that actually join regular
people together.”
Jason Grumet, September 26, 2019
The Committee recommends Congress establish bipartisan, biennial
retreats at the beginning of each Congress. These retreats should be not only
bipartisan but also include Member’s families. Reflecting on his own
experience with bipartisan retreats, former Representative and Secretary of
Transportation Ray LaHood (IL-18) testified during the same September 26
hearing:
95
Image 2.4: Former Secretary of Transportation and Representative Ray LaHood
testifies before the Select Committee.
“As a result of that [retreat], people really came away with the
idea that they knew their colleagues better than they did before.
They knew their families, which they had not known before. You
know, it is pretty hard to trash somebody on the other side when
you know their spouse or you know their kids.”
Former Rep. Ray LaHood, September 26, 2019
Members have few opportunities to interact across party lines, away
from Washington, D.C. This lack of interaction across party lines discourages
Members from getting to know their colleagues and from working
collaboratively and building bipartisan coalitions. These retreats would
encourage Members to make connections with their colleagues, find common
ground, and help build civility into House processes. Personal relationships
build trust, which is necessary for effective lawmaking in a polarized
environment.
3. Update committee policies to increase bipartisan learning opportunities for
staff.
Personal, bipartisan relationships are also essential at a staff level. Staff
work together on legislation, schedules and committee hearings, and
represent their Members in events and meetings. However, like their Members,
staff have increasingly limited opportunity to build bipartisan relationships. As
BPC’s Grumet testified:
96
“Being a congressional staff person used to be a pretty social job;
it is not anymore. And we have found that you actually really have
to curate opportunities for staff to get together… it is not just that
they are able to work on behalf of each of you, but their ability to
work on behalf of the whole body I think is really enhanced when
they know each other.”
Jason Grumet, September 26, 2019
Personal office staff are denied one of the most effective opportunities
for bipartisan relationship development: participating in committee organized
congressional delegation (CODEL) travel. This prevents personal staff from
having sustained opportunities to interact with their colleagues across the
aisle, away from Washington, D.C., and denies them the opportunity to form
meaningful, bipartisan relationships while working on the issues for which
they’re responsible.
The Committee recommends allowing personal office staff to participate
in CODELs. This policy change would encourage bipartisan connections and
collaboration at the staff level and grant them access to important policy
discussions necessary to best serve their Members and constituents.
4. Establish bipartisan committee staff briefings and agenda-setting retreats to
encourage better policy making and collaboration among Members.
Lastly, there are few opportunities within committees to establish
bipartisan relationships. Committee staff are divided by party, and
cross-partisan discussions are often limited to public (often televised)
hearings. House committees have therefore become increasingly partisan in
their organizational and procedural activities. In committees, the need for
bipartisan relationships goes beyond desire for personal civility; bipartisanship
is essential for creating an efficient and effective committee agenda, and
ultimately high-quality legislation.
Thus, the Committee recommends regular, bipartisan briefings and
trainings for committee staff, to make committee meetings more productive
and nonpartisan. Establishing objective education opportunities will ensure
that hearings are informative. Second, the Committee recommends bipartisan
committee retreats to establish a bipartisan agenda, discuss committee goals,
and form personal bonds.
An inability to work across party lines prevents committees from being
productive and effective. Regular bipartisan briefings and training for
committee staff, as well as bipartisan committee retreats, would encourage
collaboration between parties and promote productivity. Committees cannot
engage in effective oversight, or produce meaningful legislation, without
working together in a bipartisan fashion. Facilitating and strengthening trust
between members and staff is the first step.
97
CONCLUSION
The recommendations in this chapter were not only supported and
recommended by policy experts but were practiced by the Committee. Chair
Derek Kilmer said in the September 26, 2019 hearing, “Every Member of this
Committee has demonstrated a desire and willingness to work on a bipartisan
basis, and as a result, this Committee has been and will continue to be
incredibly productive.” Committee work was done on a proactively bipartisan
basis: from staff briefings to hearing decisions made conjointly by the Chair
and Vice Chair. The byproduct was substantial discussions in committee
hearings, and behind closed doors; bipartisan recommendations that were
ultimately supported by a bipartisan majority of the chamber; and close
relationships between Members.
The Committee, well aware of political realities, sought reforms that
would slow the growing division between the political parties. While the
legislation that is passed is often bipartisan, the process that the American
people witness is bitter and divided. In the view of most experts, everything
from how campaigns are financed to how congressional districts are drawn
also exacerbate many of our problems. While the Committee did not find
bipartisan agreement on recommendations in these spaces, these topics
warrant further exploration.78
But this Committee believed there were changes within the scope of its
mandate to improve the institution. In order to instill trust in the institution,
civility must be restored—in committee hearings, on the House floor, between
the staff, and in congressional districts. The recommendations in this chapter
encourage the rest of the chamber to consider simple—yet effective—changes
that will facilitate relationships necessary to make Congress more civil,
bipartisan, and ultimately better serve the American people.
78. See section IV: Conclusion, for a discussion on future reform efforts.
98
CHAPTER 3 —
Improve Congressional Capacity
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Create a one-stop shop Human Resources HUB dedicated to Member,
committee, and leadership (MCL) staff.
2. Make permanent the Office of Diversity and Inclusion.
3. Examine the viability of updating the staff payroll system with the goal of
transitioning from monthly to semimonthly pay.
4. Raise the cap on the number of permanent staff and additional staff
allowed to work in Member offices.
5. Regularly survey staff on ways to improve pay, benefits, and quality of
life.
6. Congressional Staff Academy must design and offer certifications in
addition to trainings to staffers. The program must offer certificates for
the following roles: Staff Assistant, LC, LA, LD, Scheduler, Press Assistant,
Communications Director, COS, and District Staff roles. The CSA must
also promote these certifications.
7. Provide institution-wide, standard onboarding training for new
employees, including employee resource offices/contacts. Training
includes “constituent service training” for entry level staffers who will
deal with constituent concerns.
8. Remove franking related costs from Member MRAs and move to a central
account which all Members can use (up to a pre-determined cap) to pay
for costs associated with mass communications approved by the
Franking Commission.
9. The Members Representational Allowance (MRA) formula should be
reevaluated and updated to reflect modern office needs and upcoming
congressional redistricting, and increased to ensure Congress can meet
current and future challenges including the COVID-19 pandemic and the
persistent retention problem.
10. Establish a nonbinding, voluntary pay band system for House staff that
includes a salary floor and average salary for each position in Member
offices based on various factors including seniority, tenure, comparable
pay, and cost-of-living.
11. Eliminate requirement that district staff purchase health insurance on D.C.
exchange, allowing them to enroll either in a FEHB plan or their state
exchange, and allow D.C.-based staff to enroll in the D.C. exchange or
FEHB plan.
12. Reauthorize appropriate provisions included in the CARES Act (P.L.
116-136) related to the tax treatment of the student loan repayment
program.
99
13. Standardize Eligible Congressional Member Organizations (ECMOs) to
participate in the House’s paid intern program and access staff benefits
like the student loan repayment program.
14. Staff pay should be delinked from Member pay and a new cap specific to
staff should be established.
15. The Architect of the Capitol should evaluate the use of space in the U.S.
Capitol Complex and identify opportunities for modernization.
16. Similar to efforts currently underway, the Committee on House
Administration and the Government Services Administration (GSA)
should develop a practice of negotiating an MOU covering leases for
House district offices with the goal of lowering costs, improving
consistency of rental rates, and guaranteeing House offices are offered
the lowest available rates in GSA buildings and receive tenant protections
and benefits in line with the Senate.
100
INTRODUCTION
Across Capitol Hill and in district offices all over the country, thousands
of congressional staff work daily to make a positive impact in the lives of the
people they serve. From caseworkers to staff assistants, staff interact daily
with constituents to help with diverse requests, including social security
benefits, D.C. tours, and public policy questions. Congressional staff are
dedicated public servants who came to Congress to do meaningful work. They
choose careers on Capitol Hill and in district offices despite the long hours, the
lack of job security, and lower pay compared to what they could make in the
executive branch and private sector.79
But while Congress is fortunate to attract talented and hard-working
staff, it often struggles to keep them long-term. Turnover rates for House staff
are high, with most positions in Member offices turning over every two years
or so.80 While a great deal of staff movement is from one Capitol Hill office to
another, the typical staffer leaves the Hill altogether after four or five years.
These staff departure trends have long-term implications for Congress. When
staff leave, offices lose their policy and procedural expertise, leaving more
junior staff who are often juggling multiple responsibilities at once and
needing to play “catch up” on the issues of importance to the district.
Retaining experienced staff will strengthen Congress as a whole, making
it more efficient and effective on behalf of the American people. The
Committee, through a series of hearings and briefings, closely examined the
question of staff retention in order to determine steps Congress can take to
keep talented staff on the Hill.
Staff leave for many reasons, but two of the biggest are limited benefits
and low pay. Compared to pay in the executive branch and the private sector,
the pay in Congress is significantly lower.81 And while standard congressional
benefit offerings include health insurance, retirement savings accounts, and
transit, there is variation between offices. Some congressional offices offer
additional benefits like student loan repayment and family leave, but these
benefits or how they’re applied are not standard across all offices.82 In a
competitive labor market, benefit offerings are what set organizations apart
79. Comparing the Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees, 2011 to 2015 (2017, April 25).
See
CBO. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637#:~:text=
Federal%20civilian%20workers%20with%20no,than%20their%20private%2Dsector%20counterparts.
80. Petersen, R. E., Eckman, S. J. (2016, November 9). Staff Tenure in Selected Positions in House Member
See
Offices, 2006–2016. (CRS: R44682). https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44682?source=search&guid=
a5f6be9198e94fa4b90028f23cd06065&index=3.; Burgat, C. (2019, March 14). “Who’s on the Hill?
Staffing and Human Capital in Congress’ Legislative Committees”, R. Street Institute.
https://www.rstreet.org/2019/03/14/whos-on-the-hill-staffing-and-human-capital-in-congresss-
legislative-committees/.
81. Schuman, D. (2018, June 6). “Keeping Congress Competent: Staff Pay, Turnover, And What It Means for
See
Democracy”, Medium. https://medium.com/@danielschuman/keeping-congress-competent-staff-pay-
turnover-and-what-it-means-for-democracy-a6a4bfe2c1f3
82. Gale, R. (2015, April 20). “Hill Staffer Student Loan Perk Comes with Caveats”, Roll Call.
See
https://www.rollcall.com/2015/04/20/hill-staffer-student-loan-perk-comes-with-caveats/
101
and can be vital in retaining and recruiting top talent.83 Given the intense
workload of Capitol Hill, this is particularly true for congressional staff. And
while allowing individual Member offices to offer different benefits packages is
designed to provide offices with tools to attract talented staff, more often this
fractured system can further a lack of understanding of the full scope of
benefits available to staff. Ultimately, the lack of equal pay and staff benefits
puts Congress at a hiring disadvantage compared to not only the private
sector, but also the executive branch.
The lack of competitive pay and benefits also impacts the diversity of
congressional staff. While there have been some successful efforts to
encourage diversity, particularly by making funds available to pay interns,
there is still a deficit of congressional staff on Capitol Hill who are reflective of
the diversity of experiences and background in America. This has a domino
effect, reflected in both the recruitment and retention of minority staff at all
levels. According to a recent report by the Joint Center for Political and
Economic Studies, “only 13.7% of senior House staff are people of color even
though they make up 38% of the U.S. population at large.” Diversity among
House staff is most present in the offices of nonwhite Members of Congress.84
There is more Congress can do to attract individuals who represent the
diverse backgrounds and views that exist across the country.
The Committee held a hearing on June 20, 2019 on cultivating diversity
and improving staff retention85, and held several Member listening sessions,
including three virtual discussions, on the topic.86 Expert witnesses presented
testimony on the value of diverse workplaces and employee recruitment best
practices. In addition, Committee staff held several in-person and virtual
listening sessions with congressional staff, many of which focused on
challenges specific positions to staff positions, like chiefs of staff and staff
assistants.87 The purpose of these conversations and formal hearings was to
begin the public process of examining one of the most complex topics in the
Committee’s mandate: “staff recruitment, diversity, retention, and
compensation and benefits.”88
83. Cultivating Diversity and Improving Retention Among Congressional Staff, 116th Congress. (2019,
See
June 20). (Testimony of Alonso, A.) https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190620/109672/
HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-AlonsoA-20190620-U1.pdf
84. Racial Diversity Among Top House Staff (2018, August 24). Joint Center for Political and Economic
See
Studies. https://jointcenter.org/racial-diversity-among-top-house-staff/.
85. Cultivating Diversity and Improving Retention Among Congressional Staff, 116th Congress. (2019,
See
June 20).
86. Virtual Discussion: Conversation on Congressional Staffing, 116th Congress. (2020, June 4); Virtual
See
Discussion: American Political Science Task Force, 116th Congress. (2020, June 18); Virtual Discussion:
Boosting Internal Expertise in Congress, 116th Congress (2020, June 25).
87. Staff Assistants /Legislative Correspondents (on July 19, 2019); Comms Staff (on July 26 and July 30,
See
2019); Personal Staff Members / Legislative Assistants / Legislative Directors (on July 31, 2019) ; and
Chiefs of Staff / Staff Directors (on August 1, 2019); all staff (September 16, 2019); virtual sessions
August 2020.
88. Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, and for
See
other purposes, 116th Congress. H.Res.6. 116th (2018).
102
The recommendations described in this chapter address the specific
staffing-related concerns presented to Committee Members at the June 20,
2019 hearing and additional briefings. However, these reforms were viewed as
a starting point in what would likely be a long process of addressing a broad
range of congressional staffing concerns.89 This chapter focuses specifically on
the centralization and standardization of staff benefits aimed to increase
retention and diversity. In addition, other recommendations detailed in this
chapter, offer solutions to increase staff pay and benefits by removing
administrative costs that currently fall under the Members Representation
Allowance budget.90
This chapter begins with a brief overview of the employee benefits
landscape and describes why offering competitive benefits is essential to
retaining employees. It then looks at staff diversity in Congress and examines
ways Congress can incorporate diversity and inclusion best practices that are
often seen in the private sector. The chapter concludes with a more detailed
review of the recommendations to streamline and reorganize House human
resources.
BACKGROUND
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) conducts
comprehensive annual surveys of employers across the country to gather
information on the types of benefits offered to employees. The survey data
offers important insight into benefit trends, which reveal what organizations
are offering in order to attract and retain talented employees. Organizations
recognize that in order to remain competitive, they must routinely adjust their
benefit offerings. SHRM found in its 2019 survey that compared to the year
before, employers were more likely to increase offerings in all benefits.91
89. Please see Section 3 for suggestions on future reforms in this arena.
See
90. See Chapters 6–9 for these recommendations.
91. Society for Human Resource Management (2019). 2019 Employee Benefits Survey, SHRM.
See
https://shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/Pages/Benefits19.aspx?_ga=
2.170221159.633946006.1600186713-699811251.1600186713
103
Figure 3.1: Trends in Employee Benefits, 2019 SHRM survey
Source: Society for Human Resource Management (2019)
Employers rank health care and retirement benefits as the most
important. Twenty percent of organizations surveyed in 2019 increased both
their health care and wellness benefits over the previous year and 12 percent
increased their investment and retirement benefits. Employers also view paid
leave as very important; 15 percent of organizations surveyed increased this
benefit over the previous year. Flexible work, career development, and
family-friendly benefits also rank high, with approximately 14 percent of
organizations increasing these benefits for their employees.92
The SHRM survey found that over 90 percent of organizations surveyed
in 2019 offer paid leave of some type to their employees. In addition,
employers continue to offer generous paid leave for new parents, with about
one-third of organizations offering paid leave to mothers and slightly fewer to
fathers. Organizations with workforces made up primarily of adults under 40,
or those looking to recruit greater numbers of younger workers, will likely see
even stronger pushes for paid parental and family leave. Congress fits squarely
into this category. Paid leave is associated with increased productivity,
increased engagement, better physical wellness, and positive employer
92. Ibid.
See
104
brand.93 Congress recently took a positive step forward and provided
congressional employees with 12 weeks of paid parental leave. While this
provision, which was included in the FY 2020 National Defense Authorization
Act, is important, more can be done.94
SHRM’s 2019 survey also found that remote work continues to rise in
popularity, and, as a result, telecommuting of all types is increasing. Forty
percent of organizations offer part-time telecommuting. The COVID-19
pandemic has also reinforced the acceptance of working from home.
Compressed workweeks are now offered by one-third of organizations, and
four-day workweeks of 32 hours or less per week are offered by 15 percent.
Many federal agencies offer alternative schedule options such as flexible work
schedule and/or compressed work schedule programs for their employees.95
Because Congress does not collect data on Member office policies, it’s difficult
to know how many Member offices had remote work policies in place prior to
the COVID-19 pandemic. Conversations with district staff (described in
Chapter 9), as well as D.C. staff, however, suggest that many offices were
unprepared for a transition to remote work.
Employees see benefits as a major factor in whether or not to stay with
their current employer, according to a study by the Congressional
Management Foundation (CMF) and SHRM.96 Sixty-six percent of
congressional staffers ranked health care/medical benefits as “very important,”
followed by 61 percent pointing to retirement and savings plans as “very
important.” The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 required Members to
receive their health care benefits through the D.C. Health Exchange rather than
the through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHB). And the
Office of Personnel Management later determined congressional staff must
also purchase their health insurance through the D.C. Health Exchange.
Prior to passage of the ACA, congressional staff were enrolled in the
FEHB; today, the FEHB covers almost nine million federal employees and their
families.97 The transition to the D.C. exchange has been particularly
challenging for some district-based staff as finding local health providers who
accept patients covered by the D.C. exchange is difficult. For many
congressional staff, executive branch, private sector health care plans, and
plans offered through their home-state exchanges are more attractive options.
93. Cultivating Diversity and Improving Retention Among Congressional Staff, 116th Congress. (2019,
See
June 20). (Testimony of Alonso, A.) https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190620/109672/
HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-AlonsoA-20190620-U1.pdf
94. See Public Law 116-92, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 116th Congress,
Section 7603. (2020) https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ92/PLAW-116publ92.pdf
95. Ibid.
See
96. Congressional Management Foundation (n.d.) Life in Congress. https://www.congressfoundation.org/
See
projects/life-in-congress
97. See Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) Facts, Office of Personnel Management
https://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/publications-forms/pamphlets/ri75-13.pdf
105
The CMF/SHRM study also reports that a top reason congressional staff
leave their current job or current office is inadequate opportunities for
professional development. Staff who want to move up the Hill career ladder
typically must wait for a position to open, then learn the position on the job.
This standard path can make it difficult for employees to compete with more
experienced colleagues. In addition, the pool of high-level Hill jobs is smaller
(and thus more competitive) because top positions turn over less frequently.
SHRM’s 2019 survey found that professional development was a “top benefit
trend,” with 87 percent of employers offering professional development
opportunities, and 14 percent of organizations reporting that they increased
professional development benefits offerings over the previous year.
The Congressional Staff Academy offers a broad range of professional
development courses for staff, but tends to be an underutilized resource.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Staff Academy moved many of its courses
online, opening access to staff working from home. Online courses are
particularly appealing to district staff who often miss out on in-person
professional development opportunities. As mentioned in Chapter 9, the
Committee encourages the Staff Academy to offer more online training so
that staff can access training “on demand.” The Committee also recognizes
that the Staff Academy is uniquely positioned to help new staff learn how to
do their jobs successfully, while helping current staff build upon their skill set.
By offering staff certifications in job training, the Staff Academy could provide
staff with learning opportunities that are both tangible and valuable.
Professional development opportunities provide congressional staffers
with potential access to the higher paying jobs they need to afford cost of
living expenses, including paying down student loans. One-third of adults
under the age of 30 have student loan debt and college students today are
taking out loans at a higher rate than in the past. Pew Research Center reports
that “college graduates ages 25 to 39 with loans are more likely than
graduates without loans to say they are either finding it difficult to get by
financially or are just getting by (22 percent vs. 11 percent).98 While a student
loan repayment program is available to congressional staff, offices are limited
in the overall amount they receive and make available to individual staffers.
And because staff, like all Americans, have to pay taxes on the loan benefits
they receive, they must budget accordingly. In response to the COVID-19
pandemic, Congress included a provision in the CARES Act allowing student
loan borrowers to skip payments for six months and avoid taxes on the
benefits they receive.99 Committee Members agreed that this provision should
be reauthorized beyond the pandemic so that borrowers aren’t taxed on the
loan benefits they receive.
98. Cilluffo, A. (2019, August 13) 5 facts about student loans. Pew Research Center
See
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/13/facts-about-student-loans/
99. H.R. 748 CARES Act, 116th, Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748
See
106
As for leaving Congress altogether, staffers cite the need for better
balance between work and personal life as a top factor. Capitol Hill can be
stressful, and the hours can be long. While some employees thrive in this
environment, the burn out factor can be high, especially for employees who
have families. Benefits geared towards providing employees with a better
work/life balance might help mitigate the high turnover rate.
The Committee recognized that standardized benefits offered to
congressional staff needed to be expanded and adjusted on a regular basis for
Congress to attract and retain top talent. As a first step, the Committee
sought to clarify what benefits are currently available and make it easier for
congressional staff to access those benefits. Because the House operates like
435 individual small businesses, there is no centralized human resources
department where staff can easily seek benefits information. As Chair Derek
Kilmer said during a hearing on benefits and diversity:
“I thought it would be a good idea to bring in the point person
who handles Human Resources for House Staff so they could talk
about what benefits are available to staff. Then I found out that
person doesn’t exist. There literally is not an HR point of contact
for House staff.”
Chair Derek Kilmer, June 20, 2019
In addition, Committee Members and staff discovered that many Hill
employees don’t know about course offerings available through the
Congressional Staff Academy or various physical and mental health wellness
programs they can access. By putting all benefit offerings under one roof and
easing–and encouraging—access to these benefits, the committee offered
solutions to address a persistent “information deficit” among staffers. These
resources should be regularly advertised, easily accessible and championed by
managers on the Hill.
STAFF PAY
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to retaining talented congressional staff is
low pay. Compared to executive branch and private sector salaries for
comparable jobs, the Hill pays much less. In fact, low pay is the top reason
congressional staff give for leaving their jobs.100 According to a recent report
on long-term trends in congressional capacity and staff pay, the budget
allocated for office staff hires fell by 10 percent from 2013 to 2017. Rule
changes in 2010 requiring congressional staff to move from the FEHB system
to the D.C. health exchange, along with caps on staff salaries, have had the
100. Congressional Management Foundation, Life in Congress: Job Satisfaction and Engagement of House
See
and Senate Staff (2013)
107
overall effect of reducing personnel expenditures.101 Consequently, many staff
positions have seen a decline in salary, even as workloads have increased.102
The staff compensation charts below depict these trends.
Figure 3.2: Staff compensation, per job title
Note: Dollars are inflation-adjusted using national CPI-U. Data calculated from “The
Congress and Its Experts” dataset (Crosson, Furnas, Lapira 2019). Data not available
for the 109th Congress. Source: New America.
As a consequence of these trends, most staffers do not see working in
Congress as a long-term career option. About 65 percent plan to leave
Congress within five years—including those who would like to continue
working in the public sector.103 Experienced staff take their years of
institutional and policy knowledge with them when they leave the Hill. These
long-term staffers are typically replaced by less experienced—and less
expensive—staff and the cycle begins anew.
101. House and Senate rules prevent staff from earning more than Members, who make $174,000.
See
Increasing Member salaries (and thereby raising the cap on staff salaries) requires Members to vote in
favor raising their own salaries.
102. Furnas, A. and LaPira, T. (2020, September). Congressional Brain Drain. New America.
See
https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/congressional-brain-drain/
103. Ibid.
See
108
“The effects of such low wages are compounded given that
D.C.-based congressional aides live in one of the most expensive
metropolitan areas in the country and are increasingly likely to
come to Congress owing large amounts in student loans. As a
result, Congress has struggled to retain qualified and effective
staff. Staffers regularly depart Congress after short tenures,
trading their congressional experience and connections for higher
salaries offered by special interest and lobbying organizations.”
The American Political Science Association Task Force on
Congressional Reform104
Figure 3.3 below depicts high levels of congressional staff turnover, by
position. While some of this turnover reflects staffers leaving one Hill job for
another, turnover at the higher levels is more often off the Hill, to higher
paying jobs.
Figure 3.3: Turnover and staff tenure by position
Source: Data provided by Dr. Casey Burgat
104. Task Force on Congressional Reform (2019, September). American Political Science Association
See
https://www.apsanet.org/Portals/54/APSA%20RPCI%20Congressional%20Reform%20Report.pdf?ver=
2020-01-09-094944-627
109
As discussed in Chapter 10, the constant churn of congressional staff off
the Hill leaves Congress overly reliant on outside experts, like lobbyists. In
testimony before the Committee, Dr. Lee Drutman noted that by cutting
spending on staff, Congress has diminished its primary source of expertise.105
“Spending money on Congress is a bargain. The federal budget is
$4.8 trillion. Legislative appropriations is $3.97 billion or just 0.08
percent of the federal budget. 99.92 percent of the federal
budget goes elsewhere. Better congressional oversight of the
executive branch could actually save taxpayers money.”
Dr. Lee Drutman106
Central to the discussion of staff pay is the means by which Members
pay staff—the Member Resource Allocation (MRA). The MRA, which averaged
$1.369 million in FY 2018, is the sole source of discretionary funding for
Members’ official duties. Members must use their MRA to cover employee
salaries, travel expenses for commuting between the district office and D.C.,
official communications including telephone town halls, new office equipment,
computers and software, and other official expenses associated with running
their congressional office. Member MRAs vary based on:
1. distance between the Member’s district and Washington, D.C.;
2. the cost of office space in the Member’s district, as reflected in GSA
inventory;
3. the number of non-business mailing addresses in a Member’s district.
MRAs are funded by legislative branch appropriations. But within the
legislative branch budget, a growing share of costs have been driven by
non-policy entities like the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police.107
The MRA was cut significantly from 2011 to 2013, then held roughly constant
from 2014 to 2015. It saw small increases from 2016 to 2018, but its real
purchasing power remains around a quarter below its 2010 peak—somewhere
around the level of 2000. In contrast, total federal spending in 2018 was more
than 50 percent higher in real terms than in 2000.
105. Select Committee Hosts Virtual Discussion on Boosting Internal Expertise in Congress, 116th Congress
See
(2020, June 25) https://modernizecongress.house.gov/committee-activity/virtual-discussions/select-
committee-hosts-virtual-discussion-on-boosting-internal-expertise-in-congress
106. Ibid.
See
107. Graves, Z. Rebuilding Congress’ Policy Capacity (2020, July 8) The Federalist Society.
See
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/rebuilding-congress-policy-capacity
110
Figure 3.4: Cost change in legislative branch budget components over time
Data provided by Daniel Schuman at Demand Progress. Does not include all budget
components. Shown in 2019 dollars.
While many goods and services are provided separate from the MRA,
including D.C. office space, furniture, and staff benefits (including healthcare,
retirement and Social Security contributions, life insurance, student loan
repayment, and transit benefit), Members are restricted in terms of what they
can pay staff. This is because since 2000, Congress has not approved
substantial increases to MRA budgets. By holding the MRA budget constant,
“the House has chosen to reduce its spending on staffing and overhead by 10
cents on the dollar in just five years. The consequence has been a marked
decline in staffing.”108
108. Furnas, A. and LaPira, T. (2020, September). Congressional Brain Drain. New America.
See
https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/congressional-brain-drain/
111
Figure 3.5: MRA components and personnel expenditures
Note: Dollars are inflation-adjusted using CPI-U. Specific component amounts
obtained from Legislative Branch Appropriations reports. Aggregate personal office
personnel spending amounts calculated from annualized House Statements of
Disbursement. Source: New America.
The bottom line is that Congress cannot adequately tackle the problem
of staff churn without paying staff higher salaries. And Congress cannot pay
higher staff salaries unless it invests more money in the institution. Members
rightfully fear the political consequences of voting to increase spending on
Congress, especially when the institution is already viewed unfavorably by a
majority of Americans. At the same time, the American people want a
functional Congress that is capable of fulfilling its Article One obligations.
“By sheer math, even doubling the money spent on Congress
would be tiny compared to the overall federal budget. The 2018
federal budget included $2.1 billion to fund the House ($1.2
billion) and the Senate ($919 million). That’s 0.05 percent of a
$4.1 trillion total federal budget.”
American Political Science Association Congressional Reform
Task Force109
Until Members view the legislative branch as worthy as investment as
the executive branch, Congress will continue to lose capacity and thus
effectiveness to serve the American people. In addition to the
recommendations discussed below to directly address staff and congressional
109. Task Force on Congressional Reform (2019, September). American Political Science Association
See
https://www.apsanet.org/Portals/54/APSA%20RPCI%20Congressional%20Reform%20Report.pdf?ver=
2020-01-09-094944-627
112
capacity, the Committee considered other ways to alleviate the pressure on
the MRA by removing several standard administrative costs from the Member
budget. These recommendations are detailed in Chapters 7–10.
DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION
Providing staff with competitive benefits and pay is one part of the
recruitment and retention puzzle. Staff also need a work environment that
reflects and values a diversity of backgrounds and experiences. The 116th
Congress is the most racially and ethnically diverse Congress in history, and
congressional staff should represent the diversity of constituents around the
country. As Dr. Alexander Alonso, Chief Knowledge Officer at SHRM, said in his
testimony before the Committee:110
“While benefits offerings are critical to securing top talent, it is
equally important that Congress address inclusion and diversity
when discussing a modern workforce. More than one in five
voting Members (22 percent) of the U.S. House of
Representatives and Senate are racial or ethnic minorities,
making the 116th Congress the most racially and ethnically
diverse in history. As a result, Capitol Hill staff should also reflect
a diverse workforce and representation of constituents around
the country.”
Dr. Alexander Alonso, June 20, 2019
To help Members recruit and retain a more diverse workforce, the House
established an Office of Diversity and Inclusion as part of the rules package for
the 116th Congress.111 While party-based diversity initiatives have existed in
Congress, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion formalizes the House’s
commitment to promoting “…policies which assist member offices in hiring
and retaining a diverse workforce.” “Congressional staffers directly impact the
lives and wellbeing of millions of Americans,” according to the office, “and
these staffers should reflect our rich diversity.”112
Because there is no routine internal survey of congressional staff
demographics, obtaining a reliable picture of staff diversity is challenging. In
addition to developing a comprehensive diversity plan, the Office of Diversity
and Inclusion will collect staff demographic data—an important first step
towards understanding the composition of current Hill staff. Under the
direction of the FY 2019 Legislative Branch appropriations report and House
Rules for the 116th Congress, the House’s Chief Administrative Office (CAO)
110. Cultivating Diversity and Improving Retention Among Congressional Staff, 116th Congress. (2019,
See
June 20). (Testimony of Alonso, A.) https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190620/109672/
HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-AlonsoA-20190620-U1.pdf
111. McPherson, L. (2019, January 3). House adopts rules package with few Democratic defections over
See
PAYGO provision. Roll Call. https://www.rollcall.com/2019/01/03/house-adopts-rules-package-with-
few-democratic-defections-over-paygo-provision/
112. About the House Office of Diversity and Inclusion (n.d.). https://diversity.house.gov/about
See
113
surveyed staff in 2019 on diversity and pay issues.115 This survey provided
valuable feedback about the type of people who serve as staff in Congress, as
well as information on pay and benefits across demographics. Yet as only the
first of its kind, the survey provided a snapshot in time. Valuable efforts like
this should take place on a regular basis; Congress cannot improve on issues
of staff and diversity without understanding where it currently stands.
A few outside organizations have also tried to capture diversity
information via surveys of congressional offices and other data collection
techniques. For example, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
surveyed House offices in 2018114 and reported the following:
Figure 3.6: Findings from the Joint Center for Political and Economic Survey, 2018
People of color make up 38 percent of the U.S. population, but only 13.7
percent of all top House staff.
Both white Democrats and white Republicans hire overwhelmingly white top
staff, even though their districts are surprisingly diverse
Latinx Members represent districts that are much more Latinx than their top
staff.
There are no Latinx, Asian American, Pacific Islanders, or Native Americans
who serve as full committee staff directors or leadership office chiefs of staff,
policy directors, or communications directors.
Women account for almost 61 percent of Black top staffers, almost 45 percent
of Latinx top staffers, and just over 31 percent of Asian American and Pacific
Islanders top staffers.
The lack of congressional staff demographic data extends to interns.
There is no institution-wide recordkeeping about who interns on Capitol Hill
and whether internship opportunities are allocated equitably to women, racial
minorities, or students from less privileged backgrounds. Pay Our Interns
commissioned a report in 2020115 to examine racial representation among
interns in the House and found uneven access to internship opportunities.
Congressional internships are the primary pipeline to jobs on the Hill, and
disparities in who gets internships leads to a less diverse congressional
workforce. Figure 3.7 illustrates some of the report’s findings:
113. Marquette, C. (2019, September 27). House employee survey shows discontent with pay. Roll Call.
https://www.rollcall.com/2019/09/27/house-employee-survey-shows-discontent-with-pay/.
114. Racial Diversity Among Top House Staff (2018, August 24). Joint Center for Political and Economic
Studies. https://jointcenter.org/racial-diversity-among-top-house-staff/.
115. James, J (2020). The Color of Congress: Racial Representation Among Interns in the U.S. House of
Representatives. Pay Our Interns.
114
Figure 3.7: Summer 2019 interns compared to the national undergraduate student
population, by race
Note: Data from Pay our Interns 2020 Report116
Additionally, an R Street Institute report examined data from all 45
House and Senate committees to provide a comprehensive
committee-by-committee look at the tenure, pay and gender balance of
committee staffs. The report highlights vastly different experiences that men
and women have on the Hill, even when performing the same job. When
workers were sorted by job category—legislative assistant, communications,
senior staff—men out-earned women in every category except administration.
The smallest pay gap was at the senior staff level, where men earned $1,000
more per year, on average. The largest gap was in communications, where men
out-earned women by roughly $15,000 per year.117
Recognizing the need to incorporate diversity and inclusion measures
into the congressional staff recruitment and retention process, the Committee
solicited expert advice on best practices. At a June 20, 2019 hearing, the
Committee heard testimony from experts who shared what organizations and
businesses are doing to diversify their workforces and promote inclusion in the
workplace. Laura Liswood, author of The Loudest Duck: Moving Beyond
Diversity, described several best practices that successful companies employ,
including making diversity and inclusion part of the culture and a highest
116. Ibid.
See
117. Burgat, C. (2019, March 14). “Who’s on the Hill? Staffing and Human Capital in Congress’ Legislative
See
Committees”, R. Street Institute. https://www.rstreet.org/2019/03/14/whos-on-the-hill-staffing-and-
human-capital-in-congresss-legislative-committees/.
115
priority for senior leadership. She also noted that there are unconscious
beliefs, perceptions, archetypes, associations, and biases that play into whom
we hire and how we evaluate others. Cultivating an awareness of these biases
should also be prioritized.118
“Historically certain groups have been overrepresented in
positions of power, influence, economic benefits, jobs and others
have been underrepresented. This pattern is seen in
Congressional staff offices.”
Laura Liswood, June 20, 2019
Another expert witness, Dr. Kwasi Mitchell, Principal and Chief Inclusion
Officer at Deloitte Consulting, explained that inclusion is about every day
actions and highlighted behaviors that organizations can promote to empower
people with actionable steps on how they can personalize, identify, model, and
advance inclusion in the workplace:119
“We find that more and more that strong inclusive cultures also
include an element of purpose and dedication to the greater
good. In fact, purpose-driven work is one of the top factors that
today’s workforce is seeking. Few organizations have as strong a
purpose as that of Congress, and it is an outstanding foundation
for the continuation and scaling of your diversity and inclusion
efforts.”
Dr. Kwasi Mitchell, June 20, 2019
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Committee also dedicated three
virtual discussions to the topic of boosting staff capacity and diversity.
Experts from the American Political Science Association’s Task Force on
Congressional Reform briefed Committee Members on their staffing research
and recommendations, noting that minority staffers are far less likely to obtain
leadership positions in congressional offices and tend to experience larger pay
gaps.120 In addition to recommending that Congress provide the Office of
118. Liswood, L. A. (2009). The loudest duck: Moving beyond diversity while embracing differences to
See
achieve success at work. John Wiley & Sons.
119. Cultivating Diversity and Improving Retention Among Congressional Staff, 116th Congress. (2019,
See
June 20) (Testimony of Mitchell, K.) https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190620/109672/
HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-MitchellK-20190620-U1.pdf
120. Conversation on Congressional Staffing, 116th Congress. (2020, June 4)
See
https://modernizecongress.house.gov/committee-activity/virtual-discussions/the-select-committee-
on-the-modernization-of-congress-conversation-on-congressional-staffing; Select Committee Hosts
Virtual Discussion with American Political Science Association Task Force, 116th Congress (2020, June
18) https://modernizecongress.house.gov/committee-activity/virtual-discussions/select-committee-
hosts-virtual-discussion-with-american-political-science-association-task-force-; Select Committee
Hosts Virtual Discussion on Boosting Internal Expertise in Congress, 116th Congress (2020, June 25)
https://modernizecongress.house.gov/committee-activity/virtual-discussions/select-committee-hosts-
virtual-discussion-on-boosting-internal-expertise-in-congress
116
Diversity and Inclusion with consistent institutional support and resources,
Task Force members recommended modernizing congressional job listing and
resume bank services as a way to increase minority access to congressional
employment opportunities.121
Figure 3.8: Congressional staff pay, by position and ethnicity
Source: Data compiled by Dr. Casey Burgat
Former leadership staffers from the Congressional Black Caucus and the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus also shared with Committee Members their
perspectives on the value of diversity in staffing. Maria Meier, former director
of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, explained how Congress’ demographic
caucuses give Members and staff additional opportunities to address the
issues impacting minority communities across congressional districts.122
Diverse staff bring different backgrounds and experiences to their jobs, which
is important when working with diverse constituencies.
121. Task Force on Congressional Reform (2019, September). American Political Science Association
See
https://www.apsanet.org/Portals/54/APSA%20RPCI%20Congressional%20Reform%20Report.pdf?ver=
2020-01-09-094944-627
122. Select Committee Hosts Virtual Discussion on Boosting Internal Expertise in Congress, 116th Congress
See
(2020, June 25) https://modernizecongress.house.gov/committee-activity/virtual-discussions/select-
committee-hosts-virtual-discussion-on-boosting-internal-expertise-in-congress
117
As Congress takes actions to recruit and retain talented employees and
attract a diverse workforce, SHRM recommends that it should also consider
modernizing its job application and posting process. “The employment
process for Capitol Hill is antiquated, not transparent, and vastly different from
that of the private sector, which is an impediment to attracting high-quality
diverse candidates.”123 As anyone who has worked on Capitol Hill knows, job
openings are often learned by word of mouth. This further deters people
without connections to the Hill from applying for jobs for which they’re
qualified. As Kemba Hendrix, director of the House Office of Diversity and
Inclusion, said in a March 15, 2019 New York Times article:124
“This is a place where who you know does, at times, affect how
you are able to access employment. The ability to access
networks and become familiar within those networks takes time.”
Kemba Hendrix
By voting to create the House Office of Diversity and Inclusion at the
beginning of the 116th Congress, the chamber took an important first step
towards putting some of these practices into place. The work of improving
staff diversity would also be aided by a centralized human resources
department in the House. Such an office could help with recruitment and
retention, perform diversity audits, identify best practices, and help to collect
and compile data that could assist the House in making routine benefit
adjustments.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO BUILD CONGRESSIONAL CAPACITY
1. Create a one-stop shop Human Resources HUB dedicated to Member,
committee, and leadership (MCL) staff.
Due to the inherent complexities of bringing together many
independently operating offices under one “human resources umbrella,” this
recommendation is one of the most comprehensive passed by the Committee.
Committee Members believe that attracting and retaining a diverse and highly
qualified workforce requires competitive benefits for staff. And unfortunately,
staff—and those managing them—are too often unaware of the benefits and
services offered by the House because they don’t know how to access them.
This is in large part due to the lack of a centralized, one-stop shop
where managers and congressional staff can go to find information related to
benefits and policies, get guidance on hiring, get answers on how to handle
123. Cultivating Diversity and Improving Retention Among Congressional Staff, 116th Congress. (2019,
See
June 20). (Testimony of Alonso, A.) https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190620/109672/
HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-AlonsoA-20190620-U1.pdf
124. Edmonson, C. (2019, March 15). In Most Diverse House, Aides of Color Join the Ranks of ‘Firsts’. New
See
York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/us/house-staff-minorities-democrats.html
118
management issues, and access training and professional development
opportunities. And because they are starting from scratch, freshman offices
tend to be most impacted by the lack of human resources infrastructure in the
House.125
The Committee believes that centralizing resources under a single
human resources department will vastly improve the ability of congressional
offices and staff to determine the range of benefits and services available,
seek advice and make choices that best serve their needs. A centralized
human resources HUB builds efficiency in House systems, saving staff time
and frustration.
The Committee recommends that the “one-stop shop Human Resources
HUB” be led by an HR Deputy Director and comprised of existing offices and
staff of the House. The office will be responsible for assisting MCL offices to
improve the recruitment and retention of a diverse workforce, develop best
practices that can be utilized by offices, regularly survey staff, and provide
recommendations for competitive compensation and benefits to House staff.
The HUB will physically exist in a centralized location convenient to
Member offices. A virtual version of the HUB will be structured as a board led
by a new Deputy HR Director for Congressional Staff and comprised of
representatives from the following House offices:
• Office of Employee Advocacy
• Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
• Office of House Employment Counsel
• Office of Employee Assistance
• Congressional Staff Academy
• House Wellness Center
The Deputy HR Director for Congressional Staff will be overseen by the
Chief Human Resources Officer for the Chief Administrative Officer of the
House, and will guide and delegate efforts to recruit and retain a diverse staff
including, but not limited to:
1. Developing a tool kit for best practices for hiring, promoting, and
managing a diverse staff;
2. Improving diversity recruitment by implementing best practices for
actively seeking out candidates of various backgrounds and compiling
into the House resume portal (for example, outreach to historically black
colleges and universities (HBCUs), community colleges, organizations for
individuals with disabilities, etc.);
125. Fostering the Next Generation of Leaders: Setting Members up for Success, 116th Congress. (2019,
See
July 11.) (Testimony of Shapiro, R.) https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190711/109766/
HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-ShapiroR-20190711-U1.pdf
119
3. Reevaluating current MCL office staff benefits (for example, capacity and
costs of the House child care center, student loan benefits, etc.) and
develop recommendations for new benefits to improve recruitment and
retention (for example, telework, flex schedules, returnship programs,
sabbaticals, etc.);
4. Conducting the biennial staff survey as well as offering an optional exit
survey to MCL offices;
5. Transforming the existing House resume bank into a user-friendly,
searchable portal where MCL offices can select a range of criteria to
narrow the candidate pool;
6. Improving and managing the House Vacancy Announcement and
Placement Service (HVAPS); and
7. Providing Members-elect information on the full range of services offered
to their staff in an easily understandable and organized format
immediately following the certification of their election results.
The Committee also recommended that when the various
representatives of the HR HUB convene, representatives of the Majority and
Minority of the Committee on House Administration should be present to
serve as advocates for MCL office staff. Additionally, the House Committee on
Ethics should be consulted as appropriate to ensure that staff benefits and
best practices are in line with House Ethics rules.
The Deputy HR Director for Congressional Staff will also deputize or hire
a Deputy Director of Staff Outreach and Marketing responsible for advertising
services to staff and creating a more outward facing HR HUB. Finally, the
Committee on House Administration will evaluate the effectiveness of the HR
HUB no later than three years after its establishment.
2. Make permanent the Office of Diversity and Inclusion.
The Committee has made staff recruitment, retention and diversity a
priority since its inception. Over the course of the 116th Congress, the
Committee has continually discussed the importance of having different
perspectives and experiences at every level in Congress. In hearings, virtual
discussions, and staff and Member-level meetings, the committee heard from a
diverse set of voices that highlighted the need for better hiring practices and
more focused attention on diversity and inclusion.
It’s clear to the Members of the Committee that Congress needs to do
more to recruit and retain staffers who reflect the diversity of the American
people. Congress also needs to routinely survey staff, not just on pay and
benefits, but also on their backgrounds to better understand the makeup of
the People’s House. For these reasons, Committee Members recommended
making the House Office of Diversity and Inclusion permanent.
As described earlier in this chapter, the Rules of the House of
Representatives for the 116th Congress (H.Res.6) established the Office of
Diversity and Inclusion to develop a plan including, in part, ‘‘policies to direct
120
and guide House employing offices to recruit, hire, train, develop, advance,
promote, and retain a diverse workforce.’’ The Office, however, was only
authorized for the 116th Congress. The Committee believed the Office should
be extended into future Congresses. If the ‘‘People’s House’’ is to make earnest
efforts to improve diversity among the congressional workforce, the Office of
Diversity and Inclusion should be established permanently and efforts to
evaluate its effectiveness and mission should be ongoing.
Making the Office permanent will enable Congress to better recruit and
retain a diverse workforce. Additionally, once the Office is made permanent,
the Committee recommends that a representative serve on the HR HUB
described in the previous recommendation. The Committee on House
Administration must evaluate the progress and mission of the Office at the
end of the 116th Congress, and no later than three years after it is made
permanent.
3. Examine the viability of updating the staff payroll system with the goal of
transitioning from monthly to semimonthly pay.
As the Committee examined issues related to congressional staff pay,
Members and Committee staff determined that an ongoing problem for
younger and lower-level staff is the monthly pay schedule. Previous legislation
to address this problem failed to bring the institution in line with the Senate
and other federal employee pay schedules. As a result, some staff continue to
struggle to meet monthly financial obligations.
Recent research has found that many workers struggle to make ends
meet when faced with financial emergencies. A 2018 report from the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve found that 40 percent of adults in the U.S.
do not have enough savings on hand to cover a $400.00 emergency.126
Similarly, CareerBuilder found in 2017 that 78 percent of workers in the U.S.
live paycheck to paycheck.127 For workers who are paid monthly, unexpected
financial emergencies can be even more challenging.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that among private
businesses, “biweekly is the most common length of pay period, with 36.5
percent of U.S. private businesses paying their employees every 2 weeks.
Weekly pay periods are almost as common, with 32.4 percent of private
businesses paying employees each week. Semimonthly and monthly pay
frequencies are less common.”128
126. See
Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017 (2018, May). Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System. https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2017-report-economic-
well-being-us-households-201805.pdf
127. Press Release: Living Paycheck to Paycheck is a Way of Life for Majority of U.S. Workers. (2017, Aug.
See
24). Career Builder. http://press.careerbuilder.com/2017-08-24-Living-Paycheck-to-Paycheck-is-a-Way-
of-Life-for-Majority-of-U-S-Workers-According-to-New-CareerBuilder-Survey
128. Burgess, M. (2014, May). How frequently do private businesses pay employees? U. S. Bureau of Labor
See
Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-3/how-frequently-do-private-businesses-pay-
workers.htm
121
The Committee recommends examining the viability of updating the
staff payroll system with the goal of transitioning from monthly to
semimonthly pay. Specifically, the Committee recommends that the CAO
conduct a review of the costs and logistics of changing the House payroll
system from a monthly to semimonthly schedule. Following the review, the
House should align with the rest of the federal government’s payroll practices
and update its pay schedule to address the financial concerns of congressional
staff.
4. Raise the cap on the number of permanent staff and additional staff allowed
to work in Member offices.
In 1975, the House capped the number of staff that can serve in Member
offices at 18 permanent staff and four additional staff. Yet in the 45 years since
the cap was put in place, the U.S. population has expanded, and Members are
representing larger constituencies. The policy agenda has become increasingly
complex, presenting staff with a constant stream of new issues and
constituent concerns to address.
The combination of increased workloads and stagnant staff growth has
led to an increased dependence on outside resources and research. Lobbyists,
trade associations, and other policy-oriented organizations assist
overburdened staff. But this dependency on outside expertise raises questions
about biases in the policy making process.
Committee Members agreed that raising the cap and allowing Member
offices to hire additional staff would help offices better serve their
constituents, reduce stress on staff, and thereby improve staff retention.
Specifically, the Committee recommends raising the cap on permanent
staffers from 18 to 22 and raising the cap on additional staffers from four to
six. Because office space is a perennial issue in Congress, Members could
consider implementing a more regular telework policy once the U.S. workforce
is back in physical office spaces full-time.
5. Regularly survey staff on ways to improve pay, benefits, and quality of life.
In their 2019 final report, the American Political Science Association’s
Task Force on Congressional Reform called for improved collection and
dissemination of data on the compensation and demographic breakdown of
congressional staff. According to the Task Force:129
129. American Political Science Association (2019, October).
See
Congressional Reform Task Force, Final Report. https://www.apsanet.org/Portals/54/
APSA%20RPCI%20Congressional%20Reform%20Report.pdf?ver=2020-01-09-094944-627.
122
“In order to gauge current problems and track progress in staff
retention and diversity over time, Congress and those who care
about the institution need better information about staffing
practices. We recommend that Congress require systematic
information collection. Information availability would then allow
Congress to identify where the institution falls short in equitable
opportunities for staff career advancement.”
APSA Task Force on Congressional Reform, October 2019
Congressional staff are not regularly surveyed to capture important
information about pay, benefits, diversity, and quality of life. This lack of
information hinders the ability of the House to identify the demographics of
who works on the Hill, why staff leave, and how to improve retention and
diversity.
The Rules of the House of Representatives for the 116th Congress
(H.Res.6) included language for a one-time survey on staff diversity. A number
of outside groups have also compiled reports on staff pay and demographics,
but the accuracy of data is hard to confirm. The Committee recommends
regular internal surveys of staff to collect demographic data and to solicit
information to improve staff pay, benefits, and quality of life.
The Committee also recommends that the new human resources HUB
described above offer departing staff the option of completing an exit survey.
By routinely collecting this information, Congress can make data-based
decisions to improve staff retention. Congress should also make public the
aggregated results of these surveys.
6. Congressional Staff Academy must design and offer certifications in addition
to trainings to staffers. The program must offer certificates for the following
roles: Staff Assistant, LC, LA, LD, Scheduler, Press Assistant, Communications
Director, COS, and District Staff roles. The CSA must also promote these
certifications.
Certifications help staff become more marketable for promotion or
alternative employment. In addition, these programs also help offices save
time by training staffers and create a standardized, base-level understanding
of staff roles across the House. And given the unique nature of the work on
Capitol Hill, it can be difficult to move from one position to another—this
training will provide staff with an opportunity to learn new positions and be
flexible in their work goals.
For example, these programs will include training on House procedure
for legislative aides, guidance on in-House communication resources for press
staff, and managerial training for senior-level positions. This training will
improve the institution as a whole, by not only making it easier for staff to
transfer between offices, but by establishing foundational training for new and
123
veteran staff members alike. In addition, the Committee recommends
incentivizing participation in training such as bonuses, establishing a
curriculum for senior staff, and a creating a mentorship program for staff.
7. Provide institution-wide, standard onboarding training for new employees,
including employee resource offices/contacts. Training includes “constituent
service training” for entry level staffers who will deal with constituent
concerns.
For new staffers, the institutional knowledge of how Capitol Hill
operates can be difficult to find and understand. The Committee recommends
providing institution-wide training for new employees to ensure all new staff
understand their role, how Congress operates, as well as logistics like benefits.
This training will empower staff to not only understand the legislative process,
but their rights as congressional staff. In addition, standardized training
provides staff with skill sets that are transferable across offices, which helps
improves staff retention. A similar recommendation for a revamped
onboarding process for new Members can be found in Chapter 4.
8. Remove franking related costs from Member MRAs and move to a central
account which all Members can use (up to a pre-determined cap) to pay for
franking related costs (this can include telephone town halls and ads on
social media).
Funding could be provided through the Chief Administrative Officer with
each office having a specific allotment available to them. Individual offices
use of funding would also be disclosed in the quarterly statement of
disbursements. All mass communications will continue to be publicly
disclosed via the current franking website.
Offices are not required to use these funds and could still use the MRA for all
mass communication costs. Additionally, if offices reach the cap, they can still
utilize the MRA for mass communications.
Currently, because both staff pay and the high costs of franked mail
both fall under the MRA, Members are financially restricted in both the
quantity and quality of constituent correspondence and staff pay. Where some
offices have high franked-costs, others have few.130 This inadvertently
disadvantages staff and Members, who are constrained by a collective MRA.
The Committee recommends removing franked-related costs from Member
MRAs and move them to a central account.
130. Please see Chapter 8 for more details on Franking costs.
See
124
9. The Members Representational Allowance (MRA) formula should be
reevaluated and updated to reflect modern office needs and upcoming
congressional redistricting, and increased to ensure Congress can meet
current and future challenges including the COVID-19 pandemic and the
persistent retention problems.
Improving capacity and staff expertise will make Congress work better
for the American people, and less reliant on lobbyists or outside experts. In
order to provide sufficient compensation to recruit and retain capable staff, a
modern MRA is needed. Currently, the MRA is calculated through several
factors that require updating. Travel costs are calculated based on distance
from D.C. rather than actual cost to travel. The Franking budget is determined
by the number of non-business addresses in a district. And lease costs for a
given MRA are determined by GSA’s office space prices in a given district. A
thorough and updated evaluation of the formula—including a consideration of
staff pay in relation to the executive branch and to private industry—will
provide a data-driven means of modernizing the MRA.
10. Establish a nonbinding, voluntary pay band system for House staff that
includes a salary floor and average salary for each position in Member offices
based on various factors including seniority, tenure, comparable pay, and
cost-of-living.
In order for Congress to retain staff and build capacity, staff need to be
paid more, and expect to receive standard cost of living adjustments, as well
as raises based on tenure and merit. An established, nonbinding pay band
system will encourage staff to stay on Capitol Hill for longer because they will
have greater clarity regarding what they can expect to be paid. Such a system
can also provide staff with an additional tool to ask for more compensation
and could also prevent major pay discrepancies in pay between congressional
offices.
In order to establish a nonbinding pay band system in the House, current
and reliable data on staff salaries is needed. However, the lack of data on what
House staff are paid, by position, makes it difficult to compare House staff
salaries with either the executive branch or the private sector. While the
salaries are public information and listed in quarterly Statements of
Disbursement, and third-party websites and organizations compile information
on salaries in Congress, the data remains uneasy to reach or access, lacking,
and incomplete. Thus, the Committee also recommends that information on
annual salaries for the positions in House Member offices, and for Committees,
should be compiled either through available information or through a survey.
Once the House collects data on staff salaries by position, this information can
then help the House establish a reasonable and nonbinding pay band system
for staff positions.
125
11. Eliminate requirement that district staff purchase health insurance on D.C.
exchange, allowing them to enroll either in a FEHB plan or their state
exchange, and allow D.C.-based staff to enroll in the D.C. exchange or FEHB
plan.
As reported by SHRM, health care benefits are particularly important to
attracting and retaining staff. However, the transition to the D.C. exchange has
made it difficult for some district-based staff to find local health care
providers who accept the D.C. options. Thus, the Committee recommends
eliminating the requirement of district staff to purchase health insurance on
the district exchange. This change would bring D.C. based staff into alignment
with committee staff and the executive branch when it comes to health
provider choices. It would also provide district staff with local health insurance
options by allowing them to opt into local systems.
12. Reauthorize appropriate provisions included in the CARES Act (P.L. 116-136)
related to the tax treatment of the student loan repayment program.
While staff benefits are provided by all Members of Congress, the
stipulations of these requirements can differ by office. The Committee
recommends that Congress extend the provision in the CARES Act that
allowed student loan borrowers to skip payments for six months and avoid
taxes on the benefits they receive.131
13. Staff pay should be delinked from Member pay and a new cap specific to
staff should be established.
Retaining senior staff is critical to improving institutional capacity and
making Members more effective lawmakers on behalf of their constituents.
However, congressional staff salaries are limited by a Member’s own salary.
Members of the Committee recommend delinking their own salaries from
those of their staff, so they can reward and retain their most senior employees.
14. Standardize Eligible Congressional Member Organizations (ECMOs) to
participate in the House’s paid intern program and access staff benefits like
the student loan repayment program.
Like congressional party caucuses, Member organizations rely on staff
and interns to help them serve their Members and work on their organizational
legislative objectives. This recommendation ensures that staff who work for
these organizations can access the same staff benefits as staff who work in
personal offices. It also allows ECMOs to participate in the House’s paid
internship program, granting them 1 paid intern at a time.
15. The Architect of the Capitol should evaluate the use of space in the U.S.
Capitol Complex and identify opportunities for modernization.
Congress’ physical workspace is another factor that affects the
institution’s ability to attract and retain talented, young workers. Members also
complain about a lack of open, bipartisan spaces where they can meet in
131. H.R. 748 CARES Act, 116th, Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748
See
126
private, away from press. While the Committee passed a recommendation
encouraging a bipartisan space near the House Floor to meet with Members
across the aisle, staff too, desire bipartisan spaces to work together.
According to Forbes Magazine, “A quality workspace design leads to a
less stressful and more productive atmosphere. It’s essential that employers
take the physical work environment of their employees into consideration.”132
The private sector has responded to numerous studies that demonstrate the
office environment’s impact on employee health and wellbeing, but Congress
has not evolved in the same way.
16. Similar to efforts currently underway, the Committee on House
Administration and the Government Services Administration (GSA) should
develop a practice of negotiating an MOU covering leases for House district
offices with the goal of lowering costs, improving consistency of rental rates,
and guaranteeing House offices are offered the lowest available rates in GSA
buildings and receive tenant protections and benefits in line with the Senate.
This recommendation, raised by Committee Member Rep. Emanuel
Cleaver, encourages the Committee on House Administration and the GSA to
negotiate leases on behalf of congressional offices in local districts. Currently,
each member of Congress manages their own lease process and payments for
district offices, and the funding is pulled from the Member’s MRA. This is a
time-consuming and costly endeavor.
However, unlike individual Members of Congress, GSA has a great deal
of expertise in this area. Today, the GSA owns and leases nearly 400 million
square feet of space throughout the country, from ports of entry, post offices,
laboratories, and more.133 Allowing the GSA to handle the responsibility of
negotiating the lease for individual Member’s district offices would save time
and money. This change would result also in more time for Members and staff
to work on constituent services and could create additional funding within the
MRA that could be used to compensate staff.
CONCLUSION
The recommendations described in this chapter reflect the Committee’s
commitment to improving staff diversity, recruitment, and retention. Members
view staff as the backbone of Congress; without them, the institution would
not function. Congress is fortunate to attract such talented and hard-working
staff, but ultimately has a hard time retaining them. The typical staffer leaves
the Hill after four or five years, which is right about the time they’ve picked up
a lot of institutional knowledge and policy expertise.
132. Kohll, A. (2019, Jan. 24). “How Your Office Space Impacts Employee Well-Being”. Forbes Magazine.
See
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alankohll/2019/01/24/how-your-office-space-impacts-employee-
wellbeing/#7871991264f3
133. Letter to the Select Committee from Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (2019, December 11).
See
127
For a lot of staffers, the desire to serve the public is eventually
outweighed by the inherent need for a better work/life balance, and better
pay to afford housing, support families, and put kids through college. This
reality puts Congress at a disadvantage compared to the executive branch and
the private sector.
The Committee believes that Congress should create an environment
that encourages the best staffers to stay. These recommendations should be
viewed as a starting point in a much-needed, comprehensive process of
addressing a broad range of congressional staffing concerns.
128
CHAPTER 4 —
Overhaul the Onboarding Process and Provide
Continuing Education for Members
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Through the Office of the Clerk, newly-elected Members should have the
option to hire and pay one transition staff member for the duration of the
time between when they are elected and sworn in.
2. Orientation courses and services should be available to all new Members
(including those incoming from a special election) and presented in a
nonpartisan way.
3. Orientation should be reimagined and reorganized to offer a
“just-in-time” approach where appropriate.
4. Offer a course in the new Member orientation and ongoing education
portal to instruct Members on the House Rules of Decorum and Debate,
and other practices to promote civility and respect.
5. Create a pilot Congressional Leadership Academy for Members which
offers professional development and institutional training.
6. Make cybersecurity training mandatory for Members.
129
INTRODUCTION
The months leading up to Election Day—for any candidate—are usually a
whirlwind. For newly elected Members of Congress, a victory on Election Day
is just the beginning. Soon after winning their congressional election, new
Members attend an orientation process, are required to find and lease district
offices, hire staff, and figure out living arrangements in Washington, D.C. This is
done in a matter of weeks right before the busy holiday season, without paid
support staff and before they are officially sworn-in to office in early January.
As a result, many newly elected Members begin their congressional careers
overwhelmed by the constant flow of new information, from learning about
the budget and appropriations process to leasing an office in their district.
Members are required to make a number of immediate decisions with
little-to-no training or guidance. Despite their varying lengths of service in the
House, Members of the Committee all vividly remembered their orientation
experiences, and recognized the need to examine and improve the current
onboarding process to better support freshman Members during this critical
transition period. Doing so will help new Members hit the ground running upon
their swearing in, ready to work on behalf of the American people.
Chair Kilmer and Vice Chair Graves met several times with bipartisan
groups of freshman Members to hear their firsthand experiences and
recommendations for making Congress more effective and efficient.
Additionally, the Committee’s extension through the 116th Congress was
supported by a bipartisan group of nearly 40 freshman Members, who sent a
letter to House leadership encouraging continuation of the Committee and its
mission.134 During the Committee’s Member Day hearing in March 2019, many
of the Members testified on the importance of this onboarding period, and
several freshmen Members shared their own ideas for reform. A number of
these ideas were discussed and highlighted during the Committee’s hearings,
meetings, and briefings. In a July 2019 hearing about continuing education
and training for Members of Congress, Reps. Mary Gay Scanlon and William
Timmons, the Committee’s two freshman Members, chaired the hearing and
described their orientation experience as follows:
134. See full text of the letter, please see the Appendix: Committee documents.
For
130
Image 4.1: Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon listens to a witness during a Select Committee
hearing.
“We came to Congress with different backgrounds but with a
similar goal, and that’s to solve problems for the American
people. By improving the support, resources, and tools available
to new Members of Congress, we can help the next generation of
leaders get to work as soon as they set foot in our nation’s
capital.”
Reps. Mary Gay Scanlon and William Timmons, July 11, 2019
Committee Members also recognized that onsite educational
opportunities must extend beyond freshman orientation. Many Members come
to Congress with no formal training in office or administrative management,
leadership and negotiation skills, or the intricacies of policymaking. Learning
should be an ongoing process and Members would benefit from having readily
available opportunities to build the skills and knowledge they need to be
effective leaders. The Committee identified this gap in services available to
Members, knowing the American people would be better served by a
Congress that invests in on-the-job training and education for the people
they’re elected to serve.
The recommendations put forth by the Committee in this chapter
address the issues and concerns expressed by many of the freshman class
about their onboarding and orientation experiences, as well as the need for
continued education. The recommendations reflect the expertise shared by
witnesses before the Committee, as well as best practices and guidance. The
131
Committee’s overarching goal was to find ways to make orientation a
nonpartisan experience that eases the process of setting up offices and
provides training so that newly-elected Members are better equipped to
prepare for their first term in Congress. The Committee also addressed
additional training and continued education opportunities for all Members.
This chapter begins with an overview of the current onboarding process
for newly elected Members, then turns to the need to provide continuing
learning opportunities beyond a representative’s first year of service. These
recommendations were passed by the Committee on July 25, 2019, under the
package titled “Recommendations to Streamline House Human Resources,
Overhaul the Onboarding process, Improve Member Continuing Education
Opportunities, Modernize House Technology, and Review Accessibility.” A
detailed review of the Committee’s recommendations for orientation process
reforms and continuing education follows.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
THE ONBOARDING AND ORIENTATION PROCESS
When the Committee held a hearing titled, “Fostering the Next
Generation of Leaders: Setting Members Up for Success,” on July 11, 2019, the
Committee’s two freshmen Members, Reps. Mary Gay Scanlon and William
Timmons stepped in as Acting Chair and Vice Chair, a rarely-seen practice on
Capitol Hill.
“We were thrilled to hand the reins over to our freshmen
colleagues today. Historic in their numbers and diversity, Reps.
Scanlon and Timmons bring the collective vibrancy and fresh
perspective of the freshman class to our Committee. This hearing
provided a lot of ideas on how to better prepare new Members of
the House to hit the ground running as we take on the biggest
challenges facing our country.”
Chair Derek Kilmer and Vice Chair Tom Graves, July 11, 2019
During the hearing, Reps. Scanlon and Timmons shared their own
experiences with the new Member onboarding and orientation process, as well
as the perspectives of their freshman colleagues. Arriving in Washington after
winning election, according to many freshmen, is like drinking water from a
firehose.
Approximately one week after Election Day, new Members arrive on
Capitol Hill for orientation. Their schedules are packed with tours, briefings,
and opportunities to meet with their new colleagues. Many of the sessions are
meant to introduce Members to the mechanics of the job like setting up an
office, hiring staff, and learning the official House Rules. The briefings are
primarily organized by the Committee on House Administration and cover
132
topics like office budgets, personnel regulations, and travel limitations. New
Members also learn the ethics guidelines. In 2018, orientation included a new
session on workplace rights and responsibilities, including sexual
harassment.135
In addition to the orientation programming conducted by the
Committee on House Administration, Members of the class of 2018 could
attend the Harvard Kennedy School orientation program at Cambridge, the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) orientation program in Williamsburg,
Virginia, and programming by the Heritage Foundation. Members could also
choose from dozens of panel discussions provided by internal experts and
outside groups. Overall, orientation programs were provided on 18 of the 57
days between Election Day and the January 2019 swearing in.136 Newly
elected Members can also seek assistance from outside organizations that
provide resources and guidance on setting up a new congressional office.137
In late November, office suites are allocated by lottery. After their senior
colleagues have claimed their offices, freshman Members draw numbers and
are assigned offices based on the luck of the draw. To facilitate this process,
the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) coordinates closely with in-house
stakeholders, including the Committee on House Administration, the Architect
of the Capitol, and the Sergeant at Arms. Following the 2018 elections, there
were 87 departing Member offices that moved out, 288 seated, new Member,
and leadership office move-ins, and 38 majority and minority committee office
move-ins. There were also hundreds of district office closures and openings to
facilitate.138
Once offices are assigned, Members begin the process of figuring out
how to furnish and organize a small space to fit the staff they have yet to hire.
Though many Members serve in their state legislatures prior to serving in
Congress, the experience of “setting up shop” on Capitol Hill is unique and for
many, surprisingly burdensome. The logistical and support work involved for
Capitol complex staff is undoubtedly immense, especially when an incoming
class of new Members is large. The class of 2018 was the second largest in
history, with 92 new representatives and one new delegate elected. In his
testimony before the Committee, House CAO Philip Kiko said:139
135. Tully-McManus, K. (2018, November 13). “New Members of Congress Hit the Books in DC”, Roll Call.
See
https://www.rollcall.com/2018/11/13/new-members-of-congress-hit-the-books-in-dc/
136. Fostering the Next Generation of Leaders: Setting Members up for Success, 116th Cong. 2. (2019, July
See
11) (Testimony of: Richard Shapiro). https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190711/109766/
HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-ShapiroR-20190711-U1.pdf
137. Congressional Management Foundation. New Member Resource Center
See
https://www.congressfoundation.org/congressional-operations/new-member-resource-center
138. Fostering the Next Generation of Leaders: Setting Members up for Success, 116th Cong. 2. (2019, July
See
11) (Testimony of: Phillip Kiko). https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190711/109766/HHRG-
116-MH00-Wstate-ShapiroR-20190711-U1.pdf
139. Ibid.
See
133
“From November elections through the start of a new Congress,
there is far too much time spent by Members and Members-elect
on administrative items, such as executing a lease for a district
office, outfitting the offices with the necessary furniture and
equipment, and facilitating the setup of the office’s IT systems.”
Philip Kiko, July 11, 2019
Over the course of the transition, House Information Resources
configured hundreds of computers and mobile devices for new Members and
their staff, and processed thousands of technical service requests. According
to Mr. Kiko, the CAO’s team “moved 13,033 pieces of equipment, cleaned
and/or refurbished 1,797 furniture pieces, and installed close to 13,000 yards
of carpet” during the transition. The Office of Payroll and Benefits processed
nearly 60,000 transactions between October 2018 and January 2019 and
conducted over 500 one-on-one consultations with new and departing
Members and staff.
The CAO works with the Committee on House Administration to simplify
some of the office setup processes, such as automatically providing each new
office with a fully functional website from day one. Member offices can later
decide if they want to redesign their website or use an external vendor. While
this ongoing move toward streamlining processes is positive, there is more
work to be done. In his testimony, Mr. Kiko acknowledged the importance of
the CAO’s office handling as much of the new office administrative work as
possible in an effort to relieve some of the burden on newly elected Members.
There are additional onboarding processes that can be automated to
save time and frustration. The CAO planned to develop a comprehensive
transition playbook based on feedback gathered from a post-transition survey
of Member, committee, and leadership offices, as well an in-depth examination
of the transition at the beginning of the 116th Congress. Past CAO surveys
have focused on collecting “customer service data” from freshman offices on
services like the provision of furniture, equipment, and technology. While this
data is important, it does not include freshman feedback on broader topics
outside of the CAO’s jurisdiction. A holistic approach to setting up new
Members for success should include a mechanism for collecting freshman
perspectives on their first year in office. The House could use this feedback to
better support new Members as they begin working in Congress on behalf of
the American people.
CONTINUING EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES FOR MEMBERS
Continuing education for Members was another important issue that
was raised often during many of the Committee’s conversations. While the
learning curve for newly elected Members is steep, the challenges presented
on the job don’t end after the first few months or even the first year in the
134
office. Many Members lack experience in managing an office and navigating
the administrative tasks that come with overseeing multiple offices, often
great distances apart. The personnel issues that come along with hiring and
overseeing staff are new to many Members, as are often the leadership,
negotiation, and public speaking skills they need to do their jobs well. As
Richard Shapiro, former CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation,
said before the Committee on July 11, 2019:
“How can we promote professional development for everybody in
this institution? Because if everybody’s getting better, the
institution is going to get better.”
Richard Shapiro, July 11, 2019
Many Members of Congress—including four Committee
Members—began their careers in state legislatures.140 While there is no formal
training for how to be an effective legislator, some states are beginning to
expand their legislative training programs beyond orientation. Wisconsin,
Maine, the Hawaii House, the Colorado Senate, and the Washington House
provide ongoing professional development to new legislators in at least one
topic (for example, Colorado provides ongoing parliamentary procedure
training, Idaho provides civics education, and other chambers and caucuses
assign mentors).141
In addition to these state-based training programs, organizations like the
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) develop valuable
programming to help legislators develop the skills they need to be successful.
Because every state legislature is unique, NCSL customizes its training to
reflect the environment and norms of individual states. For Members of
Congress, no such formal training exists. As Committee Vice Chair Tom Graves
noted in a July 11, 2019 hearing, he’s chaired committees but has had zero
training in how to be a committee chair—procedures and day-to-day
operations have been learned on the job in real time.
On-the-job training is essential for Members of Congress to learn the
mechanisms of committee hearings or floor proceedings, for example. But
other skills are more nuanced. The art of negotiating or effectively leading can
only partially be learned through observation. By providing Members with
opportunities to develop these skills, Congress can strengthen itself. As Stacy
Householder, Director of Leaders' Services and Legislative Training, National
Conference of State Legislatures, said before the Committee:
140. Former State Legislators in the 115 Congress” (2018). United States Senate https://www.ncsl.org/
See
Portals/1/Documents/statefed/Former_State_Legislators_115th_Congress.pdf
141. Fostering the Next Generation of Leaders: Setting Members up for Success, 116th Cong. 2. (2019, July
See
11) (Testimony of: Richard Shapiro). https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190711/109766/
HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-HouseholderS-20190711-U1.pdf
135
“Leaders across the country find ongoing skills development for
their caucus or chamber appealing, principally to help new
legislators create a standard of what it means to be successful.”
Stacy Householder, July 11, 2019
The Congressional Staff Academy offers a model by which the House
can develop a similar Congressional Leadership Academy for Members. In
2018, the CAO launched the new Congressional Staff Academy, which delivers
a variety of seminars and training for House staff. In developing its curriculum,
the Academy gathered direct feedback from nearly 600 individual House
staffers about the types of information they need to support their Member of
Congress. In addition to in-person training, the Academy offers remote
programming to reach district staff as well as staff who want to take courses
on their own schedule. A new “learning management system” provides a
one-stop shop where staff can register for in-person courses, take online
courses, and track their course completion status.142
By making recommendations to improve the freshman orientation
process, the Committee aimed to set Members up for success. And by
recommending continuing education opportunities for all Members, the
Committee recognized that successful leaders continue to learn and grow on
the job.
“We as a Committee have spent a lot of time talking about
professional development as it relates to staff but it’s also
important that Members have avenues to advance their priorities
and move into leadership roles.”
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, July 11, 2019
RECOMMENDATIONS TO OVERHAUL THE ONBOARDING
PROCESS AND PROVIDE CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR
MEMBERS
1. Through the Office of the Clerk, newly-elected Members should have the
option to hire and pay one transition staff member for the duration of the
time between when they are elected and sworn in.
When Members are elected to the House, they can bring one
‘‘designated aide’’ with them to the official House orientation. However, these
aides are not paid and do not receive benefits from the House during the
transition period. As a result, new Members struggle to hire qualified
142. Fostering the Next Generation of Leaders: Setting Members up for Success, 116th Cong. 2. (2019, July
See
11) (Testimony of: Stacy Householder). https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190711/
109766/HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-HouseholderS-20190711-U1.pdf
136
individuals to assist them during the transition. Given the multitude of tasks to
be done and decisions to be made that have direct impact on their
constituents, those without staff are at an extreme disadvantage. The
Committee determined that paying a ‘‘designated aide’’ and allowing them to
receive benefits can improve the transition process for new Members as they
begin serving their constituents.
“Currently, Members-elect are left with the options of persuading
someone to work pro bono for them during this transition period
or to pay them out of campaign funds. Neither option is a good
option. Finding someone willing to work for free for two months
often means that Members-elect are forced to rely on aides who
are affordable but not really up to the task. Ideally, the person
they hire to do this critical transition work should become the
Chief of Staff or District Director. However, that is often not the
case.”
Richard Shapiro, July 11, 2019
The Committee recommends these hires are made though the Office of
the Clerk. Furthermore, this will bring the House in line with the Senate
practice of paying for a transition aide. In the long-run, having a transition aide
will provide a smoother onboarding process, and encourage staff retention by
paying staff for the period between Election Day and Members’ swearing-in.
2. Orientation courses and services should be available to all new Members
(including those incoming from a special election) and presented in a
nonpartisan way.
Ensuring that new Members have a productive and informative
orientation sets them up for success. However, there are no archived audio or
visual recordings of orientation sessions, and orientation is not provided to
Members who win special elections. As freshman Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon
noted in a July 11, 2019 hearing, “As the winner of a special election, I was
sworn in seven days after Election Day and experienced the process on
hyper-speed.” Newly-elected Members who participate in the traditional
November orientation typically can’t attend every session offered. Committee
member, and freshman Rep. William Timmons discussed his own challenges
with new Member orientation:
137
Image 4.2: Rep. William Timmons speaks during the Select Committee’s hearing
about onboarding and continuing education for Members.
“We’re currently being livestreamed, recorded, and archived.
Have we ever recorded new Member orientation and then made it
available online for Members to view at a later date? … I missed a
number of opportunities to learn and I know a number of other
Members did as well. I imagine we already have the technology
available so it wouldn’t be hard.”
Rep. William Timmons, July 11, 2019
The Committee learned that some state legislatures are recording their
new member orientations and making them available online and thought it
essential that Congress do the same. Members who miss training sessions, or
simply want to review what they learned when they were “drinking from the
fire hose”, should have online access to orientation and onboarding
programming.
Freshman Members also shared with the Committee their view that
separating orientation sessions by political party furthers partisanship in
Congress. While this is not the case with all orientation sessions, Members are
split by party for some sessions. Partisan training discourages collaborative
partnerships between Members, many who feel they were sent to Washington
to help “fix” partisan dysfunction. Separating Members by party only furthers
the polarized mentality that many find detrimental to the institution.
138
To address these concerns and to further the mission of setting up
Members for success, the Committee recommended that: orientation courses
and services should be available to all new Members (including those incoming
from a special election) and presented in a nonpartisan way. The Committee
specified that orientation sessions should be video-recorded and made easily
accessible year-round in an electronic format so that Members can access
them at their convenience.143
3. Orientation should be reimagined and reorganized to offer a “just-in-time”
approach where appropriate.
After winning their election, Members have approximately two months
before being sworn in. During this brief transition period, new Members have
many new responsibilities, from hiring staff, to finding district offices, to having
to learn important information about the legislative process, rules of the
House, ethics training, and more.
The current front-loaded model of training often creates stress and
confusion and can fail to set up a freshman Member for success. A more
effective approach focuses on the critical information Members need to know
to be successful in their first 90 days. Additional information and training
should be offered when the Members “need to know” that information, rather
than all at once. Information without context is easily forgotten, but if the
information presented can be applied to Members’ immediate needs, they are
much more likely to retain what they are learning.
“The private sector refers to this training and support as
“just-in-time” training. It operates from the simple understanding
that people learn better and perform better when they are not
inundated with information and they get to apply what they learn
soon after they learn it.”
Richard Shapiro, July 11, 2019
The Committee agreed that the House’s current approach to orientation
should be reimagined and reorganized to offer a “just-in-time” training process
that provides ongoing training and coaching to freshman Members throughout
their first year in office. This change will provide far greater support to
freshman Members and their staff, improve the performance of freshman
offices and significantly reduce the amount of time that Members-elect need
to spend attending out-of-town orientation programs144.
143. See Chapter 2 on Bipartisanship and Civility for more recommendations regarding nonpartisan and
bipartisan orientations and trainings.
144. Fostering the Next Generation of Leaders: Setting Members up for Success, 116th Cong. 2. (2019, July
See
11) (Testimony of: Richard Shapiro). https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190711/109766/
HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-ShapiroR-20190711-U1.pdf
139
4. Offer a course in the new Member orientation and ongoing education portal
to instruct Members on the House Rules of Decorum and Debate, and other
practices to promote civility and respect.
Americans expect and deserve a functioning Legislative Branch, yet too
often partisanship slows the work of Congress. In addition to presenting
programming in a nonpartisan way (see Recommendation 2 above), new
Member orientation should include a session on House Rules of Decorum and
Debate and other practices to promote civility in Congress. This would help
establish the importance of a civil and productive tone for new Members and
promote relationship building across the aisle.
5. Create a pilot Congressional Leadership Academy for Members which offers
professional development and institutional training.
Newly-elected Members receive initial training through new Member
orientation, but after orientation there are few—if any—opportunities for
Members to continue learning. The Committee believes that Members would
benefit greatly from ongoing professional development opportunities, from
how to manage an office, to developing better negotiation skills.
For many new Members, learning how to manage an office is essential,
yet there is no training for this. Personnel issues and budget management
concerns can be tough for Members and their staff to manage without proper
training and can ultimately distract from their important constituent and policy
work. Offering management training to new (and returning) Members would
help prepare them for successful congressional careers.
In addition to providing Members with the training necessary to manage
their offices, a Congressional Leadership Academy could offer Members a
range of professional development opportunities. At the state-level, NCSL
offers committee chair training, effective legislator training, ethics, negotiation,
media relations and strategic planning facilitation for leadership teams. NCSL
also offers specific programming for legislators in leadership positions that
focus on themes such as risk, decision-making, culture, and trending policy
topics. There are also emerging leaders’ programs that offer “up and coming”
legislators an opportunity to learn leadership theory and skills such as
collaborative problem solving, leading through change, and managing a
caucus.145
Just as the Congressional Staff Academy gathered direct feedback from
nearly 600 individual House staffers about the type of programming they need
to do their jobs effectively, a Congressional Leadership Academy for Members
should do the same. By surveying Members about what training they need
most, the Leadership Academy could develop and tailor a curriculum that best
meets Members’ needs and their unique schedules on Capitol Hill.
145. Fostering the Next Generation of Leaders: Setting Members up for Success, 116th Cong. 5. (2019, July
See
11) (Testimony of: Stacy Householder) https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190711/109766/
HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-HouseholderS-20190711-U1.pdf.
140
Thus, the Committee recommends creating a pilot Congressional
Leadership Academy for Members which offers professional development and
institutional training. Alongside in-person training opportunities, seminars and
other forums for learning should be made easily available online.
6. Making cybersecurity training mandatory for Members.
Consistent with its support for Member continuing education, the
Committee identified the need for Member-specific cybersecurity training.
Members of Congress are not required to take cybersecurity training, despite
their vulnerabilities to cyber threats. The lack of training in cell phone security
and guidance for traveling abroad places Members at undue risk. At the
Committee’s March 2019 Member Day Hearing, Rep. Kathleen Rice testified
about the necessity of training, pointing out that Members and congressional
offices are prime targets for malicious foreign actors. The more Members
know about how to actively counter cybersecurity threats, the less vulnerable
Congress is to cyber-attacks:146
“Our employees and House officers are already required to take
mandatory information security training each year, and I believe
Members should be held to the exact same standards.”
Rep. Kathleen Rice, March 12, 2019
The Committee recommended making cybersecurity training mandatory
for Members, and specifically called for advanced cyber-hygiene training and
use of encrypted messaging and multi-factor authentication as basic
standards for both Members and staff. Due to the increase in remote work
during the coronavirus pandemic, this recommendation was further expanded
upon in the Committee’s fourth round of recommendations addressing
continuity issues in the legislative branch.147
CONCLUSION
Ensuring that Members are provided with tools to succeed from the
get-go, as well as opportunities for continued growth throughout their tenure,
will ultimately make them more effective legislators on behalf of the American
people. The goal of setting up newly elected Members for success can be
achieved through reforms to the onboarding and orientation process that help
ease the transition. A “just-in-time” approach to training ensures that freshman
Members receive crucial information when they need it most. The orientation
process should also emphasize the core values of civility and
collaboration—division of freshman Members by party should be avoided or
kept to a minimum in favor of a bipartisan experience.
146. See Committee Hearing: Member Day Hearing, 116th Cong. 1. (2019, March 12). (Testimony of:
Full
Kathleen Rice). https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190312/109102/HHRG-116-MH00-
Wstate-R000602-20190312.pdf
147. See Chapters 6 and 9 for more information on technology and continuity of Congress reforms.
141
And opportunities to learn shouldn’t stop after a Representative’s first
year in Congress. The institution, and the people it serves, evolve as outside
events shift the policy agenda—and Members should be able to adapt and
evolve, too. By encouraging access to professional development resources and
training, and requiring updated training for an increasingly technological
world, Members can continue to learn and in turn, better represent the people
who elected them to serve.
142
CHAPTER 5 —
Make the House Accessible for All Americans
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Scan and analyze all House websites and apps to determine the
accessibility level of each congressional website, and provide resources
and assistance to ensure all systems are compatible with common
programs used by major disability groups.
2. Require all House proceedings that are broadcast on TV or streamed on
the internet to provide closed caption services and provide a free
captioning service for all web videos created by MCL offices.
3. Require a comprehensive review of the Capitol grounds to determine
accessibility challenges for individuals with disabilities conducted by the
Architect of the Capitol, Sergeant at Arms, and the Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights and implement a remediation plan.
143
INTRODUCTION
The “People’s House” is a representative institution embodying diverse
views, ideologies, and experiences. Elected to give voice to the people they
represent, Members debate, deliberate, and compromise every day to deliver
policies for the country. This process of transforming public opinion into public
policy takes place in Member offices, committee hearings, and on the House
floor. At each step, individuals can actively participate by meeting with their
representatives and congressional staff, attending committee hearings, and
observing floor action. Constituents who are unable to travel to Washington,
D.C. still have many ways to participate in the process, whether it’s by mailing
their representatives directly, or by watching committee hearings and floor
activity via livestream services or C-SPAN.
While this model of public participation in the legislative process works
for many engaged constituents, access to the legislative process is still a real
challenge for many Americans. The U.S. Capitol is almost 200 years old. With
its narrow hallways and steep winding steps, the physical barriers to access
are many and vary across the complex. This presents hardships to individuals
who use wheelchairs or other assistive walking devices. Following live
committee hearings is impossible for the hard of hearing if no closed
captioning is available. And individuals with vision impairment can’t access
any information from most congressional websites.
The Capitol complex and our legislative branch need to be equally
accessible for all Americans. Individuals with disabilities who wish to meet
with their representatives and congressional staff, attend or watch committee
hearings, and visit the House floor should have the same ease of access as
individuals without disabilities. In addition, the right of equal access to
Congress also applies to individuals who work in the Capitol complex or visit
as tourists. A modern Congress is one that welcomes and accommodates
every American.
“Modernizing Congress also means making the proceedings and
functions of the House accessible to all Americans. The MODCOM
resolution addresses the equal access challenges persons with
disabilities face when working for, visiting, or interacting with
Congress.”
Chair Derek Kilmer, March 10, 2020
Committee staff met with several offices to gather information on the
current status of accessibility on Capitol Hill. From first-hand accounts of the
challenges confronting staff with disabilities, to discussions with the Chief
Administrative Officer’s (CAO) office on House website accessibility, it was
144
clear that while good efforts are underway, there remains room for
improvement. Consistent with the committee’s mission to make Congress work
better for the American people, recommendations were developed to promote
equal access to the Capitol complex.
The recommendations put forth by the Committee were developed with
jurisdictional considerations in mind. The House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, for example, maintains jurisdiction over the Capitol, Senate
and House office buildings, as well as the buildings and grounds of the Botanic
Garden, the Library of Congress, and the Smithsonian Institution.148 Others
such as the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), the CAO, and the Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) also manage aspects of accessibility.
The Committee determined recommendations to encourage work already
underway, as well recommendations to establish new accessibility
requirements.
Overall, the reforms address some of the challenges persons with
disabilities confront when interacting with, working for, or visiting Congress.
The Committee required that a review of the Capitol complex be undertaken
to determine these accessibility challenges. Staff and visitors with disabilities
should be able to conduct business and visit their representatives in the
Capitol without facing barriers to mobility. The Committee also recommended
that all broadcasts of House proceedings, including committee hearings and
floor activity, be made available in closed caption. This ensures that individuals
with a hearing impairment can access congressional proceedings. Finally, the
Committee recommended that congressional websites are accessible to all
persons regardless of disability. Congress, like most institutions, has moved
much of its operations online. But this virtual information is only useful if it can
be accessed.
This chapter begins with a brief overview of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), then reviews how the ADA’s requirements are reviewed,
implemented, and enforced in Congress. A review of the Committee’s
recommendations follows, along with a look at some of the additional work
underway to expand accessibility on Capitol Hill.
THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND CONGRESS
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law in 1990 and
prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in several areas,
including employment, transportation, public accommodations,
communications and access to state and local government programs and
services.149 The ADA was modeled after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
148. See House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure. (2019) Jurisdiction and Rules.
The
https://transportation.house.gov/about/jurisdiction-and-rules
149. Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/
See
disability/ada ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/ada-
amendments-act-2008
145
guarantees that people with disabilities are afforded the same opportunities as
other Americans. In 2008, the ADA Amendments Act was passed to broaden
the definition of disability, which had been narrowed by a series of Supreme
Court decisions.150
While the ADA does not cover the executive branch, it does cover
Congress and other entities of the legislative branch.151 The OCWR is
responsible for ensuring congressional offices and officers are ADA compliant.
This includes each Member office of the House and Senate, in Washington D.C.
as well as the district. The OCWR is also responsible for committees, the
Capitol Police, and support agencies like the Congressional Budget Office and
Architect of the Capitol, among others.
The OCWR is required to conduct biennial inspections of the legislative
branch and report to Congress on compliance with the ADA. Individuals and
offices can request ADA inspections, as well as file a charge of discrimination
if they feel their rights under the ADA have been violated.
While Congress has made much progress in improved accessibility
around the Capitol complex, significant barriers remain. The OCWR’s most
recent report on ADA compliance throughout the legislative branch covers the
114th Congress and identified 2,568 barriers to access. Most of these barriers
are in House and Senate office buildings and more than 80-percent of the
barriers identified fell into three categories: multi-user restrooms, signage, and
alarms.
150. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/ada-amendments-act-2008
See
151. Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 509 104 Stat. 373 (1990).
See
146
Figure 5.1: Number of barriers identified by the OCWR
Source: Office of Congressional Workplace Rights152
The Architect of the Capitol provides annual updates to the OCWR on
its progress removing identified barriers and improving accessibility in the
Capitol complex. Once the AOC reports a barrier removed, a third-party
consultant verifies that accessibility barriers have been remediated. According
to the AOC’s 2019 update, accessibility barriers identified in each of the
following sessions of Congress have been closed at the rates listed below:153
152. The full report can be viewed at https://www.ocwr.gov/sites/default/files/
See
ADA%20Report%20114th%20Congress.pdf
153. See 114th Congress Accessibility Report: Biennial Report on Americans with Disabilities Act
Inspections Relating to Public Services and Accommodations. Office of Congressional Workplace
Rights. p 42. (2019, October). https://www.ocwr.gov/sites/default/files/
ADA%20Report%20114th%20Congress.pdf
147
Figure 5.2: Percentage of Accessibility Barriers Closed, per Congressional Session
Source: Architect of the Capital, 2019 Update154
While some of these barriers are less complicated to resolve, others
require major “engineered solutions.” For example, lowering a sign is quite
different in scale than building a ramp or widening an entry way. The
Committee took these realities into consideration in their conversation with
the AOC and interest groups. Thus, in addition to the specific
recommendations outlined below, the Committee maintains that an ongoing
commitment to making the Capitol complex accessible in every way—big and
small—is essential work on behalf of the American people.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE THE HOUSE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL
AMERICANS
1. Scan and analyze all House websites and apps to determine the accessibility
level of each congressional website, and provide resources and assistance to
ensure all systems are compatible with common programs used by major
disability groups.
The “People's House” should be accessible to all people. Having a
disability shouldn't preclude constituents from having full access (physical,
electronic, etc.) to their Representatives' offices. Many congressional websites
154. The full report can be viewed at https://www.aoc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/aoc-performance-
See
and-accountability-report-fy-2019-508.pdf
148
are currently not accessible to people with disabilities. This lack of accessibility
prevents some constituents from obtaining public information about Members,
legislation, district-based issues, as well as job and internship openings.
The Committee recommends addressing this inequality of access by
directing the CAO and HIR to scan and develop a plan to promptly maximize
website accessibility. Prompt execution of such a plan will ensure that all
constituents, regardless of ability, can access public information about their
Representatives.
When the Committee built its website, priority was placed on making
sure that the new website would be accessible to individuals with disabilities.
Since then, HIR has begun requiring all House websites to comply with Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. All approved vendors who build
House websites must now provide web accessibility reports to HIR on a
quarterly basis. HIR Vendor Management ensures that vendors must comply
with the Master Web Services Agreement, which details their compliance
responsibilities.
2. Require all House proceedings that are broadcast on TV or streamed on the
internet to provide closed caption services and provide a free captioning
service for all web videos created by MCL offices.
While the ADA is most known for its provisions regarding equal physical
access to public spaces, it also governs closed captioning. Video shown or
streamed in a place of public accommodation is required to be closed
captioned. House proceedings, including committee hearings and mark-ups,
are not automatically available in closed caption. Persons who are hard of
hearing or otherwise rely upon closed captioning to follow information
presented verbally are currently required notify someone at least four days
prior to a hearing or mark-up for closed caption service to be provided. This
requirement places the burden of accessibility on the individuals who need
service, and is not consistent with the Committee’s mission to make Congress
work better for all Americans.
Furthermore, hearings and mark-ups are not always publicly noticed
four days in advance, and committees are sometimes confronted with
last-minute scheduling changes. Automatically providing closed caption or
another form of transcription service ensures that individuals with a hearing
impairment can access hearings and mark-ups in real time.
With this in mind, the Committee recommends that all House
proceedings that are broadcast on TV or streamed on the internet be required
to provide closed caption services. The Committee also recommends the CAO
purchase and provide a free captioning service for all web videos created by
member, committee, and leadership offices.
149
As discussed above, Congress relies on “internal enforcement
mechanisms” to put ADA requirements into effect and while progress has
been made with regards to captioning of floor proceedings and some
committee hearings and mark-ups, more work is needed.155 Individuals who
rely on closed captioning services should expect real-time service that is
consistent across Congress.
3. Require a comprehensive review of the Capitol grounds to determine
accessibility challenges for individuals with disabilities conducted by the
Architect of the Capitol, Sergeant at Arms, and the Office of Congressional
Workplace Rights and implement a remediation plan.
The Capitol grounds should be accessible to all individuals, regardless of
ability. After gathering feedback from various disability groups, the Committee
determined that a broad review of the Capitol grounds was necessary to
determine accessibility challenges. A comprehensive plan should be
developed and implemented to ensure that persons with disabilities can
access all buildings and spaces in the Capitol complex.
Thus, the Committee requires a comprehensive review of the Capitol
grounds to determine accessibility challenges for individuals with disabilities
conducted by the Architect of the Capitol, Sergeant at Arms, and the Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights and implementation of a remediation plan.
More specifically, the Committee recommends that the AOC, the Sergeant at
Arms, and the OCWR should ensure that persons with disabilities are able to
easily access the Capitol grounds. A comprehensive review was seen as a first
step toward determining areas that are not currently accessible, followed by a
plan for making any identified accessibility modifications.
The Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the House Committee on
Appropriations echoed the Committee’s concerns about accessibility and
included the following language in the report accompanying their Legislative
Branch Appropriations Bill for 2020:
155. Audio and Visual Coverage. CONGRESS.GOV Resources. https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/
See
content/Audio+and+Visual+Coverage
150
Figure 5.3: Accessibility recommendations included in the 2020 Legislative Branch
Appropriations Bill Accompanying Report
Source: LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2020 Accompanying
Report156
The Committee’s recommendation, together with the Legislative Branch
Subcommittee’s report language, points to the ongoing need to equalize
access to the Capitol complex.
CONCLUSION
The recommendations outlined in this chapter are consistent with the
Committee’s mission to both modernize and make Congress work better on
behalf of all American people. A modern Congress works for, and is accessible
to, individuals with disabilities. The Committee recognizes that the Capitol
complex includes historic buildings that present unique challenges when it
comes to meeting modern accessibility standards, and these upgrades will
require engineered solutions that will undoubtedly take time. Thus, the
Committee supports immediate remedial action once barriers are identified.
Other corrective actions rely on technology that is widely available and
extensively used outside of Congress. Making websites digitally accessible and
providing real-time closed captioning, for example, are a matter of investing in
and prioritizing technologies that equalize access. Although the ADA became
law 30 years ago, Americans with disabilities continue to fight for equal access
under the law. As one of the most visible “places of public accommodation”
covered by the ADA, Congress needs fulfill its obligations so that all
Americans are equally able to work for, access, or visit the U.S. Capitol and
connect with their representatives at all stages of policy making.
156. The full report can be viewed at https://www.congress.gov/116/crpt/hrpt64/CRPT-116hrpt64.pdf
See
151
CHAPTER 6 —
Modernize and Revitalize House Technology
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Reestablish an improved Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to
study and recommend emerging technologies, provide nonpartisan
information and policy analysis to Member offices, support legislative
branch agencies in their examination of new technologies, focus on
general oversight and policy, and facilitate peer reviews of potential new
technologies.
2. Reform House Information Resources (HIR) by partnering with outside
entities to develop a roadmap for addressing the root cause of HIR’s
systemic inability to deliver enterprise programs and IT services in a
timely manner.
3. Require HIR to prioritize certain technological improvements.
4. Require HIR to create an approval process for outside vendors
developing new technologies that is transparent and timely.
5. HIR should create a program that allows Member offices to opt-in to beta
test with new technologies.
6. Create one point of contact for technology services for each Member
office within HIR who would be responsible for all technology points of
contact.
7. Create a customer satisfaction portal on HouseNet that allows Member
and staff to rate and review outside vendors and HIR services.
8. The CAO should leverage the bulk purchasing power of the House and
provide a standard suite of quality, up-to-date devices and software, such
as desktop and laptop computers, tablets, printers, mobile phones and
desk phones at no cost to the Members’ Representational Allowance
(MRA).
9. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) should prioritize a “rapid
response” program for nonpartisan fact sheets on key issues and
legislation under consideration in Congress.
10. Develop a nonpartisan constituent engagement and services best
practices page on HouseNet.
11. The House should direct the establishment of a Congressional Digital
Services Task Force to examine the need for and role of a specialized
group of technologists, designers, and others to support the House’s
internal and public facing operations.
12. Make permanent the Bulk Data Task Force and rename it the
Congressional Data Task Force.
152
INTRODUCTION
Congressional technology has come a long way in the past few decades.
Today, the majority of constituent services and communication are carried out
online; Members and their staff have access to smartphones and laptops for
official business; and congressional websites are sleek and interactive. But
when compared to the private sector, or even to the executive branch,
Congress has fallen behind. The way we communicate with each other
continues to evolve on a near-daily basis, but Congress moves at a much
slower pace. While technological changes have infiltrated the legislative
branch, there is substantial room for growth.
Implementing technological updates can be challenging. Congress’
unique, decentralized structure can make House-wide updates complex and
expensive. Most importantly, security concerns for Members, staff and
constituent information must be a top priority for any technological change.
As Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-5) has noted157:
“What we’re seeing is a 19th Century institution often using 20th
Century technology to respond to 21st Century problems. We
need to change that.”
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, June 5, 2015
The Committee was tasked with making Congress more effective and
efficient, and modernizing technology in the House was a top priority for
almost everyone the Committee spoke with and heard from over the last 20
months. The need for technological improvements was exacerbated by the
COVID-19 pandemic, which saw the U.S. Capitol complex close and many
congressional offices move to a remote operating status with little advance
notice.
The Committee focused on specific changes to make technology more
innovative and accessible for Member offices by reinstating the Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA), reconfiguring the House Information
Resources (HIR), instituting a new internal task force to connect Member
offices with technology experts, and make permanent the Bulk Data Task
Force. In addition, the Committee proposed significant House-wide changes,
such as removing technology purchases from the Member’s Representational
Allowance (MRA)—effectively Members’ office budgets—and making
nonpartisan policy information more accessible. As part of its continuity of
government and congressional operations recommendations (see Chapter 9),
the Committee also recommended that committees incorporate technology
and innovative platforms, including electronic voting systems, into daily work.
157. Press Release: Imagine the Congress of the Future: Calling on Tech Community to Help Modernize
See
Congress. (2015, June 5). Office of Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers. https://mcmorris.house.gov/
imagining-the-congress-of-the-future-mcmorris-rodgers-calls-on-tech-community-to-help-
modernize-congress/
153
The 12 recommendations discussed in this chapter were approved by
the Committee in two packages. The first 10 recommendations were passed
by the Committee on July 25, 2019, and nine were passed by the House of
Representatives as a whole on March 10, 2020158,159,160. Following approval by
the House, several of these recommendations were implemented through
necessity caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations were
formed with the close guidance of Committee Members Rep. Suzan DelBene
and Rep. Rodney Davis, as well as the Committee on House Administration.
Two additional recommendations were passed by the Committee on
September 24, 2020. This chapter will outline these reforms, beginning with an
understanding of the importance of technological maintenance and the unique
challenges facing the House.
BACKGROUND ON TECHNOLOGY IN CONGRESS
In the past few decades, technology has reshaped how Congress
operates and communicates. As discussed in Chapter 8, which focuses on
constituent communication and franked mail, the use of email ushered in a
new era in Congress. Technology also has a momentous impact on day-to-day
House operations. Member websites are interactive, smartphones and laptops
are seen in every committee hearing and constituent meeting. When it comes
to House security, two-step verification and secure Virtual Private Network
(VPN) log-ins no longer require tangible tokens but instead can be conducted
via device.
Despite these improvements, however, Congress still lags behind the
private sector and executive branch in technology. Political scientists Marci
Harris, Claire Abernathy, and Kevin Esterling have referred to this as “the
pacing problem”—technological updates around Congress evolve quicker than
Congress is able to adopt them.161 This problem, they argue, presents a
three-pronged challenge that prevents Congress from quickly adapting to
technological changes outside and within the federal government:
158. Please see the Appendix, for full text of the Recommendation package, “RECOMMENDATIONS TO
See
STREAMLINE HOUSE HUMAN RESOURCES, OVERHAUL THE ONBOARDING PROCESS, IMPROVE
MEMBER CONTINUING EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES, MODERNIZE HOUSE TECHNOLOGY, AND
IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY”.
159. Press Release: Modernization Committee Unanimously Approves Second Round of Congressional
See
Recommendations (2019, July 25). https://modernizecongress.house.gov/news/press-releases/select-
committee-unanimously-approves-second-round-congressional-recommendations
160. H.R. 756, Title III
See
161. Task Force on Congressional Reform: Report from the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.
See
(2019, September). American Political Science Association. https://www.legbranch.org/app/uploads/
2019/10/APSA-Technology-and-Innovation-short-report-10-2019.pdf
154
1. The external pacing problem is Congress’ inability to
understand and respond to technological evolution in society at
large, resulting in policy and oversight that lags behind the pace
of technical innovations.
2. The inter-branch pacing problem captures the inability of
Congress to keep pace with the executive branch as it employs
technology for its own operations, making it hard for Congress to
effectively exercise its oversight role and operate as a co-equal
branch of government.
3. The internal pacing problem refers to Congress’ near-complete
incapacity to make effective use of technology for its internal
operations and the day-to-day work of the institution.162
These problems are exacerbated by the institutional characteristics of
Congress. The decentralized nature of the House makes it difficult to embrace
Congress-wide technological reforms. Each Member has the freedom to select
the technology best for their office, but at times these independent decisions
can be costly and complex. Another important factor is the desire to be
responsible with taxpayer dollars; any technological undertaking must be
considerate of cost and time to implement, so there are few incentives to take
risks with congressional technology. Congress must also consider the immense
privacy and security concerns along with any proposed technology. The scope
and size of the House, as well as the confidential casework handled by
Member offices, makes the institution particularly susceptible to
cyberattacks.163
Any technology improvements in the legislative branch must be
thoughtful, cost-efficient, and secure. The Committee approached the task of
improving House technology by listening to technology experts and turning to
examples from state legislatures. The Committee held hearings on improving
constituent communications and lessons from state legislatures on
technological innovation and consulted with organizations like the American
Political Science Association and the National Academy of Public
Administration. In addition, Reps. Suzan DelBene and Rodney Davis led the
Committee by offering unique and practical ideas, influenced by their own
professional and congressional experience. As Rep. DelBene noted in a May 20,
2020 virtual meeting, these reforms had particular implications during the
COVID-19 remote operating status:
162. Harris, M., Abernathy, C. and Esterling, K. (2020, June 18). Brookings Institution.
See
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2020/06/18/congressional-modernization-jump-started-
by-covid-19/
163. Jaikaran, C. (2018,March 9). Cybersecurity: Selected Issues for the 115th Congress (CRS: R45127).
See
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45127.pdf.
155
Image 6.1: Rep. Suzan DelBene speaks during a Select Committee hearing.
“The technology side, I think we have been far behind. And I
worry that we’re trying to catch up to deal with the pandemic,
but we haven’t been really forward looking in terms of what
district offices need.”
Rep. Suzan DelBene, May 20, 2020
Ultimately, the Committee recommended 12 changes to make the House
more technologically modern and efficient.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO MODERNIZE AND REVITALIZE HOUSE
TECHNOLOGY
1. Reestablish an improved Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to study
and recommend emerging technologies, provide nonpartisan information and
policy analysis to Member offices, support legislative branch agencies in their
examination of new technologies, focus on general oversight and policy, and
facilitate peer reviews of potential new technologies.
At the dawn of a new era of technology, Congress established the Office
of Technology Assessment (OTA) in the Technological Assessment Act of
1972.164 The OTA was a bicameral, non-partisan service organization (similar
to the Congressional Research Service or the Government Accountability
Office), with a narrow mandate to Congress with procurement, security, and
164. Sargent, J., Jr. (2020, April 9). The Office of Technology Assessment: History, Authorities, Issues, and
See
Options. (CRS: R46327). https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/
20200429_R46327_ccb2df95a922525df3457606c9fd1b4322c6492e.pdf.
156
technology advice for several decades.165 The goal of the OTA was to support
Congress in developing informed, national technology policy, figuring out
what technology updates were necessary and possible—and which ones would
be unnecessary expenses of taxpayer dollars. Funding for the OTA was
appropriated through the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill from
FY1974-FY1996.
However, in response to criticism about the quality of services, political
objectivity, cost, and the overall necessity of the OTA, it was defunded and
removed from Congress as part of broader 1995 reforms.166 And while there
have been more recent efforts to reinstate the OTA, none have been
successful.167 Committee Members were considerate of these past criticisms,
but also acknowledged the reality that congressional technology lags behind
the private sector and executive branch. As former Rep. Vic Fazio (CA-4)
testified at the Former Members Day hearing on May 1, 2019:
“The Houses should reestablish what was called in the past the
Office of Technology Assessment… Technology affects the work
of every committee. And perhaps new ways of making a similar
institution more responsive to the needs of each committee
might allow for its restoration. It is far too obvious that Members
are behind the curve on technology. That glaring weakness
causes you to lose credibility with an increasingly large number
of your constituents.”
Former Rep. Vic Fazio, May 1, 2019
Thus, the Committee re-envisioned the OTA to be more responsive to
the needs of Members, cost-effective, efficient, and proactive in addressing
the technological needs of Congress. The Committee first, recommends
reinstating the OTA but renaming it to the “Congressional Technology and
Innovation Lab.” This Lab would be charged with going beyond the mandate
of the original OTA, proactively studying and testing new technologies rather
than waiting for directives to study technologies, as the former OTA did.
The Committee recommends the Lab employ nonpartisan experts,
visiting professors, and graduate students from premier companies, national
labs, and institutions across the country. The Lab should work with the Chief
Administrative Officer (CAO) and HIR to share results with Member,
165. Graves, Z. and Kosar, K. (2018, January). “Bring in the Nerds: Reviving the Office of Technology
See
Assessment”, R Street Institute. https://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final-128.pdf.
166. Sargent, J., Jr. (2020, April 9). The Office of Technology Assessment: History, Authorities, Issues, and
See
Options. (CRS: R46327). https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/
20200429_R46327_ccb2df95a922525df3457606c9fd1b4322c6492e.pdf.
167. Cordell, Carten. (2018, June 11). “Attempt to reinstate the congressional technology office falls flat in
See
House”, Fed Scoop. https://www.fedscoop.com/house-office-of-technology-assessment-fails/
157
committee, and leadership offices. Not only would the Lab provide fresh,
invigorated tech policy analysis and advice, it would lift a great burden off
Members and their staff, as well as other support organizations like CRS.
As the remote operating status throughout the COVID-19 pandemic
exemplified, Congress has fallen too far behind in its technological needs.
Congress needs an objective, in-house agency that will help Members better
communicate and serve their constituents.
2. Reform House Information Resources (HIR) by partnering with outside
entities to develop a roadmap for addressing the root cause of HIR’s systemic
inability to deliver enterprise programs and IT services in a timely manner.
Similar to reestablishing a centralized technology policy office in the
OTA, the Committee recommends reforming the HIR to make it easier for
individual offices to receive IT assistance. Currently, services provided by HIR
can be slow to access, and not as high-quality as that provided by private
vendors. When Members of Congress need help with IT services or website
design, they often look to outside vendors for assistance—a process that can
be costly. Because HIR already offers these services, many of which are
available at no charge to Member offices, it is in Congress’ best interest to
invest in and improve HIR.
The Committee recommends that HIR partner with outside entities to
develop a roadmap for improving wait times for services. An entity outside of
the House should be contracted to review the current operations of HIR and
provide a roadmap to successful reform. Specifically, the House should partner
with GAO, the new OTA, the GSA’s 18F office, the United States Digital Service
(USDS), and others to develop this roadmap, with a specific eye towards
improving HIR’s IT services and website design. Not only would this eliminate
the all-too-common practice of double-spending on IT services, thereby
reducing duplicative spending; it will make it easier for Member offices to
receive IT assistance.
3. Require HIR to prioritize certain technology projects, as soon as predictably
possible, including video calls, e-signatures, VPN access, and the ability to
upload casework and requests digitally.
In addition to a larger restructuring of HIR’s IT and website services, the
Modernization Committee recommends that HIR immediately prioritize several
specific projects. These four specific and simple changes will streamline
everyday tasks for Member offices, particularly for constituent engagement
and casework. Many of these reforms were identified in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic that saw many Members and staff operating remotely for
months.
158
First, the Committee recommends that HIR develop a reliable
mechanism for video meetings. The House adopted WebEx in response to the
sudden need for the entire Congress to telework amid the COVID-19
pandemic. However, the Committee has urged HIR to continue to develop
easier access to this and other products.
Second, the Committee recommends that in conjunction with the Clerk’s
office, secure e-signatures should be allowed for letters, bills, and constituent
consent forms. The need for this became even more apparent during the
remote operating status, and the Committee passed additional
recommendations to push for a permanent expansion of secure
e-signatures.168 This would include working with the Clerk on the development
of the platform for facilitating e-signatures, including changing the rules of the
House to allow e-signatures on letters and legislation.
Third, the Committee recommends that HIR set up a VPN on all devices
and develop relevant security guidelines. This recommendation should be
familiar to any current staff member in Congress—but is essential to ensuring
Members and staff are logging on to their official devices in a secure and safe
way.
Lastly, the Committee recommends that HIR develop a way for
constituents to upload casework and other service requests digitally through a
Member’s website. Currently, constituents must submit forms through the mail,
or via fax—a problem that was only exacerbated for staff and constituents
alike during the COVID-19 pandemic. By making it easier for constituents to
submit information, Congress will be able to address casework and constituent
concerns more efficiently and effectively.
4. Require HIR to create an approval process for outside vendors developing
new technologies that is transparent, scheduled, and timely.
In addition to changes to HIR’s internal operations, the Committee also
recommends HIR revamp its process for approving outside vendors. Currently,
the process to hire an outside vendor for an office website, hardware,
software, or other equipment is time consuming, bureaucratic, and confusing.
These delays often discourage vendors and prevent House Members from
hiring the vendor of their choice. The Committee recommends that HIR create
a more inviting approval process for vendors who seek to offer innovative
technology to the House.
5. HIR should create a program that allows Member offices to opt-in to beta test
with new technologies.
Members and their staff need to be able to experiment with technology
that will familiarize them with possible new services (and the vendors that
provide them) in the first place. It’s important for congressional offices to be
using the same types of technologies that their constituencies use and rely on
168. See Chapter 9 (Continuity of Congress) for more information on these recommendations.
159
to communicate. The complex rules HIR places on individual offices ultimately
limits opportunities for offices to test new technologies. Through a new
centralized HIR, Members should be given both the freedom and responsibility
to experiment with new technology. Every district is different, and every
Member should have the opportunity to use tools that best aid their district.
The Committee recommends that offices wishing to beta-test new
technologies be able to easily identify and sign up for opportunities to do so.
Member offices should also acknowledge the responsibility of the risks
associated with such testing, as the security of the House enterprise is
paramount.
6. Create one point of contact for technology services for each Member office
within HIR who would be responsible for all technology points of contact,
including technology, telecom, web, district office technologies, and more.
To make HIR more accessible and customer-service oriented, the
Committee recommends HIR establish one point of contact for each Member
office. This recommendation is adopted from a well-known private business
approach in which a customer service representative serves as a point of
contact for individual customers.
The point of contact would be responsible for all technology questions,
including telecom, web, and district office technologies. Given the vast scope
of HIR, establishing a singular, consistent point of contact for individual offices
will make it easier for Members and staff to request assistance, and establishes
a relationship between HIR and individual offices.
7. Create a customer satisfaction portal on HouseNet that allows Member and
staff to rate and review outside vendors and HIR services.
In order to continually improve beyond these specific recommendations
for upgrading HIR, the Committee recommends establishing a new customer
service portal for staff to review the services and assistance they receive from
HIR. Right now, Members and staff make technology decisions based on word
of mouth or vendor outreach. This system does not empower individual offices
to make the best decisions for their districts. A customer service portal would
serve as a resource where all Members could access in-depth information
about technology or request direct assistance.
In addition, a formal, annual survey to measure staff satisfaction with
HIR will increase accountability and provide helpful feedback to consistently
improve. This survey should also include questions geared toward district staff
and district-specific technology concerns, as well as information on the
technologies that Members and staff would like to use but have not yet
received HIR approval. This feedback will help HIR to improve over time, and
reduce miscommunication between Member offices and HIR.
160
8. The CAO should leverage the bulk purchasing power of the House and
provide a standard suite of quality, up-to-date devices and software, such as
desktop and laptop computers, tablets, printers, mobile phones and desk
phones at no cost to the Members’ Representational Allowance (MRA).
Beyond improvements to HIR, the Committee also recommends a
significant change to the acquisition process for new technology in the House
of Representatives. As recommended in Chapter 3 (Streamlining Member
services), the CAO should leverage the bulk purchasing power of the House
and provide a standard suite of quality, up-to-date devices and software, such
as desktop and laptop computers, tablets, printers, phones, and software.169
Additionally, the cost of these purchases should not come out of the MRA, but
be paid out of a centralized account.170
This two-fold recommendation has several benefits. First, as discussed in
Chapter 3, bulk purchasing will ultimately save the House, and taxpayers,
thousands of dollars every year. Just as bulk purchasing for one’s family is
more affordable, so would be bulk purchasing for the technology needs of the
House. Secondly, while Members would still be able to use their MRA to
purchase unique or above-standard technology than what is offered, outfitting
each office with standard House equipment will give offices more flexibility
with the MRA. This could provide an opportunity to hire more staff to help
address needs in the district, or to increase staff pay, possibly helping with
staff retention (as outlined in Chapter 3).171
For individual Members, particularly freshmen, setting up an office in
D.C. or their congressional district is complex. Shifting the responsibility to the
CAO will ensure that Members have the tools they need to do their jobs from
day one, and that taxpayer dollars are spent in the most efficient way possible.
9. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) should prioritize a “rapid
response” program for nonpartisan fact sheets on key issues and legislation
under consideration in Congress.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is an essential source for
nonpartisan policy information. Members and their staff may request memos
on nearly any topic—from a specific policy to legislative procedure. This
information is then used to inform Members’ voting decisions, craft legislative
text, and educate constituents. However, this high-quality information can be
slow in delivery. The Committee recommends that CRS proactively identify,
prepare and prioritize nonpartisan fact sheets for key issues and legislation
expected to be under consideration in Congress, rather than waiting to receive
multiple requests from Member offices before responding and providing the
169. See the purposes of this report, “commodity technology” is defined as a standard offering to each
For
office of what technologies will be provided (i.e. equipment, hardware, software, websites, and
IT/Telecom support).
170. See more information on the MRA, see: Strand, M. and Lang, T. (2019, April 4). The Sausage
For
Factor—The Members’ Representational Allowance (MRA): Looking at House Personal Office Budgets.
Congressional Institute. https://www.congressionalinstitute.org/2019/04/05/the-members-
representational-allowance-mra-looking-at-house-personal-office-budgets/
171. See Chapter 3 for more information on how the MRA impacts congressional staff.
161
information. By proactively preparing fact sheets on timely policy issues, CRS
can better prepare Members and their staff for current, pressing issues in
advance. In addition to Members and staff, constituents would also have timely
access to this nonpartisan, factual information, helping to elevate and improve
debate in the House.
10. Develop a nonpartisan constituent engagement and services best practices
page on HouseNet.
To collect and centralize the information recommended in this chapter,
the Committee recommends developing a nonpartisan constituent
engagement and best services page on HouseNet. Currently,
Members—particularly new Members—are reliant on word of mouth for
information on best practices and technology advice. As a result, Members are
left re-inventing the wheel.
Instead of relying on the organic, anecdotal sharing of best practices,
Members should be set up for success from the beginning. This website could
serve as an organized portal for HIR (surveys, best practices, technology
updates), outside vendors (how to apply as an approved vendor), and Member
offices (contact information, CRS fact sheets, constituent outreach, digital
communications and franking updates, and in-person training events). Making
this information easily accessible would help promote easier communication
between HIR, outside vendors, and individual offices. These topics were
chosen because they are common, and often similar, across all districts,
making best practices easy to adopt and apply.
11. The House should direct the establishment of a Congressional Digital
Services Task Force to examine the need for and role of a specialized group
of technologists, designers, and others to support the House’s internal and
public facing operations.
Congressional operations depend upon technology, but Congress is
often constrained by its own limited approach to purchasing technology and
providing technological services. The executive branch responded to similar
challenges by creating the U.S. Digital Service, which hires technologists to
build tools that make government work better for the American people. A
more sophisticated and coordinated approach to the provision of technology
and technological services in the House would help members better serve
their constituents. For example, a Congressional Digital Services Office could
develop more modern and streamlined technologies for congressional offices
to interface with constituents and manage their questions and requests. The
Committee recommends the Task Force fall under the umbrella of the newly
restructured OTA (Recommendation 1).
162
12. Make permanent the Bulk Data Task Force and rename it the Congressional
Data Task Force.
Congress established the Bulk Data Task Force with a focus on the
question of determining whether Congress should make the data behind
THOMAS and LIS available to the public as structured data. Ultimately the Task
Force recommended, and GPO implemented the publication of bill summary,
status, and text information online as structured data. In this sense, the Task
Force completed its intended mission. However, in completing its mission, the
Task Force brought together many of the technology stakeholders inside the
legislative branch as well as members of civil society and continues to hold
public meetings on a quarterly basis.
This ongoing collaboration has been positive for the Clerk’s Office and
for data transparency groups, ultimately leading to technological advances in
how legislative data is made public. The Committee recommends the Task
Force’s mission expand beyond publishing bills and the data attendant to
them to allow for consideration of other legislative documents and
congressional operations data. The Task Force should be renamed the
Congressional Data Task Force to accurately capture the Task Force’s
expanded mission.
CONCLUSION
While Congress will undoubtedly continue to face challenges of “the
Pacing Problem” given the nature of the institution, the reforms outlined in this
chapter usher in a new era of technology in the House. The recommendations
outlined in this chapter not only will save taxpayer dollars, but free Members
and their staff to spend more time doing what they came to Congress to do:
work for the American people.
The Committee worked to make it easier for every office to have access
to updated technology, IT assistance, and outside vendors. By rethinking and
rebranding the OTA, and bolstering the existing practices of HIR, the burden of
technology procurement and management will be lifted from individual offices
and will implement new practices to ensure Congress does not fall behind.
These reforms are not a one-size-fits-all approach to technology. They
specifically create opportunities for Members to continue to innovate on their
own if desired, allowing individual offices to lead the way with creativity and
new ideas. This flexibility is key to both improving technology in the House
and ensuring that every Member has access to the technology necessary to
succeed.
The COVID-19 pandemic, and the remote-work period that ensued,
ushered in several of these recommendations, but there is still room for
improvement. Passage of H.Res.756 in the House, which contains the majority
of these recommendations, is an uplifting sign that these recommendations
will usher in a new era of more efficient and effective lawmaking.
163
CHAPTER 7 —
Streamline Processes and Save Taxpayer Dollars
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Update House procedures to allow Members to electronically add or
remove their name as a bill cosponsor.
2. Require Members to undergo emergency preparedness training to ensure
our government is fully prepared in the event of a crisis.
3. Identify ways the House and Senate can streamline purchases and save
taxpayer dollars.
4. Encourage House-wide bulk purchasing of goods and services to cut
back on waste and inefficiency.
5. Update travel expenditure policies to improve efficiencies, and boost
accountability and transparency.
164
INTRODUCTION
When constituents send their representatives to Washington, they aren’t
thinking about how that individual will manage the administrative functions of
their congressional offices. It’s also probably not something that Members
spend much time thinking about before being elected to Congress. Members
come to the House to serve their constituents and legislate. But while
back-office operations like identifying which constituent services platform to
use, which technology applications the staff will need, paying bills, performing
or contracting Information Technology (IT) services and support, and
managing the office budget do not grab headlines, they are incredibly
important and often require a dedicated staffer (or two) to effectively manage.
Each hour of staff time and each dollar spent on administrative activities is a
resource that could be utilized to support constituent or legislative work. As
Committee Member Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon noted in a November 15, 2019
hearing on administrative efficiencies:
Image 7.1: Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon listens to a witness during the Select Committee’s
hearing on administrative efficiencies.
165
“…[A]s a new member, one of the first things I had to deal with
was getting this relatively limited pot of money and wanting to
devote it more to constituent and legislative ideas than things like
hiring accountants and everything else.”
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, November 15, 2019
The Committee is tasked with making recommendations on
administrative efficiencies, including purchasing, travel, outside services, and
shared administrative staff. The Committee approved recommendations with
the goal of saving taxpayer dollars and reducing costs through greater
efficiency, without sacrificing constituent services. The Committee’s
recommendations encourage the House to keep pace with evolving private
sector administrative practices and adapt modern approaches to solving
common administrative challenges. The remainder of the chapter will first,
review prior administrative reform efforts, followed by an overview of the
Committee’s five recommendations.
BACKGROUND ON PAST REFORM EFFORTS
Congress’ representative design gives deference to Members of
Congress in choosing how to run their office, which can naturally result in
administrative inefficiencies. Instead of a centralized system, the House
operates more like 435 small businesses. In addition to Member offices, there
are 23 standing or select committees as well as leadership offices, each with
its own independent authority.
At the Committee’s November 15, 2019 hearing on administrative
efficiencies, Mr. Drew Wilson, former Senate Sergeant at Arms, testified on
administrative operations in the Senate, and highlighted stark differences
between the two bodies.172 Like the House, each Senator has the autonomy
and discretion in choosing how to run their office operations. But unlike the
House, the Senate Sergeant at Arms is responsible for most of the
non-legislative, back-office functions of the Senate. Mr. Wilson testified that
the Senate has found administrative efficiencies by moving printing, graphics,
and mail operations off-site; and saved money on leasing district office space
by centrally procuring leases and using General Services Administration (GSA)
reimbursement rates. In the Senate, all IT procurement is done centrally
through the Sergeant at Arms. Senators must choose their IT systems from a
172. Administrative Efficiencies: Exploring Options to Streamline Operations in the United States House of
See
Representatives. 116th Congress. (2019, November 15). (Testimony of Drew Wilson).
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20191115/110215/HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-WillisonD-
20191115-U1.pdf
166
limited, approved list. Until the early 1990s, the House operated in a similar
fashion, but after the House decentralized IT procurement in 1995, Members
could purchase IT systems of their choice more quickly.173
Image 7.2: Rep. Rob Woodall speaks during the Select Committee’s hearing on
administrative efficiencies.
“But if I go back to 1994, right, we had this conversation, and we
decided to go in exactly the opposite direction. We had a
schedule of computer equipment, but it took so long to get the
schedule approved and computers were moving so fast, we went
away from that.”
Rep. Rob Woodall, November 15, 2019
Despite the prior efforts of decentralization, the House has continued
debating how to best modernize administrative procedures. Mr. Michael
Ptasienski, Inspector General of the House of Representatives, noted at the
November 15, 2019 hearing that there has been movement towards more
centralized administrative support to Member and committee offices,
including converting constituent letters into electronic form, and assisting
offices with 1-9 compliance.174 Another witness, Dr. R. Eric Peterson, a
173. The Modernization Committee has made recommendations to quickly approve and test the adoption
See
of technology. See Chapter 6 for more detail on these recommendations.
174. Administrative Efficiencies: Exploring Options to Streamline Operations in the United States House of
See
Representatives. 116th Congress. (2019, November 15). (Testimony of Michael Ptasienski).
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20191115/110215/HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-PtasienskiM-
20191115-U1.pdf
167
specialist in the non-legislative operations of Congress at CRS, noted
additional, ongoing work by the CAO to proactively replace outdated
technology systems and offer customer service to Member offices.175
But despite these advances, and other Committee recommendations to
streamline HIR services (Chapter 3), witnesses and experts identified potential
opportunities where Congress could further improve administrative
efficiencies. These recommendations are outlined in detail below.
BULK PURCHASING COMMODITY ITEMS
Anyone who has ever shopped wholesale knows buying in bulk saves
money. Concepts like bulk purchasing and competitive procurement are hardly
cutting edge, but the House hasn’t kept pace with the private sector or the
executive branch.
In 2018, the House Inspector General found that offices spent about
$267 million on goods and external services.176 Member offices generally make
routine purchasing decisions independently and, in many cases, end up
ordering the same items from the same vendors. Maintaining a certain degree
of autonomy is important for maintaining representation, but certain
commodities have little representational value and could be purchased in bulk.
Mr. Ptasienski identified the following areas where negotiating House-wide
contracts or purchasing services for all offices centrally rather than
independently could save the House money:
1. Publications and Reference Material: In calendar years 2015 and 2016, the
House spent an average of $9.75 million on publications and reference
materials. Fifty percent of this spending was with five vendors.
2. Bottled Water: Offices paid $623,000 to bottled water vendors in 2016.
There were 184 different suppliers, but 60 percent of the expense was with
one vendor, and the top four suppliers accounted for 85 percent of this
spending.
3. Office Supplies: The House has several purchase agreements for general
office supplies, paper, and toner (including the House office supply store).
Based on 2016 spending data, however, offices regularly utilize other vendors.
During this period, the House spent a total of $5.6M with 576 different office
supply vendors.
Table 1: Cost-saving recommendations for bulk-purchasing
175. Administrative Efficiencies: Exploring Options to Streamline Operations in the United States House of
See
Representatives. 116th Congress. (2019, November 15). (Testimony of R. Eric Petersen).
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20191115/110215/HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-PetersenR-
20191115-U1.pdf
176. Administrative Efficiencies: Exploring Options to Streamline Operations in the United States House of
See
Representatives. 116th Congress. (2019, November 15). (Testimony of Michael Ptasienski).
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20191115/110215/HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-PtasienskiM-
20191115-U1.pdf
168
TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
Standardization and centralized purchasing of House information
technology has the greatest opportunity to yield savings.177 Not only is this an
opportunity for savings through bulk purchasing, but it would yield ongoing
savings by streamlining the support work of House Information Resources
(HIR) and other IT professionals that secure the House network. For example,
when iPhones came onto the market, and individual offices began to transition
from Blackberries, they lacked security standards required by Congress, and
congressional IT support had to spend a “small fortune”178 to patch iPhone
security. Had iPhones been procured centrally, the security could have been
solved much sooner, and at a reduced cost.
In some cases, support services offered by HIR and contracted IT
support vendors significantly overlap. In 2012, House offices spent an
estimated $6 million to hire vendors for IT support.179 Overall, end-user IT
support becomes easier and less expensive when there is greater
standardization. From a House perspective, this would significantly decrease
the burden on individual offices to manage their IT resources, by making it
easier for offices to comply with IT and security policies, and better protect
the computing environment and network.
TRAVEL CARDS
In addition to purchasing office equipment, travel expense
reimbursement is a complex and time-consuming activity for House offices.
For one, Members are required to document each receipt—many of which
today are now electronic and not easily obtainable in hard copy form. The
process of documenting and reviewing expenses for a single trip could take an
hour or more of staff time. For comparison, to reduce paperwork and time
spent on reimbursement, the GSA uses a per diem process for meal and
incidental expenses. Rather than travelers collecting and itemizing receipts for
each meal and incidental expense, executive branch employees are given a
flat, predetermined rate when traveling.
Currently, the House only issues travel cards to Members and Chiefs of
Staff, not other staff in personal offices who may be required to travel as part
of their jobs. By expanding the travel card program to more staff, such as
District Directors, Member offices could find efficiencies by tracking
expenditures and expedite the employee reimbursement process.
177. Ibid, p. 4.
See
178. Administrative Efficiencies: Exploring Options to Streamline Operations in the United States House of
See
Representatives. 116th Congress. (2019, November 15). (Testimony of Drew Wilson).
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20191115/110215/HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-WillisonD-
20191115-U1.pdf
179. Administrative Efficiencies: Exploring Options to Streamline Operations in the United States House of
See
Representatives. 116th Congress. (2019, November 15). (Testimony of Michael Ptasienski).
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20191115/110215/HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-PtasienskiM-
20191115-U1.pdf, p. 4.
169
SPECIALIZED STAFFING / FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SHARED
STAFF
Building off prior recommendations (Chapter 3) that encourage the
development of a centralized HR hub, there is also a need for specialized
administrative staff. As Dr. Petersen noted in his written testimony: “As House
operations have become more complex, there has been an increase in the
need for specialized understanding of House financial operations or
information technology needs in Member offices.” Some offices assign these
responsibilities to their legislative staff, while others hire specialized staff that
support multiple offices. When combined with standardized training, increased
availability of shared staff to support House financial and administrative
services or information technology management may improve efficiency and
the security, as well as potentially reduce the cost of Member office
operations.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO STREAMLINE PROCESSES AND SAVE
TAXPAYER DOLLARS
1. Update House procedures to allow Members to electronically add or remove
their name as a bill cosponsor.
The process of collecting Members’ signatures to co-sponsor legislation
is frequently cited as an inefficient time suck for congressional staff. Normally,
staff or an intern spends hours walking the halls of the Capitol, collecting
signatures from various Members. If a Member is erroneously added as a
co-sponsor to a bill, they must go to the House floor and make a statement to
have their name removed. At the Select Committee’s March 12, 2019 Member
Day hearing, Rep. Susan Davis (CA-53) testified on the outdated process of
collecting signatures for co-sponsorship:
“Staff and interns are constantly running co-sponsor sheets to the
Capitol, when they could be doing other work. Processing the
lists of names takes hours, as the cosponsor sheets are
handwritten and can be easily misread. Members with similar or
identical last names are often signed onto the wrong bills
because the cosponsor sheet was not clear. There is no good
reason for our co-sponsorship process to be like this in 2019.”
Rep. Susan Davis, March 12, 2019
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, House Administration Chair Zoe
Lofgren and Ranking Member Rodney Davis consulted with the Rules
Committee, House Clerk, and Parliamentarian’s office to permit electronic
submissions for legislative documents, including co-sponsorship of legislation.
These electronic submissions will continue to be accepted during the public
170
health emergency.180 The Committee recommends that this change be made
permanent and the House update its procedures to allow Members to
electronically add or remove their name as a bill cosponsor. Specifically, the
Committee recommends that the House Clerk and the Parliamentarian identify
a more efficient way for Members who were added in error as a cosponsor of a
bill to remove themselves as cosponsors of legislation without indicating their
previous co-sponsorship.
2. Require Members to undergo emergency preparedness training to ensure our
government is fully prepared in the event of a crisis.
Administrative inefficiencies go beyond concerns of time and resources.
Currently, the onboarding process for Members and their staff is decentralized
and inconsistent. While emergency preparedness is mandatory for staff,
Members are not required to undergo training. This inconsistency across
offices presents safety and security concerns, as well as inefficiencies of time
and communication.
While these security concerns are expanded upon in the chapter on
congressional continuity (see Chapter 9), the Committee also recommends a
streamlined emergency preparedness training to improve administrative
efficiency. Specifically, the Committee recommends that Members undergo
mandatory emergency preparedness training for all Members. In addition, the
Committee recommends the House Sergeant at Arms Office and the Capitol
Police coordinate periodic emergency preparedness training for Members.
3. Identify ways the House and Senate can streamline purchases and save
taxpayer dollars.
A common theme heard from witnesses and Committee Members alike
was the need for the House to consolidate purchases for individual Member
offices. Committee Members heard testimony on practices of the Senate to
efficiently manage offices’ administrative functions, as well as the challenges
of Congress’ decentralized structure creates increased administrative costs. As
Chair Kilmer noted in the November 15, 2019 hearing:
180. Press Release: Dear Colleague to All Members on Electronic Submission of Floor Documents (2020,
See
April 6). Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/4620
171
Image 7.3: Chair Derek Kilmer listening to witness testimony.
“Concepts like bulk purchasing and competitive procurement are
hardly cutting edge. Our counterparts in the executive branch and
the private sector have figured out that purchasing a thousand
computers yields a better price than purchasing ten computers.
They have also figured out that centralizing commonly used
services often makes good financial sense. Yet here in the House,
Members and staff are too often relying on outdated, inefficient
processes and systems to do their jobs. And that shouldn't be the
case.”
Rep. Derek Kilmer, November 15, 2019
Thus, the Committee recommended the House Chief Administrative
Officer (CAO), the Senate Rules Committee, and the Senate Sergeant at Arms
explore how the House and Senate can collaborate on procurement and bulk
purchasing to save money for the American people. This recommendation was
successfully passed by the House and later adopted into the FY 2021
Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill.181
181. Press Release: Committee Approves Key Modernization Initiatives and Priorities. (2020, July 10). Select
See
Committee on the Modernization of Congress. https://modernizecongress.house.gov/news/press-
releases/committee-approves-key-modernization-initiatives-and-priorities
172
4. Encourage House-wide bulk purchasing of goods and services to cut back on
waste and inefficiency.
Building off of recommendation three, the Committee turned to specific
bulk purchasing. While some administrative procurement will continue to be
done at the individual office level, commodities like bottled water, office
supplies, and publication materials can be streamlined to reduce costs without
impeding Members’ ability to represent their constituents. Central
procurement of IT services offers the greatest potential to reduce costs for
Member offices, but the desire to maintain autonomy over IT systems makes
this more challenging.
The Committee recommends that the CAO be granted the ability to
negotiate House-wide contracts or purchasing services for member,
committee, and leadership offices, with the goal of saving taxpayer dollars by
purchasing centrally rather than independently. Building on previous
recommendations, the Committee recommends the CAO, under the
supervision of the Committee on House Administration, determine a standard
baseline technology package for Member, committee, and leadership offices.
The Committee recommends that the standard technology package be piloted
with new Members at the beginning of the incoming Congress and expanded
accordingly.
This recommendation was also included in the FY 2021 Legislative
Branch Appropriations Bill. In addition, more detail on the standard, baseline
package of IT services to save taxpayer dollars can be found in Chapter 6 on
improving House technology.
5. Update travel expenditure policies to improve efficiencies, and boost
accountability and transparency.
As Rep. Scanlon noted in the Committee’s November 15, 2019 hearing,
Members come to Washington to serve their constituents and legislate, not to
deal with administrative necessities that come with running an office. Staff,
likewise, come to Washington to serve their country, engage in the public
policy process and provide critical services to their office’s constituents.
Members and staff alike would rather spend their time directly serving
constituents than on administrative paperwork like getting reimbursed for
work travel.
Both Mr. Ptasienski and Dr. Peterson identified travel expenses as an
opportunity for the House to modernize administrative functions. Travel cards
allow expenses to be easily tracked and monitored but cards are only given to
senior House staff. Without a travel card, reimbursement for travel expenses
can take hours of staff time that could otherwise be spent on constituent
services.
The Committee recommends expanding the House Travel Card Program
to make tracking House expenditures or expediting employee reimbursement
more efficient and less time-consuming. This would have an added benefit for
173
junior staff who may find it difficult to float travel expenses from personal
resources. In response to public transportation concerns amid the Coronavirus
pandemic, the Committee on House Administration allowed ridesharing
services to be reimbursed for congressional staff. The Committee recommends
that this program be continued, and that the House Travel Card Program be
modernized to accommodate current forms of travel, such as ridesharing
services.
CONCLUSION
The recommendations described in this chapter aim to push the House
to evolve its administrative practices and adopt modern approaches to solving
day-to-day operational challenges. Unlike the executive branch, the House has
unique organizational challenges that impede efficiency, because as an
institution it values direct constituent representation over efficiency. But there
is room for improvement. The House has made many reforms over the past
decade that improve administrative efficiencies and can modernize further if
encouraged to do so.
Image 7.4: Rep. Rodney Davis speaks during a Select Committee hearing.
174
“As a former staffer, I used to work with the CAO in purchasing,
making sure that I understood the many processes in and around
the House. And I was always amazed when I got here that some
things never changed. And I think this Committee, in and of itself,
has tried to push some of that change that we have been trying
to push on the House Administration Committee for a few terms.”
Rep. Rodney Davis, November 15, 2019
From the start of Member orientation through bulk purchasing for
Committees, changes can be made to make Congress more efficient and
effective for taxpayers. Streamlining necessary training, modernizing
signatures and paperwork, and collectively purchasing commodities like
bottled water and office supplies will remove unnecessary administrative
burdens from individual Members. Like the Senate, the House should establish
a standard package of IT technology from which Member offices can choose.
Centralizing the sourcing of IT systems would not only yield bulk savings but
would reduce the ongoing IT maintenance costs and enhance cybersecurity.
By expanding the use of the Travel Card Program, the House can efficiently
track expenses and eliminate hours wasted on outdated administrative
processes.
These recommendations were developed with the Member autonomy in
mind—ensuring that Members can still operate an individual office but
removing unnecessary administrative burdens, saving them time and taxpayer
dollars. Ultimately, these reforms will help the House spend less on
administrative resources and more on the constituent and legislative work that
Members came to Washington to do in the first place.
175
CHAPTER 8 —
Increase the Quality of Constituent Communication
and the Congressional Frank
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Consolidate the regulations governing Member office communications,
including digital communications, into one easy to find place.
2. Rename the House Commission on Mailing Standards, also known as the
Franking Commission, the House Communications Standards Commission
to reflect 21st Century communications.
3. Increase opportunities for constituents to communicate with their
Representatives.
4. Increase accountability and tracking for all Member-sponsored
communications mail.
5. Allow for faster correspondence between Representatives and their
constituents.
6. Update House social media rules to allow for better communication
online between Members of Congress and their followers.
7. Allow the public to better access and view the types of communication
sent by Members of Congress to their constituents.
176
INTRODUCTION
Communication with constituents is an essential and necessary part of
democratic representation. The Founding Fathers agreed, as the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes “the right to petition the
Government.” Today, millions of Americans communicate with their
representatives about issues that affect their daily lives including personal
assistance, policy concerns, and ideas for the federal government. Congress
relies on this citizen engagement to ensure it is representing constituents’
needs and truly working on behalf of the American people.
Members of Congress have always prioritized responding directly to
their constituents by providing official government resources to inform
citizens of public affairs, legislation they introduce, congressional votes, and
important public policy updates. Since the Colonial Period the franking
privilege (further detailed in this chapter) allows Members of Congress to send
mail without postage, instead using an official signature.182 The signature
replaces the need for a postage stamp, and the U.S. Postal Service charges the
Member’s congressional office for the cost of the mailing. Today, the
congressional franking privilege is still an important part of how Members of
Congress communicate with constituents, taking the form of newsletters,
constituent letters, or townhall advertisements. Yet as the needs and size of
congressional districts have grown, and technology has improved, the scope
and jurisdiction of the franking privilege has also expanded.
Today, electronic communication is easily the most common method of
communicating with constituents.183 Every Member of Congress has his or her
own individual website, and email correspondence has largely replaced postal
mail. It’s estimated Congress receives between 25 and 35 million messages a
year from constituents.184 In the last decade, social media has become a
prominent force on Capitol Hill—nearly every House Member has a Facebook
page or Twitter account that allows them to directly interact with
constituents.185
In response to changes in both technology and constituency, the
franking privilege has been periodically amended by the House
Communication Standards Commission (formerly known as the House
Commission on Mailing Standards, or the “Franking Commission”) and the
Committee on House Administration. These changes have included updates to
the franking expenditures, topics permitted to be discussed in franked mail,
the medium of communication, and the franking review process. Most recently,
182. Glassman, N. (2016). Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change (CRS:
See
RL34274). R Retrieved from Congressional Research Service: https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/
20160503_RL34274_c2c157c78b4366719fe5664ed3fe727b70c63ed5.pdf
183. Strauss, J. and Glassman, M. (2016, May 26). Social Media in Congress: The Impact of Electronic Media
See
on Member Communications (CRS: R44509).
184. Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress: Improving Constituent Engagement (2019, June
See
5). 116th Congress. Testimony from Fitch, Brad, Congressional Management Foundation.
185. “2019 Report: Congress on Social Media” (2019, December). Quorum Analytics. Accessible for
See
download here: https://www.quorum.us/reports/2019-congressional-social-media-report/
177
the Franking Commission moved to 100 percent digital submissions for their
review process.186 But despite these continuous efforts, Congress is
notoriously slow to adapt. The approval for use of the franking privilege
remains cumbersome and slow, and rules that regulate the privilege are
outdated. Originally created in the days of the printing press, these rules no
longer fit a Congress that works in a world of email and social media.
The Committee, along with leadership of the House Franking
Commission, recognized the need for reforms to make constituent
communication more modern, efficient, and transparent. As Chair Derek
Kilmer noted in a June 5, 2019 hearing on constituent engagement:
“New technologies have provided our constituents with more
tools for contacting us, and that is a good thing. In fact, that is a
really good thing, because we are here as representatives of the
people and we need to know what our constituents think about
the issues of the day. We can't do our jobs that we were elected
to do without hearing their voices.”
Chair Derek Kilmer, June 5, 2019
The Committee held several hearings dedicated to the improvement of
constituency communication, including “Improving Constituent Engagement”
on June 5, 2019, “Congress and the Frank: Bringing Congressional Mailing
Standards into the 21st Century” on October 31, 2019, and “Administrative
Efficiencies: Exploring Options to Streamline Operations in the U.S. House of
Representatives” on November 15, 2019. Other hearings featured best
practices and emphasized constituent services.187
Committee Members and staff worked closely with the House
Communication Standards Commission and the Committee on House
Administration. Together, they crafted, and the Committee passed, seven
reforms geared toward increasing the quality of constituent communication.
These recommendations were passed by the Committee on December 19,
2019 and were ultimately implemented by the House Communication
Standards Commission in January 2020.188 Many of these recommendations
are already fully implemented in the House, and the rest are underway.
Overall, the reforms focus on streamlining the approval process to
improve constituent communications in Congress. The recommendations are
intended to make congressional communication transparent for constituents,
more efficient for Member offices, and offer much-needed technological
186. Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress: Congress and the Frank, Bringing Congress into
See
the 21st Century (2019, October 31). Testimony from Rep. Davis, Rodney.
187. See
A full list of hearings and participants can be found in the Appendix.
188. One of the recommendations being the renaming of the House Franking Commission to the current,
See
House Communication Standards Commission. See the full text of the recommendations in Appendix,
Committee Documents.
178
updates to reflect the role of social media throughout society. This chapter
details these recommendations, as well as the expertise and findings on which
the Committee relied to propose and pass these reforms.
This chapter begins with an overview of the franking privilege and prior
reforms in the House. It then turns to the specific recommendations made by
the Committee and House Communication Standards Commission.
WHAT IS FRANKING? JURISDICTION, CURRENT RULES, AND
PRIOR REFORMS
The franking privilege allows Members of Congress to send official,
signed mail without postage. When the privilege was created, Members were
not charged for this privilege; but since the 1990s, they have been required to
account for the cost, and their offices are charged for postage accordingly.
While franking privileges were originally the same for the House and the
Senate, today the two bodies have their own rules and regulations. This
chapter will focus on the franking privilege for the House.
To avoid improper use of the privilege and to keep pace with
technological updates, franking rules and regulations have been amended
several times since they were first introduced in the Continental Congress. The
rules governing franked mail fall into five main categories: limitations on who
can send franked mail; what type can be sent; how much can be sent; where it
can be sent; and when it can be sent.189
Today, the franking privilege is limited to current and former Members of
Congress, Members-elect, the Vice President, and congressional offices such
as the Clerk or Sergeant at Arms.190 In addition, former presidents and vice
presidents, and widows of presidents have franking privilege. Earlier iterations
of the franking privilege also included soldiers during wartime and the
postmaster general.
While the initial privilege included mail that was being sent to and from
Members of Congress, today, only mail being sent from Members of Congress
and elected officials is privileged.191 There are two classifications of mail that
fall under the franking privilege: “mass mailings,” defined as 500 substantially
similar pieces of unsolicited mail sent in the same congressional session,192
and official mail (responses to constituent correspondence for example). While
189. Glassman, M. (2016). Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change (CRS:
See
RL34274).
190. Currently, the secretary of the Senate, the sergeant at arms of the Senate, each of the elected officers
See
of the House (other than a Member of the House), the legislative counsels of the House and Senate,
the law revision counsel of the House, and the Senate legal counsel are granted the franking privilege.
Congressional Committees are provided franking privilege, but the 109th Congress limited the amount
of money committees could spend to $5,000 and placed strict limitations on the messaging
capabilities of committees. For more information, see: Glassman, M. (2016). Franking Privilege:
Historical Development and Options for Change (CRS: RL34274).
191. Received mail was granted the franking privilege from 1789–1873.
See
192. Glassman, M. (2015, May 6). Franking Privilege: Mass Mailings and Mass Communications in the House,
See
1997–2014 (CRS: RL34458).
179
traditional mail is still used by Members, today there are many more options
beyond postal mail. Member communications subjected to the franking
privilege include phone calls, video and audio communication, tele-townhalls,
emails, and more.193 Email is by far the most common type of communication
currently considered franked mail. Figure 8.1 presents the rapid growth of
email communication to Congress, compared to postal mail. The sharp uptick
after 1995 is largely attributed to the nationwide growth of internet usage.
Figure 8.1: Email and Postal Mail to Congress, 1995–2011
Source: Data provided by the House Chief Administrative Officer and Office of the
Senate Sergeant-At-Arms. Note: Data does not include internal emails sent from one
congressional user to another
But while the mediums are plentiful, there are strict limitations on the
message that can be communicated by franked mail—the communication
must discuss “official business.” While an “admittedly flexible” definition, the
mail cannot be used for campaigns or fundraising, and should be used to
“deliver information on the issues pending before Congress.”194 While the early
years of franked mail used postal weight as a form of message limitation,
today’s franked postal mail is limited to items that can be sent as letters. This
can include newsletters, surveys, and constituent updates.
The amount of mail that can be sent by a Member of Congress is largely
restricted by cost. Earlier sessions of Congress, particularly the years between
Fiscal Year (FY) 1970 and FY1988, spent a great deal of money on franked
mail. These high costs ultimately provoked reforms that are still in place today:
limits on individual Members’ franking expenditures, along with required public
disclosures on the amount of franked mail a Member’s office sent. After a set
of 1995 reforms to further consolidate franking costs, Members’ franking
193. See
A key denotation: emails to constituents that self-selected into a subscription list do not fall under
franked mail.
194. Glassman, M. (2016). Franking Privilege: Historical Development and Options for Change (CRS:
See
RL34274).
180
privileges are now included as part of their “Member’s Representational
Allowance” (MRA)—effectively a Member’s office budget.195 The MRA limits
are set in place by the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. This accounting
change allows Members to spend money that would be otherwise intended for
franked mail on other aspects of their office—such as personnel or office
supplies. See Chapter 3 for a discussion on removing franking costs from the
MRA.
Overall, these reforms, along with the increased use of cheaper, more
efficient email communication have led to a decline in the cost of franked mail
in the House. Figure 8.2 illustrates patterns of franked mail spending between
FY2006 and FY2016. There are two notable trends: first is the general
downward trend of overall spending on franked mail. The second is the spike
during even years—or “election years.” Concern about franked mail being used
to advantage incumbents during an election year led to another set of
reforms: stipulations on where and when mail could be sent.
Figure 8.2: Election year vs. Non-election year costs
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of U.S. Postal Service Data
Since 1992, Representatives have been limited to sending franked mail
only to constituents who live in their district.196 197 There are also rules
guarding when the mail can be sent, based on election dates. In 1996, the
House set in place a deadline of 90 days prior to an election to send franked
mail.198 These limitations help ensure that franked mail is used to
communicate, rather than campaign.
195. See more details on the MRA, please see: Brudnick, I. A. (2019, September 3). Members’
For
Representational Allowance: History and Usage (CRS: R40962).
196. Coalition to End the Permanent Government v. Marvin T. Runyon et al. (1992) 979 F.2d 219 (D.C.Cir).
See
197. Since October 1994, the U.S. Senate limits mass mailings to $50,000 per session of Congress.
See
198. Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, FY1997, P.L. 104-197, 110 Stat. 2394. 2414–2415, §311.
See
181
These vast and evolving rules and regulations require a body to
responsibly monitor how Members of Congress use their franking privilege.
Originally, the U.S. Postal Service served as the main advisory body, but a
series of reforms in 1973 established a permanent congressional body to
evaluate and regulate franked mail. Today, the Committee on House
Administration and House Communication Standards Commission (“the
Commission”) serve as the primary gatekeepers of the franking privilege. Of
note, one of the Committee’s recommendations outlined in this chapter
renamed the House Franking Commission to the House Communication
Standards Commission.
Since 1973, the Commission has offered formal and informal advisory
positions about whether mail is eligible for the franking privilege after a
detailed review using the five criteria outlined above. The Commission
considers what photographs can be used, how often the Member’s name is
used, and the political nature of the text. In the 106th Congress, the
Commission’s responsibilities were further expanded from an optional review
period to a required review by the Communication Standards Commission
prior to mailing. Today, all mass mail is required to undergo administrative
review by the Commission in advance of being sent to constituents.199
Given the size of the House, and the growing U.S. population, the
Commission is reviewing 6,000 to 8,000 pieces of mail every year. In addition to
advising and reviewing franked mail, the Commission handles formal
complaints (on average, five complaints each year).200
In addition to email, postal mail, tele-townhalls, and other approved
forms of franked communication, Members often turn to the Commission for
advice on their social media. Today, social media is used by every Member of
Congress and is obviously very popular with constituents across the country.
Mediums like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube make it easier for
Members of Congress to communicate with constituents quickly and
personally, and like email, social media has the added benefit of affordability
that postal mail does not. Members of Congress use these new mediums: in
2019, Members posted more than 420,000 Tweets from their official
accounts—averaging to a total of 1,260 Tweets a day.201 However, although the
Commission reviews social media and digital communications on an advisory
basis, these mediums are not technically under its jurisdiction.202
Considering the vast and growing use of social media, this discrepancy
has created confusion for both the Commission and individual Members of
Congress. Updating House franking rules and regulations to reflect the
199. See
U.S. Congress, Committee on House Oversight, Report on the Activities of the Committee on House
Oversight during the 106th Congress, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 106-1056 (Washington: GPO,
2001), p. 14
200. Franking Commission rules provide specific procedures for the filing and disposition of complaints.
See
See ibid., pp. 33–45.
201. 2019 Report: Congress on Social Media (2019, December). Quorum Analytics.
See
202. Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress: Congress and the Frank, Bringing Congress into
See
the 21st Century (2019, October 31). Testimony from Rep. Brooks, Susan.
182
growing use of digital communications was a top priority for the Committee.
Given the expertise and jurisdiction of the Communication Standards
Commission and the Committee on House Administration, these three
organizations worked closely together to develop sensible, transparent, and
efficient reforms to modernize the franking privilege. The reforms are outlined
below.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE CONSTITUENT
COMMUNICATIONS AND SERVICES:
1. Consolidate the regulations governing Member office communications,
including digital communications, into one easy to find place.
As discussed above, the world of constituent communication has
changed rapidly and expansively in the past 20 years. While postal mail is still
used by Members of Congress, particularly newer Members and
representatives from “swing districts,”203 social media and email dominate
constituent communication. The contradiction between rules governing postal
mail and communication through new forms of technology created challenges
for Members of Congress and the franking process. Simply put, the rules that
apply to postal mail are often not applicable to a post on social media.
As Brad Fitch, CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation,
noted in his testimony to the Committee:
“So, if both Congress and constituents believe in a healthy, robust
engagement and it is important, Congress then must adapt to
21st century standards. The rules governing the use of the frank
should be updated… these rules were designed when the printing
press was the primary communications tool.”
Brad Fitch, June 5, 2019
Currently, two official sources detail social media use by Members of
Congress. The Committee on House Administration defines social media
accounts as “profiles, pages, channels, or any similar presence on third-party
sites that allow individual or organizations to offer information about
themselves to the public,” while the Members’ Congressional Handbook allows
Members to “establish profiles, pages, channels or other similar presence on
third-party sites ...,” so long as Members ensure that their official position (i.e.,
Representative, Congressman, Congresswoman) is clearly stated in the
account name.
However, the rules defining what can be posted on social media are
relatively vague. The Member Handbook states that social media profiles are
merely “subject to the same requirements as content on Member websites,”
203. Strauss, J. and Glassman, M. (2016, May 26). Social Media in Congress: The Impact of Electronic Media
See
on Member Communications (CRS: R44509).
183
and “must be in compliance with Federal law and House Rules and regulations
applicable to official communications and germane to the conduct of the
Member’s official and representational duties.”204 But the rules set in place for
traditional mail simply do not fit with the nature of social media posts—there
are limitations on space (a Tweet is limited to 280 characters), and differences
in tone (social media has an added benefit of being a personal and informal
mode of communication).
In addition to vague definitions, there is no clear jurisdiction for
reviewing social media posts. While the Commission offers guidance on the
franking privilege and constituent communications—including social media—it
does not have the explicit authority to regulate digital communications. As
current Communication Standards Commission Chair Rep. Susan Davis
(CA-53) noted, “Right now, we are only charged with reviewing postal mail,
but in practice, we review all communication.”205 Former Commission Chair
and Committee member Rep. Rodney Davis echoed this sentiment in his
testimony:
Image 8.1: Former Communications Standards Commission Chair and Select
Committee Member Rodney Davis testifies before the Select Committee, alongside
current Communication Standards Commission Chair Susan Davis.
204. Members Congressional Handbook. See also: Strauss, J. and Glassman, M. (2016, May 26). Social Media
See
in Congress: The Impact of Electronic Media on Member Communications (CRS: R44509).
205. Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress: Congress and the Frank: Bringing Congressional
See
Mailing Standards into the 21st Century. 116th Congress. (2019, October 31). October 31, 2019.
184
“Many of the rules that we follow and approvals that our teams
follow have been set by precedent between staff for decades.
We, as Members, ought to codify those precedents into rules and
regulations so we don't have any changes when we have changes
on the committee in leadership... It is hard to follow rules when
they are not written down and when they are not transparent.”
Rep. Rodney Davis, October 31, 2019
Thus, the lack of clear rules and advisory jurisdiction is confusing and
frustrating to Members and adds a conflicting burden to the Commission’s
review process.
The Committee recommended updating the U.S. Code to consolidate all
member communications—including social media—under the jurisdiction of
the Communication Standards Commission. This recommendation has fully
been implemented in the House, and a new manual with updated regulations
was issued to House Members in January 2020.
The bipartisan makeup of the Commission makes it an ideal body to
issue social media regulations that can be accepted by both political parties
regardless of minority or majority status. Giving the Commission the necessary
jurisdiction over social media will allow it to establish official regulations to
guide Members on their social media use. This change in jurisdiction provides
Members of Congress with much-needed clarity on how to communicate with
their constituents on social media and other emerging forms of technology
2. Rename the House Commission on Mailing Standards, also known as the
Franking Commission, the House Communications Standards Commission to
reflect 21st Century communications.
Given the vast jurisdiction of the Commission, including email,
advertisements, robocall scripts, text messages, websites, and the new
inclusion of social media, the Committee recommended that the title of the
Franking Commission be changed to reflect its modern responsibilities. This
recommendation is currently underway in the House, and branding and
operations are now referred to the House Communication Standards
Commission.
Furthermore, the former name of the Franking Commission did not
resonate with individuals outside of Congress. During Brad Fitch’s testimony
to the Committee, he touched on this confusion: “When I talk about this
outside of Washington, who is Frank? And why is he sending me this mail?”206
While perhaps a simple anecdote, the sentiment is clear—the name of the
Commission should be updated to accurately capture their range of
responsibilities, including all current forms of Member communications.
206. Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress: Improving Constituent Engagement. 116th Cong.
See
(2019, June 5).
185
3. Increase opportunities for constituents to communicate with their
Representatives.
The franking privilege exists to encourage and facilitate constituent
communication, but current regulations have ultimately made sustained
communication more difficult. Current regulations require Members to get
approval from the Commission for each unsolicited communication with
constituents, even if it’s just to provide an update on a piece of legislation on
which they have already communicated. But true communication requires the
ability to interact and exchange messages several times—and feedback is an
essential part of democracy. As Dr. Matthew Glassman testified before the
Committee:
“Member constituent communication is a building block of
representative democracy. If information about legislative activity
cannot easily flow from members to constituents, citizens will be
less capable of joint policy judgments about congressional action
and electoral judgments about Members. Likewise, if constituents
cannot easily communicate preferences to Members,
congressional action is less likely to reflect public opinion.”
Matthew Glassman, October 31, 2019
Not only is sustained communication important for Members of
Congress to receive feedback on their legislative activity; it’s an essential part
of civic education for constituents. Legislating is a complex process, and it’s
important for Members to be able to update their constituents at each stage
of a bill’s development—from introduction in committee, to amendments, to a
floor vote. Yet Members of Congress lack the ability to have sustained,
ongoing interaction with their constituents.
Several witnesses before the Committee reiterated the importance of
robust, ongoing constituent communication for Members of Congress and
constituents alike. Dr. Michael Neblo, Director of Ohio State’s Institute for
Democratic Engagement and Accountability, testified on some best practices
identified in his work on constituent communication:
186
“We found that many people seem ill informed, not because they
don't care, but because they believe it is not worth their time to
stay informed, because nobody will listen anyway. But when they
think that their Member really will listen, they are quite willing
and able to become informed… There is a dimension of quality
that gets added when you have a broader cross section of your
constituency involved. “
Dr. Michael Neblo, June 5, 2019
The need for quality over quantity was also emphasized by Marci Harris,
CEO and co-founder of POPVOX. In particular, she noted that the Commission
was in a unique position to encourage quality communication with
constituents:
“People have fewer sources of information now about their local
school board or city council, but they can spend 24 hours a day
hearing about the latest battles at the national level. And you are
perceived as their only outlet for addressing these issues that
they care about.
“So, this act, especially in a time of disinformation, that you can't
share untrue, overtly political, or personal information through
franked communication, I think, is something that should be
emphasized almost like a better housekeeping seal that
constituents can understand is a protection for them.”
Marci Harris, June 5, 2019
And Members themselves reflected on the importance of sustained
constituent communication:
187
“I think the increase in the number of emails and correspondence
that Congress gets and other branches of government, I am sure
too, is indicative of the hunger out there for people to be
involved. And so, it is a good thing, and it is a good thing to try to
address how we can improve their ability to engage and our
ability to respond.”
Rep. Dan Newhouse, June 5, 2019
Thus, the Committee suggested two changes to improve constituency
communication by allowing sustained, multiple communications. First, the
franking privilege should be modernized to allow Members to provide updates
on issues they have already communicated on without requiring approval from
the Franking Commission. The Commission should establish how this
sustained communication is regulated.
Second, the method of communication should make it easier to
communicate with Members. Currently, Members can communicate easily with
constituents who have willingly opted-in to e-newsletters without review from
the Commission. This privilege should be expanded to other forms of
communications, including text messages and phone calls. Members should be
able to communicate with constituents in the mode that constituents prefer.
The Committee and Commission suggested that the ability to quickly
communicate with constituents, without the step of a Commission review,
should be updated to include other forms of communications beyond
subscription email. This recommendation is currently in place, as new
regulations now permit unsolicited follow-up communication.
4. Increase accountability and tracking for all Member-sponsored mail.
Beyond adoptions that reflect changes in communications technology,
there are much-needed updates to the technology used in the actual franking
process. A major concern with the franking privilege is the timely and
cumbersome process of tracking franked mail. Because franked mail is paid
out of the Member’s MRA, Member offices are required to keep track of the
expenditures to reimburse the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for all postal
expenses.
For mail sent from Washington, D.C. offices, these calculations are
maintained by a third-party vendor to sort, distribute, and calculate mail costs
to appropriately reimburse the USPS. However, for mail sent directly to district
offices, district office staff are required to self-report the cost of their franked
mail in monthly reports. Member offices that are delinquent in submitting their
monthly report are charged an additional fee. This discrepancy between the
Washington, D.C. and district office franked mail reporting process leads to
inaccuracies and creates an added burden to district staff.
188
The Committee recommended that the automated tracking system be
modernized in consultation with the USPS to include franked mail from district
offices. Modernizing this process would make tracking easier and more
reliable, and will further increase accountability of Members to their
constituents. The Commission is encouraged to pursue alternatives for the
reporting process. For example, Chair Susan Davis has suggested the USPS
scan and automatically tally the unique barcode on each piece of mail sent
from district offices, as is currently done for Washington, D.C.-initiated mail.
5. Allow for faster correspondence between Representatives and their
constituents.
In addition to streamlining the process for district staff, Members noted
the need for improvements to the speed of the Commission approval process.
Currently, Members who wish to communicate with their constituents by
postal mail and digital mail alike are required to receive a Franking Staff
Advisory Opinion. However, the process does not take advantage of the speed
offered by digital communications, and sometimes the review process takes so
long that by the time it is approved, the Member’s message is no longer
relevant.
Josh Billigmeier, Co-Founder and CEO of Fireside, a software company
that works with Congress, in testimony before the Committee highlighted an
example of how the Commission’s approval speed can make or break
constituent communication:
“Imagine that you have just finished watching the State of Union
address, and you want to send an email to your constituents
highlighting some of the policies outlined in the speech. Your
staff drafts up an email, and they send it to the Franking
Commission for approval. Your staff may have to wait for days, if
not a week, to get approval for franking to send out that mail
during these surge times. The franking approval process often
takes far too long.”
Josh Billigmeier, October 31, 2019
But while increased speed is undoubtedly preferred, Committee
member Rep. Rob Woodall reiterated the importance of maintaining the
current level of quality the Commission is known for:
189
“I like the quality standards in the frank, but it takes time for the
Franking Commission to respond to that. I would like to do away
with the frank as a signature on a mail package, but I want to
keep the quality of the correspondence. What is there in
technology that I don't have to wait 36 hours to get something
back from the Franking Commission so that I can respond?”
Rep. Rob Woodall, June 5, 2019
To ensure efficient communication with constituents, but still maintain a
quality review process, the Committee recommended updating the approval
process to better reflect modern forms of communication. As Committee
member Rodney Davis noted in testimony before the Committee, “Does it
make sense that a Facebook ad going to 500 people at a cost of $20 is subject
to the same review as a physical mailer going to 100,000 people at a cost of
$50,000 taxpayer dollars?”
The Committee recommended that the Commission take into
consideration the medium, size and reach of the mailing when reviewing
franked mail. Digital mail, like email and social media for example, should be
subjected to an alternate, quicker review process. The approval process
needed to better reflect modern forms of communications and improve
Members’ ability to quickly communicate with those they represent. This
recommendation has also been implemented, as mass emails and
advertisements under $500 no longer require an advisory opinion.
6. Update House social media rules to allow for better communication online
between newly-elected Members of Congress and their followers.
One of the stipulations of the franking privilege is that communication
must be limited to “official business.” For social media, this has translated to
separate, official social media accounts—one for Members’ campaigns, and
one for official business. After many Members build large social media
followings during their campaigns for office, they are then required to create a
new “official” account after being elected. This transition means that followers
are disconnected from their elected officials at a pivotal point in the
representation process.
Committee member Rep. Susan Brooks reflected on the inefficiencies of
the separate-account limitations when she first entered Congress:
190
Image 8.2: Rep. Susan Brooks speaks during a Select Committee hearing.
“When I first came to Congress in 2013, it did baffle me that we
could not migrate our campaign. It is the first time I had run for
office, the first time, you know, created a campaign account, and
those people that were following us that we had to educate them
in very difficult ways, not, and if my memory serves me correct,
only at one time could we even inform them, you know, to go to
the official account.”
Rep. Susan Brooks, October 31, 2019
In addition, the use of two separate accounts generates continual
confusion for constituents and Members of Congress alike. The two accounts
are governed by separate rules and policies regarding what can be discussed,
when the accounts can be used, and even the type of accounts that Members
interact with. The lack of clarity between the rules governing these two
accounts are notoriously confusing for Members and their staff.
The Committee and the Commission recommended that Members be
allowed a one-time transfer of followers from their campaign to their official
social media accounts at the beginning of each Congress. This will allow
Members to clearly communicate with their constituents at the start of their
term, so constituents can follow their new account for legislative updates. The
Committee recommended that the Commission clarify the rules that govern
191
social media accounts to further reiterate this recommendation. By placing
social media accounts under the jurisdiction of the Commission, rules and
regulations of social media will be easier to find and understand.
7. Allow the public to better access and view the types of communication sent
by Members of Congress to their constituents.
Reforms should make it easier for constituents to know how the franking
privilege is being used to communicate, and how their tax dollars are being
spent. One of the longest running critiques of the franking privilege has been
its cost to taxpayers. Fortunately, Congress has significantly curbed the cost
of Franked Mail in the last 20 years, largely thanks to increases in digital
communications discussed earlier in this chapter. Figure 8.3 provides an
overview of the decline in Franking Costs since FY1988.
Figure 8.3: Total House mail costs, FY 1988–FY 2018
Source: CRS Report IF10489, “Congressional Franked Mail: Overview.”
However, while Congress has significantly cut down on the cost of
franked mail, the franking process is still not transparent to constituents, or to
Members of Congress. For the public to view Commission advisory opinions,
current rules require individuals to make a trip to the Clerk’s Office in
Washington, D.C., provide identification, and pay for copies of materials sent
by Members to their constituents. This is a costly inconvenience for
constituents and presents serious issues of access, accountability, and
transparency.
The Committee recommended that the advisory opinions made by the
Commission be posted online, in a modern and accessible form. It’s essential
for constituents to not only be able to communicate with their representatives;
they should know the process and understand the legitimacy of these official
communications as well. At the time of writing, this recommendation has been
192
partially implemented. There is now a live, public-facing website where anyone
can search approved communications by any House Member at any time. The
self-reporting feature of the portal is still under construction.
CONCLUSION
The recommendations outlined in this chapter are commonsense
reforms that were crafted in close consultation with leadership from the House
Communication Standards Commission and the Committee on House
Administration to provide Congress and the public with guidance on how to
communicate more efficiently and effectively.
By renaming and clarifying the jurisdiction of the Commission to include
social media, Members and constituents alike will have much-needed clarity on
how these accounts are expected to operate. In addition, technological
updates to the franking process itself will provide greater transparency and
efficiency for constituents—allowing them to truly interact with their
representatives, generating meaningful conversation beyond scripted
petitions.
The recommendations presented in this chapter offer a much-needed
update to current operating procedures, but also set the stage for continued
growth and improvement in constituent communications. These reforms have
set in motion the ability for the Commission, and the House more generally, to
prepare for the next wave of technology. As Chair Derek Kilmer said in an
October 31, 2019 hearing:
“If history is any indicator, communication platforms will continue
to rapidly evolve, and Congress needs to adapt so Members can
communicate as effectively as possible with the people they
represent.”
Chair Derek Kilmer, October 31, 2019
It’s time that our institution reflects the reality of our constituents, and
these recommendations are a strong, sensible first step. When Members of
Congress can more easily communicate with their constituents—and when
constituents have easier access to their representatives—democracy
flourishes. A strong republic relies on the people it represents. This requires
open and honest communication between Members working in our nation’s
capital and the people in districts across the nation who sent them there.
193
CHAPTER 9 —
Continuity of Government and Congressional Operations
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Each office should have a continuity of operations plan, including
minimum safety requirements and an emergency communications plan,
that is made available to all staff so offices continue functioning for the
public.
2. Ensure that staff have the most up-to-date technology and equipment to
continue effectively working on behalf of constituents in the event of a
disruption or emergency.
3. Establish regular maintenance plans for office technology, so the
equipment and technology needed during remote operations and
telework is functional.
4. Crisis communications guidelines for constituent communication,
including outreach plans for extended telework periods, should be
approved, kept updated and shared with all Member offices at the
beginning of each Congress.
5. To help streamline casework requests and help constituents better access
federal agencies and resources, the House should implement a secure
document management system, and provide digital forms and templates
for public access.
6. The House should prioritize the approval of platforms that staff need for
effective telework, and each individual staff member should have licensed
access to the approved technology.
7. Committees should establish telework policies on a bipartisan basis.
8. The House should make permanent the option to electronically submit
committee reports.
9. Expand the use of digital signatures for a majority of House business,
including constituent communications.
10. Committees should develop bipartisan plans on how technology and
innovative platforms can best be incorporated into daily work.
11. A bipartisan, bicameral task force should identify lessons learned during
the COVID-19 pandemic and recommend continuity of Congress
improvements
12. Continuity, telework and cybersecurity training should be given to all new
Members of Congress.
13. A study should be conducted related to House functions during the
COVID-19 pandemic to evaluate additional operational needs or changes
to operations that are no longer appropriate.
194
INTRODUCTION
Image 9.1: Chair Derek Kilmer, Vice Chair Tom Graves, and Select Committee
members during the final business meeting.
The second session of the 116th Congress convened on January 7, 2020
just as news of a deadly virus was spreading across the globe. The first
confirmed case of a novel coronavirus in the United States was reported on
January 21, 2020 in Washington state, and by March 11, 2020 this novel
coronavirus was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization
(WHO).207 The virus, which later came to be known as COVID-19, quickly
overwhelmed the nation’s health care systems and wreaked havoc on the U.S.
economy. In an effort to prevent the disease from spreading, businesses,
schools, and governments across the country moved to remote status or
closed all together. On March 12, 2020, the U.S. Capitol closed to visitors, and
congressional offices were encouraged to move to remote operating status.208
Members and staff mostly shifted focus to working directly with
constituents to help assist them with the many health and economic
emergencies they faced. At the same time, many congressional offices were
grappling with the transition to telework—a status that runs counter to
Congress’ in-person work traditions. Like many of their institutional
counterparts in the United States and abroad, Congress was faced with the
challenge of maintaining continuity of governance and operations.
207. Shumaker, Erin (2020, July 28). Timeline: How Coronavirus Got Started. ABC News. Retrieved from:
See
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/timeline-coronavirus-started/story?id=69435165
208. Tully-McManus, Katherine (2020, March 12). Coronavirus Closes Capitol to Tours. Roll Call. Retrieved
See
from: https://www.rollcall.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-closes-capitol-to-tours/
195
Within weeks it became clear that the COVID-19 pandemic was not a
short-term crisis. As the virus waned in some regions of the U.S., it surged in
others. And as states began lifting stay-at-home orders, cases reappeared and
forced additional closures. Addressing the nation’s faltering economy would
require Congress’ sustained focus over many months—a task made more
daunting by public health guidelines to avoid travel, wear masks, maintain
social distance, and telework if possible.
These restrictions raised many questions about how Congress would
effectively continue to do the “people’s work.” The House Committee on Rules
and the Committee on House Administration were tasked with figuring out
institutional changes, like remote voting procedures and committee continuity.
The recommendations of both committees were included in H.Res.965, which
authorized proxy voting and allowed for remote committee work during the
course of the pandemic.209 The House voted to adopt H. Res 965 on May 15,
2020.210
Given the Committee’s primary focus on making Congress work better
for the American people, the Committee concentrated on reforms to
encourage a more seamless transition to remote work and ease continuity of
government and congressional operations. In addition to studying how state
and foreign legislatures were responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
committee sought perspectives from staff in both D.C. and district offices, to
hear firsthand their experiences in working through the pandemic. The
committee also heard from several organizations that did outreach to District
Directors and organized bipartisan roundtables on telework for congressional
staff. Continuity planning strategies were also gathered from federal agencies.
The 13 recommendations discussed in this chapter reflect the
Committee’s focus on making Congress work better for the American people,
no matter the circumstances. It is especially important that Members of
Congress be prepared to continue with their legislative and representational
responsibilities in times of crisis. This chapter begins with an overview of the
various challenges staff faced during the remote work period. A brief
discussion of how state and foreign legislatures and federal agencies
responded and adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic follows. The Committee
sought best practices and innovative approaches from these agencies and
legislatures as it worked to determine recommendations to improve
congressional continuity. The chapter concludes with a review of the
Committee’s 13 recommendations to improve continuity of government and
congressional operations.
209. United States: House of Representatives Adopts Temporary Procedure for Voting by Proxy (2020, May
See
18). Retrieved from: https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/united-states-house-of-
representatives-adopts-temporary-procedure-for-voting-by-proxy/
210. The final vote on H.Res.965 was 217-185. (2020, May 15). Vote record: https://clerk.house.gov/
See
Votes/2020107
196
REMOTE OPERATING STATUS CHALLENGES
The early institutional response to the COVID-19 pandemic marked a
steep, real-time, learning curve for the congressional community. While the
Office of the Attending Physician, along with the Committee on House
Administration, provided helpful guidance but for many offices and staff, the
initial transition to telework was marked by uncertainty and operational
challenges. In addition to the immense unknowns surrounding the COVID-19
pandemic, Congress’ decentralized nature offered little work-from-home or
continuity of operations guidance. And although the Office of Emergency
Preparedness has issued guidelines to assist offices in establishing their own
continuity plans since the early 2000’s, many offices have not made
development of these plans a priority, and communication regarding the plans
and how to implement them when they did exist was uneven.
Thus, by the second week of March 2020, while many congressional
offices were moving toward telework status, there was no centralized
guidance for staff to follow. Instead, many offices determined what other
offices were doing by word of mouth and through various official and
unofficial networks, leading to widespread variance in office continuity
planning and telework policies. This inconsistency led to congressional staff
expressing discomfort with their office’s policies.211 Front-line workers were
particularly vulnerable, also due to a lack of guidance.212 In response to this,
the Committee on House Administration worked quickly to implement physical
barriers such as plexiglass protection for front-office staff.
The pandemic placed stress on district offices in particular. Due to safety
concerns that limited travel or even in-person constituent meetings, many
Members were temporarily based full-time in their districts, yet needed quick
and reliable access to their D.C. office resources to effectively support
outreach to constituents. At the same time, many constituents were seeking
unprecedented assistance with the enormous health and economic challenges
caused by COVID-19. District staff were primarily responsible for the ongoing
support of Members and constituents—all while navigating a public health
crisis themselves.
Even under normal circumstances, district offices often cite a lack of
resources and an information disconnect from D.C., but the COVID-19
pandemic exacerbated many of these existing difficulties. Through its own
outreach efforts, the Committee learned that some offices did not have
laptops or virtual private networks (VPNs) set up for staff, making it difficult to
work remotely and raising security concerns. Some offices did not have the
ability to forward incoming phone calls. Despite moving to telework status,
211. Palmer, Anna (2020, July 30). The congressional underclass erupts in fury after Gohmert gets Covid-19.
See
POLITICO. Retrieved from: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/30/capitol-hill-angry-gohmert-
coronavirus-388230
212. Marquette, Chis (2020, June 19). Coronavirus cases climbing among front-line workers in Congress.
See
Roll Call. Retrieved from: https://www.rollcall.com/2020/06/19/coronavirus-cases-climbing-among-
frontline-workers-in-congress/
197
some district staff were still required to go to the office due simply to
outdated technology issues and procedural limitations. For example, several
federal agencies do not accept constituent privacy release forms by email,
meaning that district staff had to physically go to the office to process release
forms on behalf of constituents. Additionally, constituents in technologically
underserved areas, as well as older constituents, sometimes do not have email
and need to fill out release forms by hand. Staff, too, were plagued by issues
of internet connectivity, particularly in rural areas. But despite these technical
challenges, the need for constituent services was higher than ever, and district
staff worked diligently to meet needs aggravated by the pandemic.
Many of these concerns were echoed by the U.S. Association of Former
Members of Congress (FMC), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. FMC holds
regular calls and symposiums with District Directors for the purpose of sharing
experiences and best practices, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, FMC
gathered feedback on district office capacity to work remotely. The FMC
shared this information with Committee Members during a virtual meeting on
May 20, 2020.213
FMC reported that many District Directors were concerned with the
quality and security of constituent outreach. Members were suddenly holding
much more frequent online forums and townhalls using new and untested
systems and communicating with constituents on lines and platforms that
were not secure. The Congressional Management Foundation surveyed
congressional staff, and found an extensive, increased reliance on internet and
phone communication across Capitol Hill.
213. Virtual Discussion: Conversation on Remote Office Work and Best Practices from Federal Agencies.
See
116th Congress (2020, May 20).
198
Figure 9.1: Increased Importance of Online and Teletown Halls
Source: Congressional Management Foundation, “Coronavirus, Congress, and
Constituent Communications (2020)214
But when many congressional offices began transitioning to telework in
March 2020, outdated laptops and phone systems made the changeover
difficult for some district offices. The equipment and software in district
offices was, in many cases, inadequate to the task and not compatible with
what staff were using in the D.C. offices. Additionally, there were no clear
policies or guidelines in place for Members participating in hearings and
briefings, or for receiving and discussing classified information.
Coordination and information sharing between D.C. and district offices
have long been areas of concern for many District Directors, but in the face of
the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for clear communication and security
became a top priority. FMC reported that many District Directors felt
unprepared to manage constituent questions about the Paycheck Protection
Program and Small Business Administration loan opportunities, for example,
because the legislation addressing these issues was typically managed by
D.C.-based policy staff. There was also a general lack of coordination between
state agencies and member offices, which sometimes made it difficult to
provide constituents with appropriate assistance. As Peter M. Weichlein, Chief
Executive Officer, U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress (FMC) told
Members in a May 20, 2020 virtual meeting on the challenges facing district
offices:
214. The full report can be viewed at: https://www.congressfoundation.org/projects/communicating-with-
See
congress/coronavirus-report-2020
199
“Like 99 percent of the things this committee considers, there’s
no one size fits all answer to any of this. And—of
course—between districts, and the views of 435 Members, there
are 435 different answers. We have heard from some District
Directors who are the sole occupant of an office, so therefore
have not found much of a different environment than what
they’re used to. There are some, very few, offices that don’t have
a brick and mortar presence to begin with.
"But where I think there’s common themes emerging: definitely
on the equipment and technology side. Many, many of your
District Directors felt the switch from a brick-and-mortar space to
a remote working environment was more difficult because of IT
and computer issues, outdated laptops, not having enough
laptops for all staff, and the software issues preventing district
offices from communicating with D.C. offices over the
switchboard.”
Peter M. Weichlein, May 20, 2020
Another example of poor coordination between D.C. and district offices
involved the provision of masks. While some district offices received masks
from the House, they did not receive them until mid-April 2020—about one
month after many offices began teleworking due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Additionally, not all District Directors knew about the option to request masks
from the House. These concerns persisted beyond the initial transition to
remote work; according to FMC, District Directors expressed a need for the
House to provide guidance on how to re-open the office safely, as well as on
how to manage potential personnel questions about safety and lack of
childcare.
Lastly, for both district and D.C. staff, the swift move to remote work
required new adaption of remote communication, particularly video
conferencing. The often slow and cumbersome approval process, highlighted
in Chapter 6 (Technology), made the initial transition difficult and confusing.
Weighing concerns of security and ease of use, staff and Members were
unsure which video conferencing program to use for several weeks. Even after
Cisco WebEx was sanctioned as the primary video conferencing service for
the House, immense technological challenges continued.
Despite these hardships, some positive outcomes resulted from district
and D.C. based staff having to interact more than usual during the pandemic.
Many offices, for example, implemented a policy requiring each staffer to take
a regular shift answering phones and responding to constituent questions and
concerns. FMC reported that District Directors felt such policies gave their
200
D.C.-based colleagues a better understanding of what district-based staff do
on a day-to-day basis. District staff who had to address policy-related
concerns also gained an appreciation for the work of their D.C. based
colleagues.
An additional positive outcome of increased interaction between district
and D.C. based staff during the pandemic was the discovery of “accidental
innovations.” Like FMC, the Partnership for Public Service (Partnership)
convenes regular bipartisan meetings for their network of district-based staff.
Through these meetings, as well as through teleconferences with state
government offices, the Partnership found that D.C. and district staff found
ways to work collaboratively during the pandemic and even discovered some
“accidental innovations” that helped them work better as a team.215 As
Kristine Simmons, Vice President of Government Affairs at the Partnership for
Public Service told the Committee during the May 5, 2020 virtual meeting:
“We’re hearing that some offices are using things like Slack to
connect in ways they maybe weren’t before… And in some ways,
this has really made the district staff feel like the D.C. staff is ‘in
the trenches with them’ because the volume of casework has
increased so much, that it’s all hands on deck, and many of the
D.C. staff is getting involved and helping with district-based and
constituent work in maybe ways they weren’t before. So, there is
in some ways, a stronger bond between the district offices and
the D.C. offices, which we think is a great thing. The question is
how do you sustain… and continue that?”
Kristine Simmons, May 20, 2020
Another positive side effect of the pandemic was broader access to
courses and trainings offered by the Congressional Staff Academy. In a virtual
discussion with Committee Members on remote work best practices, the
Partnership noted that because Staff Academy offerings had moved online,
district staff could now take courses that were previously only offered
in-person in D.C.216 This revelation prompted the Staff Academy to consider
offering virtual courses on a regular basis.
CONTINUITY ACROSS EXECUTIVE BRANCH, STATE, AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS
As part of its effort to address the various challenges Congress faced
during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Committee also looked at federal agency
response and continuity planning strategies. The Partnership collected
continuity and return-to-work guidance from federal agencies and shared its
215. Virtual Discussion: Conversation on Remote Office Work and Best Practices from Federal Agencies.
See
116th Congress (2020, May 20).
216. Ibid.
See
201
findings with the Committee.217 The Executive Branch response to the
COVID-19 pandemic helped inform the Committee’s discussions about
continuity of government and congressional operations.
The Partnership found that many federal agencies responded to the
pandemic by bolstering innovations that were already underway. The most
far-reaching innovation across federal agencies was the widespread
implementation of telework. Agency leaders reported that the transition to
telework was effective, though it did require that managers learn new ways to
oversee staff performance and maintain staff morale. Overall, reports indicate
that productivity has remained high, which supports some of the
experimentation that agencies were doing with telework prior to the
pandemic.
Another innovation, created by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management
(OPM), was the COVID-19 Surge Response Program. The program, which was
designed to allow agencies “to post rotational opportunities for federal
employees to support the COVID-19 response,” was supported by “Open
Opportunities,” a government-wide platform that offers professional
development opportunities to current federal employees. The platform
provides a centralized location where federal agencies can post details,
microdetails, and/or temporary rotational assignments.”218 This innovation
allowed agencies to quickly realign their workforces to best support and serve
the public during the pandemic. It also allowed interested federal workers to
shift their focus and help reinforce the government’s COVID-19 response.
The federal government’s shelter-in-place mandate also dramatically
accelerated the use of digital signatures, ensuring continuity of operations.
While the Committee has previously recommended expanding the use of
electronic signatures,219 Congress currently has no such policy and still
requires “wet signatures” on many official documents, which can lead to
delays in the regulatory implementation process. For example, federal
regulations cannot go into effect unless Congress receives notification, which
still requires a wet signature.220 The quick transition to digital signatures
allowed many executive branch operations to continue throughout the
COVID-19 crisis.
217. Ibid.
See
218. Press Release: OPM Announces the COVID-19 Surge Response Program (2020, March 27). Office of
See
Personnel and Management. Retrieved from: https://www.opm.gov/news/releases/2020/03/opm-
announces-the-covid-19-surge-response-program/
219. See more information on this recommendation, please see Chapter 8: Continuity of Congress of this
For
report.
220. The House Parliamentarian requires wet signatures, in compliance with the Congressional Review Act.
See
For more information: The Congressional Review Act (CRA): Frequently Asked Questions (CRS:
R43992) (2020, January 14).
202
Once the federal government began moving toward a telework stance,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) began electronically posting all
federal agency guidance related to COVID-19.221 New memos were posted
regularly, and covered a range of topics of interest to federal employees. The
Partnership reported that several agencies also created “microsites” to keep
their employees informed and up-to-date on the latest COVID-19 related
developments.222 Many of these agency “best practices” focused on
maintaining communication and supporting the physical and mental health
needs of agency frontline employees.
Like Congress, the executive branch faced new questions and challenges
related to working through the COVID-19 pandemic. Federal employees who
had to cross jurisdictions with different shelter-in-place mandates to travel
between home and work sought guidance from their agencies. Employees
who were set to retire when the pandemic hit also wanted guidance on
whether OPM could process their retirements. In response to the unique
circumstances presented by the pandemic, agencies varied in their
approaches to determining which employees were essential.
Agencies also varied in terms of how they defined and managed “core
work hours” for their employees. Many agency employees were saddled with
caregiving responsibilities as they worked full-time from home, and struggled
to work within regular schedules. Managers also had to figure out how to
address the concerns of employees—and their potentially exposed
colleagues—who tested positive for COVID-19. The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) responded by developing guidelines to help
employers and employees navigate privacy and protection concerns related to
COVID-19 testing and exposure.223
In addition to studying how federal agencies were managing continuity
of operations and the transition to telework, the Committee also looked at
agency “return to work” plans. As agencies began preparing for their
employees to return to their offices, the Partnership began collecting agency
planning information and developing guidelines. This information was
compiled and made available to agency leaders in the form of a checklist to
consult when reopening offices.224 The subsequent checklist is an “evolving
document” with guidance that is also useful to congressional offices. For
example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) released guidance for cleaning and disinfecting offices.
221. Office of Management and Budget 2020 Memoranda (2020). Accessible here:
See
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/memoranda/?utm_source=link
222. Examples include NASA: https://nasapeople.nasa.gov/coronavirus/and NIH: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/
See
index.shtml
223. What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws
See
(2020, September 8). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved from:
https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-
other-eeo-laws
224. Ready to Return to the Workplace: 25 Prompts for Agency Leaders (2020, May 18). Partnership for
See
Public Service. Retrieved from: https://ourpublicservice.org/publications/ready-to-return-to-the-
workplace-25-prompts-for-agency-leaders/
203
Agencies are also developing different screening processes at building
entrances, as well mask policies for employees and visitors. These agency
approaches to reopening the workplace safely can help inform congressional
office return-to-work planning.
STATE GOVERNMENT CONTINUITY
The 50 state legislatures are sometimes referred to as “laboratories of
democracy” because of their ability to test new procedures and processes.
Throughout its tenure, the Committee has looked to state legislatures for ideas
and innovations on everything from technology to the schedule and calendar.
Several of the committee’s hearings featured officials from state legislatures
and from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) who provided
state-level perspective on issues in the committee’s mandate.225
As the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the nation, the Committee
again turned to state legislatures for ideas to maintain continuity of
operations. Like Congress, states were focused on finding ways to keep
government running while also keeping legislators, staff, and the public at
large safe and healthy. But given that each state has its own legislative
calendar, policies, norms, and political culture, there was much variance in
response. Additionally, some states have full-time legislatures while others
have part-time bodies; Some meet every year while others meet every other
year.
These differences between the states were reflected in the various ways
they adapted to working through the pandemic. A number of states include
continuity language in their state constitutions, encompassing issues like lines
of succession, convening during an emergency, and alternative meeting
locations.226 While some state constitutions address continuity during a
natural disaster or an enemy attack, few mention public health emergencies or
events that threaten the health of legislators. The unique nature of the
COVID-19 pandemic required many state legislatures to respond and adapt in
real time.
Like Congress, many state legislatures adjusted their legislative
schedules as the pandemic spread. While a number of legislatures adjourned
early or temporarily suspended activity, none postponed their legislative
sessions entirely.227 Some states figured out socially-distanced ways to
continue meeting. According to NCSL:228
225. Virtual Discussion: Conversation on Remote Office Work and Best Practices from Federal Agencies.
See
116th Congress (2020, May 20).
226. Examples of Constitutional Provisions Relating to Continuity of Government (2020, March 6). National
See
Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved from: https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-
legislatures/examples-of-constitutional-provisions-relating-to-continuity-of-government.aspx
227. Seeof September 11, 2020 NCSL reported no postponements. Legislative Sessions and the Coronavirus
As
(2020, September 11). National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved from:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/legislative-sessions-and-the-coronavirus.aspx
228. Wood, Natalie (2020, April 14). Banging the Gavel Instead of Dropping the Puck—Convening in the
See
Age of Covid. Retrieved from: https://www.ncsl.org/blog/2020/06/16/banging-the-gavel-instead-of-
dropping-the-puck-convening-in-the-age-of-covid.aspx
204
+ The New Hampshire House of Representatives met in the University of
New Hampshire’s hockey rink.
+ The New Hampshire Senate met in the House chamber.
+ The Virginia House of Delegates met in a reception tent on the lawn of
the State Capitol, while the Senate met in Richmond’s science museum.
+ The Arkansas House convened in a basketball arena.
+ The Illinois House met in a local concert and event venue.
+ Plexiglass barriers between desks were erected in the Colorado House.
+ In the Virginia Senate, staff devised an entire plexiglass box for a Senator
with a high health risk.
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the Committee did not focus its
efforts on issues tied to remote voting and virtual committee hearings; these
items fell within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Rules and the
Committee on House Administration. Committee Members were, however,
interested in understanding how the states were handling floor votes and
committee hearings and markups during the pandemic.
According to NCSL, legislatures or chambers in at least 25 states
adopted rules to allow for remote participation or voting in floor sessions or in
committees. Most—if not all—of these changes were adopted on a temporary
basis and only applied through the COVID-19 emergency.229 For example,
Vermont’s Senate and House met in formal sessions via Zoom, which were
streamed on YouTube. The Pennsylvania House adopted proxy voting
procedures while the Senate opted to use virtual voting technology. In New
Jersey, committees took public testimony over Zoom; and in Massachusetts,
public comments were accepted in writing using Google docs. New Jersey
lawmakers also voted remotely by calling into a conference line. In Kentucky,
House members voted remotely by sending in photos of their ballots to
designated floor managers. Utah instituted interim virtual hearings and
provided the public with online guidance on testifying. And in a somewhat
ironic twist, Colorado, a state that normally permits remote testimony, could
not offer the option during the pandemic because the colleges and
universities that enable remote connectivity throughout the state were
closed.230
229. Continuity of Legislatures during Covid (2020, August 27). National Conference of State Legislatures.
See
Retrieved from: https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/continuity-of-legislature-
during-emergency.aspx
230. Wood, Natalie (2020, April 14). Banging the Gavel Instead of Dropping the Puck—Convening in the
See
Age of Covid. Retrieved from: https://www.ncsl.org/blog/2020/06/16/banging-the-gavel-instead-of-
dropping-the-puck-convening-in-the-age-of-covid.aspx
205
Figure 9.2: State legislature continuity operations, in response to COVID-19
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures
FOREIGN LEGISLATURES
In addition to exploring how state legislatures were responding and
adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Committee also reviewed the
operations of foreign governments. The pandemic reached many countries
overseas before arriving in the United States; still, given how quickly the virus
spread, few, if any, governments had time to adequately prepare. Some foreign
legislatures had already built virtual participation features into their
operations, giving them a head start on remote governing.
To learn more about how foreign governments were managing
continuity efforts, the Committee requested information from the Library of
Congress’ Law Library. Foreign law research staff of the Global Legal Research
Directorate surveyed 36 foreign jurisdictions and produced a comprehensive
report for the committee titled, “Continuity of Legislative Activities during
Emergency Situations in Selected Countries.”231 According to the report:
“In the vast majority of countries surveyed, legislatures have adopted
preventative measures in response to the public emergency posed by
the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, no country surveyed has explicitly
invoked the powers of an “emergency parliament” with devolved power
from the whole legislature. However, several countries surveyed give
various other emergency powers to the legislature in times of
emergencies.
231. Continuity of Legislative Activities during Emergency Situations (2020, March). Library of Congress.
See
Retrieved from: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/emergency-legislative-activities/index.php
206
"Operational arrangements by legislatures while restricting the
movement and travel of members and staff include utilizing
videoconferencing and other electronic means to maintain legislative
activities, formulating special voting procedures to reduce necessary
travel and attendance, and providing new accountability measures in
cases where legislative activity has been interrupted. Measures also
include temporary suspension of scheduled events and travel.”232
The Committee also engaged with representatives from the European
Parliament (EU) to learn more about their continuity efforts during the
COVID-19 pandemic. As with Congress, many of the EU’s members must travel
long distances to participate in person at the EU Parliament in Brussels. Travel
restrictions limited EU members’ ability to fly, as did various shelter-in-place
orders imposed by some EU countries. Because of these participatory
restrictions on its members, the EU moved quickly to install remote voting and
virtual committee meeting procedures.
The EU’s initial remote voting system was implemented as a “trial run,” in
order to test the process and determine what improvements would be needed
if use of a remote voting system was required in the future. Under this system,
members received a ballot form by email, then completed and sent the ballot
from their email address to the relevant Parliament’s functional mailbox.233
This system was intended to be temporary, as planning for a more
sophisticated and secure remote voting system, with language interpretation
features, was underway. As of September 2020, the EU had not executed its
new remote voting system, in part due to opposition from some EU
members.234
While the EU’s remote system proved challenging to implement, the
platform was successfully used for committee meetings. Members and
interpreters connected remotely from their homes into committee meeting
rooms during the initial months of the pandemic. This short video
demonstrates how EU members used the platform:
232. Ibid, see sections I-III.
See
233. Document provided by the EU, shared with the Select Committee.
See
234. “European parliament to hold special one day plenary”, CGTN (2020, September 1).
See
207
The EU created a public-facing video to communicate their remote work
technology.235
In conversations with the Committee, EU officials noted that their quick
progress in developing and moving to remote systems during the COVID-19
pandemic was due to EU President Andrej Plenković of Croatia making it a
priority and giving the EU’s technology team “cover to fail” as they worked
quickly to figure out platforms and resolve kinks in the systems. There was
pressure to get secure systems up and running fast, but also acceptance of the
inevitable bumps along the way.
In addition, the Committee looked to other country’s continuity
endeavours:236
+ In Spain, members cast votes using an intranet system, which has been in
place since 2012.
+ The United Kingdom (UK) approved moving to a “virtual Parliament,”
overturning more than 700 years of precedent.
+ In Wales, the Welsh assembly used Zoom video conferencing for its
weekly plenary session, the first for any parliament in the UK.
235. See https://www.linkedin.com/posts/european-parliament_europeansagainstcovid19-covid19-
coronavirus-activity-6653319231729389569-Boqd/
236. Continuity in Legislatures Amid COVID-19: An Updated Snapshot (2020, April 24). The Gov Lab,
See
Medium. Retrieved from: https://crowd.law/continuity-in-legislatures-amid-covid-19-an-updated-
snapshot-6e935b4b5b54
208
+ In Canada, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs met
over Zoom to review and make recommendations on how to modify the
Standing Orders for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, including
how to enact remote voting.
+ In Argentina, the President of the Chamber of Deputies approved
working remotely via Zoom and videoconference. In the Senate,
committee meetings moved to videoconference.
+ In Chile, the Senate met remotely via Zoom to debate issues.
+ In Brazil, the National Congress passed a resolution which enabled the
594 members of both chambers to work remotely.
Through outreach to congressional staff, and through close examination
of federal agencies, state legislatures, and foreign governments, the
Committee developed a better understanding of the many complexities
inherent in continuity of government planning. This background helped shape
the committee’s continuity recommendations, which are described next.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT AND
CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS
1. Each office should have a continuity of operations plan, including minimum
safety requirements and an emergency communications plan, that is made
available to all staff, so offices continue functioning for the public.
The Committee determined that offices do not have standard continuity
of operations plan (COOP) framework. This leads to inconsistency and
confusion and puts staff in a precarious position. During the COVID-19
pandemic, for example, some offices required staff to report to the office for
work, while some government and health officials were urging all Americans to
stay home. Providing House offices with a standardized, detailed COOP that
can be customized to fit individual office and district needs will minimize
inconsistencies across offices and ensure the safety of Members and staff.
Office COOPs should include detailed emergency communication plans
for office staff that explain how staff will communicate, phone forwarding
plans, email management, and video conferencing systems. For new Members,
these plans should be developed during orientation; for current Members,
these plans should be developed at the beginning of the next congressional
session. Plans should be included in employee handbooks and made easily
accessible to all staff. District office handbooks could include information on
how to transition to remote work, including for phone and computer
operations. Additionally, District Directors should be consulted during the
development of COOPs to ensure that district offices have a telework policy in
place.
209
2. Ensure that staff have the most up-to-date technology and equipment to
continue effectively working on behalf of constituents in the event of a
disruption or emergency.
When a crisis occurs, offices need to be prepared to make a seamless
transition to remote work. During the initial weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic,
when most House offices issued mandatory work-from-home directives, some
offices lacked the equipment necessary for all staff to successfully work
remotely. Ensuring that all offices and staff have the technology necessary for
everyone to telework efficiently and effectively improves continuity of
government operations.
The Committee recommends that office COOP and technology
purchasing plans provide for up-to-date, VPN-capable laptops for all staff in
both Washington, D.C. and district offices, as well as equipment and support
necessary to forward D.C. and district-office phones. The House should also
consider purchasing secure Wi-Fi connections or “hot spots” for increased
connectivity during remote work periods, particularly in districts with poor
connectivity. Telework technology in district offices should include tools
necessary for continued communication with constituents, including phones
and scanners.
To ease this process, an Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), the HR
HUB, and the Sergeant at Arms’ Emergency Management Division should
assist new Members and staff who request help with technology purchases
during the orientation process.
3. Establish regular maintenance plans for office technology, so the equipment
and technology needed during remote operations and telework is functional.
In addition to having the equipment necessary for remote work, House
offices need regular, consistent technology updates. During the COVID-19
pandemic, the transition to remote work was difficult for offices with
out-of-date equipment and software. Regularly-scheduled technology
assessments and updates will help ease the transition to telework so that
when staff suddenly have to work from home for extended periods of time,
they are prepared.
The Committee recommends that OTA, in consultation with the HR HUB
and the Sergeant at Arms’ Emergency Management Division where
appropriate, assist Members with the maintenance of their office technology
systems. Additionally, the OTA should establish a technology maintenance
checklist for individual offices to reference.
4. Crisis communications guidelines for constituent communication, including
outreach plans for extended telework periods, should be approved and
shared with all Member offices.
Communicating with and assisting constituents during a crisis like the
COVID-19 pandemic can be challenging. Office staff need to act quickly to
address constituent concerns but are slowed by limited access to resources,
210
complicated approval processes, outdated ethics and franking rules, and high
costs. Guidelines on handling constituent communications in emergency
circumstances would help offices better prepare to communicate with and
help constituents during a crisis.
The House Communication Standards Commission should outline an
expedited review process, as well as crisis-specific sample text for offices to
reference. In particular, the Commission should consider exceptions to current
“blackout dates” to allow Members to communicate emergency information to
their constituents.
At the conclusion of the 116th Congress, the Commission should
provide a report to the Committee on House Administration evaluating
Member use of the frank during the COVID-19 pandemic, including any
violations that may have occurred, and recommendations for improvement.
5. To help streamline casework requests and help constituents better access
federal agencies and resources, the House should implement a secure
document management system, and provide digital forms and templates for
public access.
Offices must be able to handle constituent casework remotely and
securely. When a crisis requires staff to work remotely for an extended period,
staff must be able to securely and seamlessly access and process constituent
casework. A House-wide secure document-sharing system would ease this
process, as would the provision of digital forms and templates for district
casework. Such a system will prevent personal information from being
insecurely shared via email. All offices should also have a digital checkoff on
privacy release forms allowing them to seamlessly transfer constituent cases
to their successors.
6. The House should prioritize the approval of platforms that staff need for
effective telework, and each individual staff member should have licensed
access to the approved technology.
Due to a lack of guidance and preparation, many offices were
unprepared to use remote communication technologies and software when
the COVID-19 pandemic required extended work from home. As a result, some
offices relied upon software and programs that were not officially approved by
the House. Additionally, staff had difficulty accessing programs because of
shared license agreements. Providing offices with approved software for video
conferencing and remote communications, as well as providing licenses for
that software to individual staff, would enable a smoother transition to
telework.
The Committee recommends that HIR and OTA prioritize software
licenses and updates reflective of congressional needs. Building off of
recommendations to streamline congressional purchases to save taxpayer
dollars, the House should also consider bulk purchases of software licenses.
211
HIR and OTA should also evaluate hardware updates to facilitate software
improvements; this could take the form of an “approved hardware catalogue”
that advises offices on which machines to buy.
7. Committees should establish telework policies on a bipartisan basis.
Transparency in the legislative process is hindered during extended
periods of telework due to fewer public committee markups and slowdowns in
agency response to committee requests for information. Committees should
have audio and video communications programs in place, as well as a
bipartisan plan for sharing relevant committee information with the public.
Committees should evaluate current needs of committee rooms to achieve
remote capabilities.
Additionally, committees should establish bipartisan telework policies
that detail how information will be recorded, stored, and shared electronically
with the public. Committees should be given flexibility to customize bipartisan
plans that work for their Members. These plans should also include an outline
for external communication with federal agencies, so that committees are
prepared to continue conducting oversight and hold agencies in their
jurisdiction accountable during telework periods. Committees could also
consider remote voting opportunities, expounded on elsewhere in this report,
to make committee activity more efficient and transparent.
8. The House should make permanent the option to electronically submit
committee reports.
A pilot program to allow committees to electronically submit committee
reports was put into place in May 2020 via H.Res.965.237 The program was
intended to be temporary, in response to the COVID-19 telework requirements.
But because the electronic submission of committee reports has been shown
to make committee work more efficient, accessible, and transparent, the
Committee recommends that the House make the pilot program permanent.
While committees would not be required to submit reports electronically, all
committees should have the option to do so, regardless of whether the
committee is teleworking or working in person.
9. Expand the use of digital signatures for a majority of House business,
including constituent communications.
The Committee previously passed a recommendation to allow Members
to electronically add or remove their name as a bill cosponsor, thereby
updating a cumbersome process. This technology should be expanded to
allow digital signatures on other documents to increase efficiency, and to
allow Members to designate a staff Member who can approve use of a
Member’s digital signature.
237. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/965
See
212
Additionally, the House should support the Committee on House
Administration’s efforts to create a centralized website for the online
submission and acceptance of digital signatures.
10. Committees should develop bipartisan plans on how technology and
innovative platforms can be best incorporated into daily work.
While some committees have introduced technology into processes to
make work more efficient, most committees have not. For example,
committees could save time by voting electronically, especially during long
markups with a lot of amendments. Using tablets for document sharing in
committee also saves time, as well as paper. Upgrades should also allow
Members to plug in their own devices at the dais.
Once initial infrastructure and security needs are understood, the House
as a whole should consider allowing Members to use personal tablets for their
committee work.
11. A bipartisan, bicameral task force should identify lessons learned during the
COVID-19 pandemic and recommend continuity of Congress improvements.
The Committee has recommended specific continuity of governance and
operations reforms, but there is a need for a wholistic understanding of how
Congress responded to the COVID-19 pandemic and how the institution can
better prepare for future crises. A bipartisan, bicameral task force should
produce an updated, objective report of the response and offer
recommendations for how Congress can best prepare for congressional
continuity.
When making recommendations, the task force should consider how
other legislatures (such as state legislatures and foreign governments)
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic and extended telework periods. This
should also go beyond physical and technical reforms, and consider actual
continuity of government leadership, similar to goal of the 9/11 Commission.
12. Continuity, telework and cybersecurity training should be given to all new
Members of Congress.
While many House offices were unprepared for the sudden and
extended period of remote work due to the COVID-19 pandemic, freshman
Members needed extra guidance due to their lack of institutional experience.
Guidance on preparing an office COOP should be provided in new Member
orientation, as well as at the beginning of each new session of Congress for
Members on an as-needed basis. In addition to COOP guidance, new Members
should receive the rigorous cybersecurity training, as previously
recommended by the Committee, including information on the risks of
working in a remote environment.
213
13. A study should be conducted related to House functions during the COVID-19
pandemic to evaluate additional operational needs or changes to operations
that are no longer appropriate.
The COVID-19 pandemic lurched Congress into a continuity of
operations plan, but there is still work to be done to prepare for future crises.
The Committee passed an additional recommendation on September 24, 2020,
requesting a study on House functions during the remote work period. Not
only is there likely room for improvement, but there are also some newly
implemented practices that might no longer be necessary. This evaluation
should evaluate:
+ Staffing levels to ensure the clerk’s office has the proper amount of
full-time employees (FTEs) to support legislative operations.
+ Expenses related to floor/legislative operations, including the cost
e-processes as well as what e-processes will remain after the pandemic is
over.
+ Systems in use/or available to the Clerk’s office, and the amount needed
to support/develop/procure relevant systems to operations.
+ Operations in use by the standing and select committees to ensure that
there is a standard system for the Committees as they update their
internal processes.
CONCLUSION
The 13 continuity recommendations discussed in this chapter reflect the
Committee’s focus on making Congress work better for the American people,
no matter the circumstances. The health, safety, and economic challenges
Americans experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic made clear that
during a crisis, Congress needs to be prepared to continue serving the people.
Consistent with the committee’s mandate, these recommendations focus on
bolstering the House’s institutional capacity to more seamlessly adapt and
respond to emergency scenarios.
Given the exceptional circumstances the COVID-19 pandemic presented,
the Committee chose to study how federal agencies, and state and foreign
governments, adapted and responded to the crisis in real time. This search for
innovative ideas and best practices was consistent with the Committee’s
overall approach to understanding problems, and then developing solutions
appropriate to Congress. Throughout its tenure, the Committee has also
engaged in outreach to D.C. and district staff in order to better understand the
unique challenges they face. The perspectives that staff shared on working
through the pandemic proved invaluable as the Committee developed its
continuity recommendations.
214
When it became clear that the COVID-19 pandemic was not a
short-term emergency, the Modernization Committee recognized that the
lessons learned during this time were critical in preparing Congress for future
crises. These recommendations are a first step in helping Congress better
prepare for continuity of government, no matter the circumstances. Future
work should consider a more thorough analysis of continuity of operations in
Congress and the chain of federal command under crisis.238
238. See Section IV: Conclusion, for a discussion on future areas for reform.
215
CHAPTER 10 —
Reclaim Congress’ Article One Responsibilities
RECOMMENDATIONS TO RECLAIM CONGRESS’ ARTICLE ONE
RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Committees or subcommittees should experiment with alternative
hearing formats and alternatives to the five-minute rule for questioning
witnesses.
2. Committees should hire bipartisan staff approved by both the Chair and
Ranking Member to promote strong institutional knowledge,
evidence-based policy making, and a less partisan oversight agenda.
3. Committees should hold bipartisan pre-hearing committee meetings.
4. Encourage pilot rule changes in subcommittees.
5. At a bipartisan Member retreat (as recommended by the Select
Committee) committees should have at least two-thirds of their Members
meet separately to determine the committee’s goals for the year, and to
discuss how the Members will treat each other in public and in private,
and how the committee will treat witnesses during hearings.
6. Establish committee-based domestic policy congressional delegation
trips (CODELs).
7. Establish a pilot for weekly Oxford-style debates on the House floor to be
managed by a task force of bipartisan Members established by majority
and minority leadership and selected from Members of relevant Member
Organizations.
8. Provide Members and staff with training for debate and deliberation skills.
9. The GAO should study the feasibility and effectiveness of a Congressional
Office on Regulatory Rules, and a Congressional Office of Legal Counsel.
10. Pass bipartisan legislation establishing Congress has standing in the
courts and set expedited procedures for conflicts between the branches.
11. The Committee on House Administration should establish a district
exchange program to allow Members to use the MRA for traveling to
other Members’ districts.
12. Increase capacity for policy staff, especially for Committees, policy
support organizations (GAO, CBO, CRS) and a restored OTA, and perhaps
restored capacity to member-supporting legislative service organizations,
and updated technology resources. Additionally, House support
organizations (GAO, CBO, CRS) should evaluate their mission, how they
have evolved over time, and if there is a further need to modernize, and
incorporate the results of this review in their budget justifications to the
Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations and other relevant
committees.
216
RECOMMENDATIONS TO RECLAIM CONGRESS’ POWER OF THE
PURSE
13. Reduce dysfunction in the annual budgeting process through the
establishment of a congressionally-directed program that calls for
transparency and accountability, and that supports meaningful and
transformative investments in local communities across the United States.
The program will harness the authority of Congress under Article One of
the Constitution to appropriate federal dollars.
217
INTRODUCTION
Throughout its tenure, the Committee maintained a consistent focus on
the Article One powers given to Congress by the Founding Fathers. Created
by the Framers as a co-equal branch of government, Congress’ specific
constitutional powers allow Members to directly serve the American people.
But over the past several decades, Congress’ standing as a co-equal branch of
government has softened. The executive branch has expanded in size and
scope of power. Ongoing cuts to the legislative branch have jeopardized
Congress’ ability to effectively perform its policymaking, oversight, and
representational responsibilities. Reductions in the legislative budget have
resulted in staff cuts across congressional offices and support agencies,
further weakening the institution. The executive branch has taken control of
the purse strings, allocating funding for state and local projects and programs
without congressional appropriations or approval. These dire circumstances
led the Committee to examine why the executive branch has expanded while
the legislative branch has not, and to find ways to build capacity and ensure
that Congress can uphold its Article One obligations. As Committee Member
Rep. Zoe Lofgren said during a January 14, 2020 hearing:
Image 10.1: Rep. Zoe Lofgren speaks during a Select Committee hearing.
"...over a period of decades that power has shifted from the
legislative branch to the executive branch. And I think that is
clearly the case. How we rebalance that is a challenge, not only in
terms of the institutional capacity, which you have addressed, but
also in a fight between the leg branch and the executive branch."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, January 14, 2020
The Committee also considered the impact of increased political
polarization and partisanship on the legislative branch’s ability to execute the
Article One principle of debate and deliberation. While division is a natural and
218
necessary part of the political process,239 when taken to extreme it hurts the
institution and the people it’s designed to serve. As Committee Member Rob
Woodall put it in an interview with the American Political Science Association,
“Congress has become more interested in being Republican and Democrat
than Article One and Article Two.”240 Recent historical changes in the
procedures and politics of the House have contributed to this trend, leading
the Committee to explore different approaches that foster a more deliberative
process on the House floor and in committee.
Through a series of public hearings and committee meetings,
Committee Members examined these factors and looked for ways to improve
and strengthen Congress’s Article One responsibilities.241 The result is thirteen
recommendations that aim to reclaim Congress’s Article One responsibilities.
The package of recommendations improve capacity by facilitating
bipartisanship and expertise in Congress. In particular, the Committee sought
operational and procedural solutions to encourage a more thoughtful and
deliberative process in committees. This section also addresses Congress’s
power of the purse under Article One by introducing a new
Community-Focused Grant Program. This program facilitates community and
Member input in the appropriations process.
SECTION I: THE HISTORY AND DECLINE OF CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORITY
EXECUTIVE BRANCH EXPANSION
Since World War II, under presidents of both parties, the federal
government has expanded in size and scope, leading to the rise of an
administrative state that rivals the policymaking authority of Congress.242 The
modern executive branch exercises extraordinary influence over the
policymaking process via several factors, including: an increased federal
workforce that heavily employs private contractors; bureaucratic rulemaking
authority; and the expanded use of executive orders, presidential emergency
powers, and policy czars. These tools allow modern presidents to act quickly
in a crisis, and to lead when Congress is slowed by political or procedural
gridlock. As Dr. Rachel Augustine Potter noted in testimony before the
Committee:
239. APSA Committee on Parties, “Towards a More Responsible Two-Party System,” American Political
See
Science Review, Supplement, 44.3 (September 1950): 1-96; E.E. Schattschneider, Party Government:
American Government in Action (New York, Transaction Publishers, 1942).
240. Woodall R. (2020, September 12). Perspectives on Polarized Governance: Reflections of Two Departing
See
Members of Congress (Rouse, S. for the American Political Science Association).
241. Article One: Restoring Congressional Capacity and Equipping Congress to Better Serve the American
See
People. 116th Congress (2020, January 14); Article One: Fostering a More Deliberative Debate in
Congress. 116th Congress (2020, February 5).
242. Congressional Oversight: An Overview (CRS R41079) (2010, February 22).
See
219
“Among scholars, there is consensus that the executive branch
has amassed considerable influence from its modest standing at
our nation’s founding. Today, the executive branch is
sophisticated, complex, and large. It is comprised of millions of
people engaged in a diverse set of tasks.”
Dr. Rachel Augustine Potter, January 14, 2020
Modern presidents are also assisted by countless policy experts who
serve in executive agencies across the federal government. The executive
branch has added a dozen new agencies since 1789 when there were only
three (State, Treasury, and War).243 While there is no official inventory of
federal agencies, one recent count puts the current total at 278 distinct
agencies in the executive branch. Most of these agencies were created via
legislation passed by Congress, but others were created by the executive itself
through a departmental order, executive order, or a reorganization plan.244
And once agencies are created, they rarely die (though their missions
sometimes change).
Given the scope of what the federal government does, its size is not
surprising. Federal agencies are responsible for everything from guaranteeing
the safety of the food we eat to deep space exploration. And as society grows
increasingly complex and advanced, government expands to accommodate
new realms of regulation. This growth has unfortunately been coupled with a
decrease in congressional expertise that ultimately leads to broad legislation
and a deferral of rulemaking.245 Over time, this expansion has led to growth in
administrative rulemaking, further extending and entrenching executive
branch power.246
Executive agency administrators do more than simply “faithfully
execute” the laws passed by Congress. They exercise influence over the
process by issuing regulations that have the force of law; formulating policy
initiatives for Congress and the White House; interpreting statutes in ways that
may expand their discretionary authority; and shaping policy by promoting
their ideas to lawmakers and committees via the hearing process, the issuance
of agency reports, and in meetings with congressional staff.247
243. Ibid.
See
244. See
Ibid.
245. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2015). The politics of information: Problem definition and the course
See
of public policy in America. University of Chicago Press.
246. Article One: Restoring Congressional Capacity and Equipping Congress to Better Serve the American
See
People. 116th Congress (2020, January 14) (testimony of Dr. Rachel Augustine Potter).
247. Congressional Oversight: An Overview (CRS R41079) (2010, February 22).
See
220
While Congress has used its “power of the purse” to increase federal
discretionary spending over the past several decades, it has invested little in
its own capacity since the 1990s. This hasn’t always been the case: legislative
branch spending grew in the 1940s and early 1970s as Congress increased its
staff, reorganized internal structures, and expanded and created new
legislative support agencies.248
Image 10.2: Chair Derek Kilmer speaks during a Select Committee hearing on
Congress’ Article One responsibilities.
“Successful institutions—whether we’re talking businesses,
organizations, or governments—depend on people who are
invested in the work they’re doing. That’s fundamental. But
successful institutions also invest in themselves. They invest in
their employees, their infrastructure, and in the overall work
environment and experience. They think and plan with an eye
towards the future.”
Chair Derek Kilmer, January 14, 2020
By the early 1990s, however, the political winds had shifted, and many
House candidates campaigned on a message of downsizing Congress and
eliminating waste. Once elected, these Members kept their campaign pledges
to slash legislative branch budgets and reduce staff. Doing so was viewed as
“an easy way to signal fiscal conservative bona fides without having to take
hard votes to cancel school lunch programs or slash entitlement benefits.”249
248. Article One: Restoring Congressional Capacity and Equipping Congress to Better Serve the American
See
People. 116th Congress (2020, January 14) (testimony of Dr. Kevin Kosar).
249. Rebuilding Congress’ Capacity, Federalist Society (2020, July 8).
See
221
The challenge, from a capacity-building perspective, is restoring funding
once it’s been eliminated. Many Members are loath to vote in favor of
increasing their own budgets—especially when they’ve pursued cuts in
executive branch spending. As a result, legislative branch spending has
remained stagnant since the early 1990s. The next section considers how
these reductions over time have weakened congressional capacity, making it
difficult for Congress to fulfill its Article One responsibilities.
CONGRESSIONAL CAPACITY
Many Members fear the political consequences of voting to invest in
Congress. At the same time, most recognize that the American people want a
functional and productive institution.250 Constituents rightfully expect
responsive representation; they want Members to answer their questions and
fulfill their requests. But today, the average population of a congressional
district is more than triple the average population of a 1910 congressional
district.251 As the number of constituents Members represent continues to
grow, and as the policy agenda expands and becomes increasingly complex,
Members are challenged to do more with less.
“Demands upon Congress have grown immensely over the past
century, and Congress has actually divested in its capacity over
the past 40 years. In tandem, these divergent trendlines all but
ensure that Congress will fall short of the expectations of
legislators, staff and the public.”
Dr. Kevin Kosar, January 14, 2020252
Broadly defined, congressional capacity refers to the broad range of
factors that Congress needs to fulfill its Article One responsibilities. Congress
was established as the first among co-equal branches of government and is
expected to resolve public problems through legislating, budgeting, holding
hearings, and conducting oversight.253 In performing these responsibilities,
Members of Congress are also expected to represent the views of those who
elect them to serve. Given the range of responsibilities assigned to the
legislative branch, it’s useful to think of capacity as what Congress needs to
successfully fulfill its constitutional obligations.
250. Ibid.
See
251. Congressional Apportionment, 2010 Census Brief. U.S. Census Bureau (2011, November).
See
252. Article One: Restoring Congressional Capacity and Equipping Congress to Better Serve the American
See
People. 116th Congress (2020, January 14) (testimony of Dr. Kevin Kosar).
253. Ibid.
See
222
STAFF AND LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT AGENCIES
“Congress has managed to attract extremely talented and
dedicated staff and committees like this one continue to be
productive despite the many challenges this institution faces.
Congress is fueled by people who believe strongly in the mission
they’re either elected or hired to do. But fulfilling that mission has
become harder over the past several decades, primarily due to
decisions and choices Congress has made.”
Chair Derek Kilmer, January 14, 2020
As discussed throughout Chapter 3, congressional staff serve as the
backbone of the institution, and retaining them with higher pay and better
benefits will improve the institution. In addition to the staff in individual
Member offices, nonpartisan support agencies help by providing invaluable
research and expertise. The figure below shows the total congressional staff
count by chamber, as well total staff employed by legislative support agencies
like the Congressional Research Service and the Congressional Budget Office.
Total staff between the two chambers peaked in 1991 and fell nearly 19
percent by 2015. Rather than mitigating reductions in congressional staff with
increases in legislative support agency staff, Congress did just the opposite
and cut these staff by 40 percent.254
254. Ibid and Vital Statistics on Congress, Chapter 5. The Brookings Institution (2019, March 4.)
See
223
Figure 10.1: Decline of Congressional Staff Over Time
Source: Brookings Institution, Vital Statistics of Congress
In addition to the decline of support agencies, Figure 10.1 shows a
decline in committee staff as well. House committee staff numbered 2,321 in
1991 and fell about 50 percent to 1,164 by 2015.255 Notably, House committee
staffing levels fell dramatically in 1995, when the new Republican majority
reorganized the committee structure, eliminating a number of standing
committees and subcommittees. Figure 10.2 details the decline of House and
Senate Committee staff.
255. Vital Statistics on Congress, Chapter 5. The Brookings Institution (2019, March 4.)
See
224
Figure 10.2: House and Senate Committee Staff, 1981-2015
Source: Brookings Institution, Vital Statistics on Congress
Given the important role that committees play in the legislative process,
the cumulative loss of committee staff is of particular concern.256
Policymaking and oversight are two core functions of the legislative branch
and committees are central to these processes. Committee staff tend to have
more experience and more policy and institutional expertise than personal
staff; their departure and the resultant “brain drain” from the Hill leaves
Members more dependent on outside experts like lobbyists—about 40 percent
of whom are former congressional staff.257 As noted in Chapter 1, Figure 1.2,
lobbying expenditures today far outpace overall House and Senate
expenditures. Ultimately, reduced committee capacity, combined with the
expansion of lobbying, has sorely diminished Congress’ ability to carry out its
Article One obligations.
256. See for detailed committee staffing trends: Who’s on the Hill: Staffing and Human Capital in Congress’
Legislative Committees, R Street Institute (Burgat, Casey and Dukeman, Ryan) (2018).
257. Article One: Restoring Congressional Capacity and Equipping Congress to Better Serve the American
See
People. 116th Congress (2020, January 14) (testimony of Dr. Kevin Kosar).
225
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT
As a co-equal branch of government, Congress is empowered by the
Constitution to oversee the executive branch. Oversight is conducted by
congressional committees for the purpose of ensuring that federal money is
spent, and federal programs are implemented, in accordance with Congress’
directives. But cuts to committee budgets and staff have made it more
challenging to perform ongoing and comprehensive oversight. Recognizing
the importance of overseeing the federal budgets and programs Congress
determines, as well the constraints many committees currently face, the
Committee sought ways to encourage more productive and bipartisan forms
of oversight.
In testimony before the Committee, Elise Bean, a former Senate
oversight staffer who is now with the Levin Center at Wayne State University,
noted that the quality of congressional oversight has varied dramatically over
time. She attributed these variances to a number of factors, including:
inadequate technical expertise on committees; an absence of Congress-wide
oversight standards and norms; restrictive committee rules; and, partisan
polarization. Additionally, Members (and staff) are spread thin and have little
time to absorb large amounts of highly complex material.258
“Oversight … provides Members of Congress with an opportunity
to explore and reach consensus on the facts related to a
particular issue and develop a factual predicate that can lead to
legislation or other appropriate congressional action. Moreover,
when conducted with respect for different points of view and a
commitment to the facts, oversight inquiries can actually
strengthen relationships between Members of the two parties by
helping them develop a mutual understanding of important
issues.”
Elise Bean, January 14, 2020
As noted in the section above, committee staff tend to have more
professional and policymaking experience than personal staff. Their expertise
helps Members understand and navigate complicated policy and oversight
issues. However, drastic cuts in committee staffing levels means that many
committees are operating at sub-optimal levels. Expertise is limited, training is
minimal, and turnover is high. And while all congressional hearings require a
hefty amount of research and preparation, congressional investigations and
oversight are particularly challenging because of the detailed documentation
258. Article One: Restoring Congressional Capacity and Equipping Congress to Better Serve the American
See
People. 116th Congress (2020, January 14) (testimony of Elise Bean).
226
required. Reduced staff capacity means that investigations and oversight
today are often restricted to what’s possible rather than what’s ideal. The
Committee’s recommendations for building staff capacity are addressed in
Chapter 3.
STRUCTURAL AND PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES
While diminished staffing levels impact the level and depth of oversight
and investigative hearings, procedural and operational factors can affect the
form these hearings take. In the House, the majority party sets the rules by
which the chamber operates and controls the chairmanships of House
committees. With the exception of this Committee and the House Committee
on Ethics, where membership is split evenly between the parties, House
committees are weighted heavily in favor of the majority party. The majority
holds more committee seats and maintains control over approximately
two-thirds of the committee’s budget and staff. These structural factors allow
the majority party to exercise greater control over committee output.
In addition to the various structural factors that favor the majority,
committees maintain procedural rules that can affect the quality of hearings.
Topics for public hearings are determined by the majority and depend on the
committee chair. The majority also gets more witnesses than the minority,
which allows them to set the hearing’s tone. A bigger budget and staff also
advantages the majority when it comes to hearing preparation.
Committee chairs control hearings and, while they typically abide by
committee rules, they can waive the rules. While House committees vary in
terms of their norms and procedures, some rules are fairly standard across
committees. For example, many committees have a five-minute rule when it
comes to witness statements and Member questioning of witnesses. Such
limits, however, can make it difficult for Members to obtain meaningful
information; they also sometimes encourage Members to make statements
about the topic at hand rather than ask questions.
While a committee system that favors the majority reflects the House’s
institutional structure, it also increasingly reflects the level of political
polarization. Chapter 2 described how Congress has become more polarized
over the past several decades. This trend affects the tone of committee
discourse, particularly when hearing topics and witnesses are highly partisan.
Rather than encourage a meaningful examination of the facts, politicized
hearings tend to be unproductive, leaving Members and staff—as well as the
viewing public—frustrated with the process and outcome.
227
“There are certainly hearings where this (tried-and-true) format
works reasonably well. But as a forum for hearing expert
testimony, doing serious oversight, examining how a law is being
treated or administered, examining a major national or regional
problem, it has become an anachronism. Hearings far too often
are disjointed, with lines of questioning intermittent, interrupted,
combative and confusing. Members doing their five-minute
rounds are islands unto themselves. Witnesses facing tough
questions know they can filibuster for three or four of the five
minutes, and then often get a five-minute breather as a more
sympathetic questioner does a monologue or throws softballs.
There are better ways to do the public’s business.”
Dr. Norman Ornstein, February 5, 2020
Committee Members recognized that political polarization at the
committee level sometimes spills over to the House floor. Partisan debates in
committee become partisan debates on the floor, with Members more focused
on scoring political points than engaging in thoughtful exchanges with their
colleagues across the aisle. This approach undermines Congress’ ability to
successfully execute the Article One principle of debate and deliberation.
“The Framers intended for Congress to be a deliberative body.
They wanted a system where representatives of a diverse
population would come together and engage in extended periods
of debate and deliberation. Through this process, they would
learn different viewpoints and eventually reach consensus. Those
who lost out would at least be satisfied that their voices were
heard and be more inclined to accept outcomes as legitimate.
"Compromise necessitates trade-offs which means that no one is
going to be 100-percent happy with the final product. But losing
out on policy goals is tempered by at least having a say in the
process. I know that may seem of little consequence, especially
when the policies we’re battling over matter deeply to our
constituents. But the ability to articulate an argument, counter an
opposing position, and engage in a thoughtful exchange of ideas
matters.”
Chair Derek Kilmer, February 5, 2020
Divisions are inherent in our political system but when taken to
extremes, they can weaken Congress’ ability to find compromise solutions.
And when Congress is unable to resolve the policy challenges of the day, the
American people lose faith in the institution.
228
The challenge for Members is to find ways to convey the
often-passionate views of their constituents without further enflaming political
divisiveness. In testimony before the Committee,259 Dr. James Curry suggested
that House procedures can help foster debate when they:
1. minimize opportunities for obstructionist tactics;
2. enable legislators and key negotiators to speak openly and freely;
3. reduce incentives for legislators to play to the cameras, intense
constituencies, or special interests, and;
4. avoid unnecessarily limiting the universe of policies and issues open to
negotiators.
Some of the Committee’s recommendations discussed in other chapters
are consistent with the goals set forth in this framework. For example, the
Committee recommended creating a bipartisan Members-only space in the
Capitol to encourage more collaboration across party lines. Behind-the-scenes
deliberations enable legislators to have necessary and honest discussions that
may not be possible in a public forum.260
With the goal of supporting healthier discourse in committees and on
the House floor, Committee Members focused on developing
recommendations to strengthen committee capacity and encourage bipartisan
productivity. As Woodrow Wilson famously claimed, “… it is not far from the
truth to say that Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst
Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work.”261 By strengthening the
way committees work and by encouraging more thoughtful discourse behind
the scenes and in public proceedings, these recommendations help Congress
uphold its Article One obligations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Committees or subcommittees should experiment with alternative hearing
formats and alternatives to the five-minute rule for questioning witnesses.
Too often, committee hearings fail to produce substantive information
because Members use the five minutes they’re allotted to make political
statements or to ensure that a particular view or assertion goes on the record.
Witnesses can also run down the clock by dodging questions or giving
longwinded responses. Utilizing extended periods for witness questioning
would encourage more substantive dialogue and thoughtful exchanges and
discourage political soundbites.
259. Article One: Fostering Deliberation in the U. S. House of Representatives. 116th Congress. (2020,
See
February 5) (Testimony of Dr. James Curry). https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20200205/
110439/HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-CurryJ-20200205.pdf
260. Ibid.
See
261. Wilson, W. (1885). Congressional government: A study in American politics. Boston, Houghton.
See
229
Example alternative hearing formats could include allowing
thirty-minute rounds to question witnesses and encourage discourse. For
larger committees, groups of Members could be granted thirty-minute blocks
and coordinate their questions. Committees could also experiment with
formats like seating Members and witnesses at the same table, instead of
separating the Members on the dais from witnesses across the room. As this
Committee has done, committees could also experiment with seating
Members of opposing parties next to each other to encourage dialogue and
civility. This Committee, for example, often used a “mixed seating” format
during hearings. Such approaches encourage more bipartisan dialogue
between Members and signal to the public a willingness to work
collaboratively.
Committee chairs and ranking members could encourage use of these
alternative formats by agreeing to incorporate them into committee rules.
2. Committees should hire bipartisan staff approved by both the Chair and
Ranking Member to promote strong institutional knowledge, evidence-based
policy making, and a less partisan oversight agenda.
Committee administrative staff provide important support by handling
tasks such as setting up hearing rooms, handling reports, and archiving
materials. Unlike Senate committees, most House committees hire majority
and minority administrative personnel. This means there are two staffers
handling similar administrative duties. Senate committee staffers who are
hired on a bipartisan basis know they work for Members of both parties and
approach their work with that understanding. Bipartisan staff also have
greater job security as their jobs are not dependent on which party is in the
majority. In addition to encouraging bipartisanship, joint hires save money by
reducing staff overlap.
3. Committees should hold bipartisan pre-hearing committee meetings.
Prior to a committee hearing, Members and staff from both parties
should meet to set goals for the hearing. Such pre-hearing meetings would
reduce the tendency to engage in surprise tactics and defuse partisanship
before it begins. By establishing Chair, Ranking Member, and Member
expectations in pre-hearing meetings, Members can also better plan and
coordinate their witness questions, resulting in a more productive and
substantive hearing. The Committee engaged in this practice, with success.
4. Encourage pilot rule changes in subcommittees.
To build support for process and procedural overhauls at the full
committee level, some subcommittees should be encouraged to experiment
and adopt rule changes as test cases. The Committee recognized that given
the nuances of each House committee, some of the recommended changes in
this chapter will require an extensive overhaul. Thus, the Committee
recommends that rather than no reform, the subcommittee rules changes
230
serve as a pilot program for the committee at large. Subcommittee Members
could then report to their full committees, as well as their respective party
caucuses, on successful experiments they’d recommend be adopted on a
broader level.
5. At a bipartisan Member retreat (as recommended by the Select Committee)
committees should have at least two-thirds of their Members meet separately
to determine the committee’s goals for the year, and to discuss how the
Members will treat each other in public and in private, and how the
committee will treat witnesses during hearings.
In the spirit of encouraging bipartisan collaboration, the Committee
sought innovative ways to encourage Members to work across the aisle at the
committee level. Recognizing that committees are the engines of the policy
making process, Committee Members agreed that committees could be more
productive if Members agreed to a set of common principles and operational
guidelines. Creating a more respectful tone is essential if Members are to build
trust and work collaboratively.
6. Establish committee-based domestic policy congressional delegation trips
(CODELs).
The House should create bipartisan opportunities for Members to learn
more about the federal programs within their committees' jurisdictions.
Domestic CODELS would allow Members to have substantive, off-camera
conversations about their policy areas, while getting to know each other on a
bipartisan basis. As Jason Grumet, President of the Bipartisan Policy Center,
testified to the Committee:262
“One of the most effective and practical opportunities to build
shared knowledge and trust among Members are bipartisan
fact-finding trips. In recent years, these critical opportunities have
been unfairly stigmatized as junkets. Congressional leadership,
committee chairs and ranking Members must confront this
characterization and actively encourage lawmakers to take
educational trips together.”
Jason Grumet, September 26, 2019
In order to strengthen Congress’ deliberative capacity, Members must
have practical opportunities to forge relationships. Domestic, policy-based
CODELs allow Members to learn together, share knowledge and experiences,
and develop lasting professional and personal bonds.
262. Promoting Civility and Building a More Collaborative Congress. 116th Congress (2019, September 26)
See
(testimony of Jason Grumet).
231
7. Establish a pilot for weekly Oxford-style debates on the House floor to be
managed by a task force of bipartisan Members established by majority and
minority leadership and selected from Members of relevant Member
Organizations.
Oxford-style debate formats feature a debate on a predetermined topic
from two opposing perspectives. The two sides argue either for or against the
topic, within a structured format. Weekly Oxford-style debates focusing on
national issues would demonstrate that Congress takes the Article One
principle of debate and deliberation seriously, and that Members can grapple
with important problems while maintaining civility. Debates would also
showcase Members with policy expertise and encourage a broader national
conversation.
A bipartisan working group could determine debate topics, pick teams
of Members to argue either side of an issue, and schedule the debates
throughout the session. The debates should begin on topics that cut across
party lines to demonstrate bipartisan consensus on certain issues.
This was recommended by the last select committee, the Joint
Committee on the Organization of Congress in 1993, but their reforms were
not implemented.263 However, the Committee felt strongly that Congress
should return to substantial and quality policy debates. Even if only a
temporary, pilot program, the Committee recommends this as an important
step to improve bipartisan lawmaking and congressional expertise. In
describing the value of such debates, Dr. Norman Ornstein noted that:264
“… they can show a common understanding of problems and
challenges that we face, with our differences over how to
surmount them … they can show that not all divisions in the
country are Democrats versus Republicans.”
Dr. Norman Ornstein, February 5, 2020
8. Provide Members and staff with training for debate and deliberation skills.
During new session orientations, Members should attend training on
overall legislative debate, Oxford-style debate principles and strategies, as well
as workshops on how to process and understand opposing policy views. The
training should be bipartisan, led by professionals, and should occur outside of
Congress. To further foster bipartisanship, staff should also receive this
training.
263. See Part II for an overview of prior select committees.
264. Article One: Fostering a More Deliberative Process in Congress. 116th Congress (2020, February 5)
See
(testimony of Dr. Norman Ornstein).
232
“I never participated in debate classes. My parents might have
made the argument that I was … good at arguing, but never really
learned debate. Here, the structure is not set up to where that
dialogue does occur. It seems like each committee and even the
House floor is not positioned in a way that we are there to
persuade opinion. It is more, we are articulating a singular point,
defending something rather than persuading.”
Vice Chair Tom Graves, February 5, 2020265
9. The GAO should study the feasibility and effectiveness of a Congressional
Office on Regulatory Rules, and a Congressional Office of Legal Counsel.
Rather than delegate rulemaking power to the executive branch,
Congress should consider employing policy experts to draft, or provide
drafting guidance on regulatory rules for implementing the laws Congress
passes. This office would serve as a counterpart to similar offices in the
executive and judicial branches and would be responsible for issuing legal
opinions that support Congress and answer Department of Justice opinions
that conflict with congressional intent. Such an office could be housed in the
House’s Office of General Counsel or the Congressional Research Service.
While the Committee considered recommending the full implementation
of a Congressional Office on Regulatory Rules and a Congressional Office of
Legal Counsel, questions on jurisdiction, logistics, and cost arose during
Member discussions. Thus, the Committee recommends an initial study to
determine the feasibility of these nonpartisan resources.
10. Pass bipartisan legislation establishing Congress has standing in the courts
and set expedited procedures for conflicts between the branches.
Judicial proceedings are the only route to adjudicate conflicts between
the executive and legislative branches, but these proceedings can take months
or years to resolve. These delays impede Congress’ ability to uphold its Article
One responsibilities. For this reason, Congress should enact legislation
establishing that Congress has judicial standing to bring inter-branch conflicts
to the courts, and that expedited procedures are necessary.
11. The Committee on House Administration should establish a district exchange
program to allow Members to use the MRA for traveling to other Members’
districts.
As already noted, Members need more opportunities to forge
professional and personal relationships. By visiting each other's districts,
Members are more likely to find common issues to work on together. They also
gain an appreciation for the issues that their colleagues from different districts
confront. For example, a Member from an urban district might not appreciate
265. Article One: Fostering a More Deliberative Process in Congress. 116th Congress (2020, February 5)
See
233
the policy concerns of their colleagues from rural districts and vice versa.
Immersing themselves in the issues of a different district—even if just for one
or two days—is a valuable learning and relationship-building experience for
Members.
Members of the Committee who engaged in these programs spoke to
their effectiveness. Rep. Newhouse, reflecting on a district exchange with
Chair Kilmer, said during the February 5, 2020 hearing:
“I went to [Rep. Kilmer’s] district; he came to mine. And
something that stuck with me, he said something along the lines
of, ‘It is really hard to know where someone is coming from if you
don't know where they come from.’ And so, you know, it is as
simple as that, but it is very true. And it is very helpful to walk a
mile in another person's shoes in their district… we need to do
more of those kinds of things. Build those relationships, and then
it is harder to talk trash about somebody you actually care about,
right?”
Rep. Dan Newhouse, February 5, 2020
12. Increase capacity for policy staff, especially for Committees, policy support
organizations (GAO, CBO, CRS) and a restored OTA, and perhaps restored
capacity to member-supporting legislative service organizations, and
updated technology resources.
Additionally, House support organizations (GAO, CBO, CRS) should evaluate
their mission, how they have evolved over time, and if there is a further need
to modernize, and incorporate the results of this review in their budget
justifications to the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations and
other relevant committees.
As noted earlier in this chapter, Congress has seen a major reduction in
committee staffing levels over the past several decades. Committee staff tend
to have more experience and more policy and institutional expertise than
personal office staff. The number of policy experts who work at legislative
support agencies have also been cut dramatically. The departure of these
specialists and the resultant “brain drain” from the Hill leaves Members more
dependent on outside experts like lobbyists. Because reduced committee
capacity, combined with the expansion of lobbying, has sorely diminished
Congress’ ability to carry out its Article One obligations, Committee Members
agreed that increasing policy staff capacity is essential.
SECTION II: ARTICLE ONE AND THE POWER OF THE PURSE
The Committee’s exploration of Article One was in many ways about
looking inward. Article One establishes the legislative branch and enumerates
Congress’ constitutional powers. But Congress’ capacity to uphold these
powers has weakened, drastically affecting the institution’s ability to properly
234
serve the American people. Unfortunately, this has also impacted Congress’
ability to allocate funding for state and local projects and programs (also
known as discretionary grant spending).
The power of the purse is, arguably, Congress’ most essential
responsibility. Laid out by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution,
Article One provides a critical building block for the legislative branch, and
explicitly designates to the U.S. House the responsibility of appropriating
funds:
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments as on other Bills.”
U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence
of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and
Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money
shall be published from time to time.”
U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7
While Congress continues to negotiate funding levels for federal
agencies and programs, the decision-making on who receives competitive
discretionary grants is being done by unelected executive branch officials.266
No one knows a district’s needs better than the Member elected to represent
their community. But the current system doesn’t acknowledge this reality and
leaves the funding decisions up to executive branch officials that are more
disconnected from a community’s needs.
This shift in decision-making from Members of Congress to the executive
branch has serious implications for the American people. It is not only a
breach of the expectations outlined in the Constitution, but perhaps more
importantly, when decision-making is removed from Congress, there is
substantially less accountability for how taxpayer dollars are spent. Members,
not unelected officials, should be advocating for and making the decisions
about the projects needed to improve the community that they call home.
Executive branch control of discretionary grant spending is a relatively
new trend. Previously permitted Member-directed spending was eliminated in
2011, in part because of a perceived lack of transparency. The Committee
sought to address the problem with not only constitutionality and community
in mind, but also transparency and accountability. The result is a
266. Hudak, J. (2014). Presidential pork: White House influence over the distribution of federal grants.
See
Brookings Institution Press.
235
Community-Focused Grant Program (CFGP) that allows Members of Congress
to advocate for district-specific projects requested by the communities
themselves. The process is grounded in community input, bipartisan support,
and unprecedented transparency.
This section outlines a CFGP that will reinstate Congress’ power of the
purse, and put the decision making for local projects in the hands of those
who know their community best: the communities and the Members elected to
represent their interests in Congress. The remainder of this section provides
the history and background on how competitive discretionary grant spending
is allocated, discusses prior efforts to reclaim the power of the purse, and
details the Committee’s CFGP recommendation and the process for
developing this recommendation.
BACKGROUND ON CONGRESS’ POWER OF THE PURSE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONTROL OF CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING
As discussed above, the growth of the United States population and
economy since World War II has led to a massive increase in the
responsibilities of the federal government. But while the House has stayed the
same size at 435 Representatives since 1929, the executive branch has
continued to expand.267 This chapter has outlined the impact of this significant
growth in the executive branch on rulemaking, congressional oversight, and
capacity, but it has had a particularly concerning impact on discretionary
grant spending.
Congress still maintains some control over expenditures in certain areas.
One of these areas includes block grant funding, which are federal funds set
aside for a specific state program or community.268 But for a large chunk of
spending, Congress determines spending levels and baseline amounts—not
the actual recipients of these tax dollars.269 Instead, the executive branch,
appointees, and federal officials make these decisions on behalf of Congress
and the American people. These grants add up to a tremendous amount of
money. In his book on executive branch spending, Dr. John Hudak estimates
that well over $100 billion each year is spent by unelected federal officials, in
projects in all 50 states.270 The executive branch, rather than Congress, makes
decisions about funding schools, community programs, bridges, and countless
267. The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. (n.d.) (Office of the Historian, Office of the Clerk, U.S.
See
House). https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-
Act-of-1929/
268. Lee, F. E. and Oppenheimer, B. I. (1999). Sizing up the Senate: The unequal consequences of equal
See
representation. University of Chicago Press.
269. Hudak, J. (2014). Presidential pork: White House influence over the distribution of federal grants.
See
Brookings Institution Press.
270. Ibid.
See
236
other projects with implications for domestic policy. Research has found that
Presidents often use these grants to influence policy and support their
preferred projects without receiving approval from Congress.271
From a Constitutional standpoint, this is a worrisome breach of Article
One responsibilities. As Dr. Hudak noted in his testimony to the Committee on
January 14, 2020:
“Congress has spent decades delegating power to the executive
branch and right now stands at a moment in history where the
institution is weakened. Congress’ ability to perform its
constitutionally mandated tasks has been hampered. And
nowhere is this issue more important and more damning than in
the arena of spending power. In Article I, sections 8 and 9 of the
Constitution, Congress is charged to pass laws, to fund
government operations, and make significant choices over the
amount of money that is spent by which institutions and under
what conditions. I would argue that, in the past 20 years in
particular, Congress has undermined its own spending power and
simultaneously empowered the executive beyond practical
necessity.”
John Hudak, January 14, 2020272
Beyond reclaiming the Article One power outlined in the Constitution,
the current process of allocating billions of dollars around the country lacks
transparency. This massive amount of spending is often “overlooked as the
public, the media, and academics focus on congressional ribbon cutting.”273 It
is very difficult to track not only the outcome of executive discretionary
spending, but the actual process of project application and selection. While
there are some publicized formulas that detail how projects are prioritized, the
American people—and even most Members of Congress—have no way of
knowing how agencies ultimately select projects for funding. Given that
taxpayer dollars are being allocated, this too is a concerning violation of
Article One responsibilities.
Furthermore, any federal formulaic approaches, even the
best-intentioned and objective ones, do not have the level of nuanced
understanding of the district that Members of Congress and community
leaders do. Members of Congress know their congressional districts arguably
better than most. They understand how a school program would support a
271. Scheck, T. and Busche, K. (2019, May 23). How Congress, Trump and Obama played favorites with
See
transportation money. APM Reports. https://www.apmreports.org/story/2019/05/23/congress-
earmarks-tiger-build-grants
272. Article One: Restoring Capacity and Equipping Congress to Better Serve the American People. 116th
See
Congress. (2020, January 14). (Testimony from Dr. John Hudak).
273. Hudak, J. (2014). Presidential pork: White House influence over the distribution of federal grants.
See
Brookings Institution Press.
237
neighborhood, which bridges are in need of repair, and the importance of
community health centers. In addition, Members and their staff tend to have
deep relationships with community leaders and organizations. Executive
branch employees—even the most experienced ones—do not have the depth
of knowledge and community relationships that Members of Congress are
required to have to be successful.
THE DECLINE OF REGULAR ORDER IN THE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS
This drift towards executive branch spending has also removed an
important tool from the congressional appropriations process. Prior to reforms
in the 112th Congress (2011-2012) that removed Member-directed spending
from the appropriations process, Members worked closely together to craft
legislation that would serve the needs of districts across the country. Projects
that spanned multiple congressional districts were a source of unity, and the
result was a bipartisan and efficient appropriations process. By allowing the
executive branch to make these decisions, Members of Congress have little
opportunity for program-specific input during the appropriations process.
As outlined in Chapter 2 (Bipartisanship) and Chapter 11 (Budget and
Appropriations Reforms), the appropriations process has steadily suffered
over the past few decades—and the lack of individual Member input has
played an important role in the decline of a timely, cohesive appropriations
process. Lacking individual Member input on specific projects, Congress today
often passes large, omnibus spending packages. And these omnibus spending
bills ultimately defer the details of discretionary grant spending to the
executive branch. Figure 10.3 demonstrates this phenomenon—as passage of
individual appropriations bills has fallen, and the size and scope of the bills
that do pass has steadily risen.
238
Figure 10.3: Total Appropriations Bills Passed and the Average Number of
Appropriations Titles per Bill
Source: McCarty, Nolan, for the APSA Select Committee on the Modernization of
Congress, final Report
And increasingly, these appropriations bills do not even pass omnibus
form. Instead Congress has come to rely heavily on the use of continuing
resolutions (CRs). Figure 10.4 illustrates the decline in the passage of
appropriations bills, and an increased reliance on CRs to fill the gaps.
239
Figure 10.4: Individual Appropriations Bills and CRs passed by the start of the
Fiscal Year
Notes: Calculations by author274
While CRs are intended to provide a short, “stop-gap” solution when an
appropriations bill is missing, in reality, CRs often sustain federal funding for
months, and in some cases, years. In addition to a decline in regular order
appropriating, Congress has increasingly neglected its authorizing (and
reauthorizing) responsibilities.275 This ultimately means that the executive
agencies and programs that rely on appropriations and authorizing bills are
unable to budget and plan ahead—and makes the receipt of federal grant
money all the more tenuous for communities.276
By limiting Members’ ability to advocate for specific funding for
community grants in yearly appropriations bills, the responsibility of
discretionary grant spending is handed to the executive branch. This has been
compounded by an often-dysfunctional appropriations process, which
provides the executive branch further validation to engage in this
unauthorized spending and the funding of projects that may not reflect
communities’ top priorities and greatest needs.
PRIOR REFORMS AND CONCERNS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY
Prior to 2011, Congress permitted Member-directed spending,
commonly referred to as “earmarks.” During this period, committees were
given an administrative choice to include an earmark in legislation or an
274. Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices. (2016, January 14). (CRS: RL32473).
See
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32473/32; Reynolds, M. (2018). Vital Statistics on
Congress. Brooking Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/vital-statistics-on-
congress/.
275. Adler, E. S., & Wilkerson, J. D. (2013). Congress and the politics of problem solving. Cambridge
See
University Press.
276. Please see Chapter 11 for more details on the implications of “governing by CR”.
See
240
accompanying report. However, the executive branch often attempted to
circumvent this congressional power. For example, an executive order under
the George W. Bush Administration did not allow administrative agencies to
spend funds that were earmarked in non-statutory language, such as a
committee report.277 Committee Member Emanuel Cleaver reflected on this
experience under the Obama Administration as well:
Image 10.3: Rep. Emanuel Cleaver discusses Member-directed spending during a
Select Committee hearing.
“President Obama, for whom I served as national cochair for his
reelection, said during a speech, ‘I will not sign any more bills
with earmarks in it,’… But that is our responsibility. It is our
constitutional responsibility.
“We are bypassing the opportunity to really do stuff for our
community. We have earmarks now—you are absolutely
right—except they are done in the White House. Obama did them.
Bush did them. And Trump is doing them. And we are the ones
sitting over here, you know, talking about they are taking our
power. We gave it away.”
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, January 14, 2020
277. Press Release: Executive Order: Protecting American Taxpayers from Government Spending on
See
Wasteful Earmarks (2008, January 29). The White House, President George Bush.
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080129-5.html
241
However, in 2011, following a few high-profile cases of expensive
congressional projects, an “earmark moratorium” was put in place. The goal of
this moratorium was to encourage transparency and cut costs. In reality, as
noted by Dr. Kevin Kosar during the January 14, 2020 Committee hearing, it
ultimately led to far less transparency:
“You know, if you are a Member and you direct a bunch of
spending on something that turns out to be a boondoggle, you
are going to hear about it. You are going to get hammered. If it
happens somewhere in the bowels of the Department of
Transportation, no accountability whatsoever.
“The whole conversation around earmarks is very anchored, as
Representative Cleaver noted, on the few bad things that
happened, and Mr. Davis mentioned that the positive is not often
talked about. I mean, those are just not interesting stories. Media
frequently do not pick them up. You might release a press release
saying we did something good that helped back here. You might
get a little bit of local coverage, but that is about all you get.”
Dr. Kevin Kosar, January 14, 2020
In addition, concerns about the cost of congressionally-directed
spending were largely unfounded. Even at the highest point of earmark
spending (FY 2006), earmarks accounted for just under 1.1 percent of federal
spending.278
Today, the moratorium exists in a congressional grey space. The
moratorium is not enforced by points of order, because it does not exist in
House or Senate rules, but there are three standing rules that govern—but do
not ban—congressionally-directed spending. First, spending requests are not
permitted to directly benefit a Member of Congress (or their spouse). Second,
House and Senate Rules require that relevant legislation or reports include a
list of spending requests, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff—or a statement
that the legislation includes no congressionally-directed spending.279 And
third, it is the responsibility of the committee of jurisdiction to identify
Member-directed spending in legislative texts or accompanying reports.
Committees can establish their own policy requirements, deadlines, or
restrictions, regarding earmarks. These committee preferences are often
distributed via a “Dear Colleague” letter at the start of a congressional session.
278. Article One: Restoring Capacity and Equipping Congress to Better Serve the American People. 116th
See
Congress. (2020, January 14). (Testimony from Rachel Potter); Yes, Earmarks Can Be Part of Smart and
Responsible Governing (2018, March 3). Congressional Institute.
https://www.congressionalinstitute.org/2018/03/26/yes-earmarks-can-be-part-of-smart-responsible-
governing/.
279. This requirement applies to bills (particularly appropriations legislation and tax measures), committee
See
reports, conference reports, managers amendments, Senate bills, and conference report. See: Lynch,
M. (2015, May 21). Earmark Disclosure Rules in the House: Member and Committee Requirements
(CRS: RS22866). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22866.pdf
242
Despite best intentions, the decision to end congressionally-directed
spending has faced wide-spread backlash across the political spectrum.
Scholars from the Heritage Foundation to the Congressional Institute to the
Brookings Institution have called for the reinstatement of some form of
Member-directed spending.280 Members, facing the frustration of not being
able to fully advocate for their districts in the appropriations process, have
also taken up the call to reinstate the Article One power of the purse. The
remainder of this chapter details the CFGP that the Committee developed,
and the how the CFGP was developed.
COMMITTEE APPROACH TO ADDRESSING CHALLENGES AND
FULFILLING RESPONSIBILITIES
From the outset of the Committee’s work, it became clear the legislative
branch has, over time, ceded the responsibilities and powers the framers
entrusted to Congress to the executive branch. As the Committee continued
to explore this issue, Members and experts shared how this erosion to
congressional authority has resulted in states and congressional districts being
shut out of the process of how the federal government funds programs and
projects in communities across the country. If Congress was going to reclaim
its Article One powers the Committee understood that meant reinserting the
voice of the people—through their elected representatives—in the process of
deciding how taxpayer dollars are spent while avoiding the perceived abuses
of the past.
The CFGP was developed in a bipartisan fashion through numerous
conversations between the Chair and Vice Chair. In addition to witness
testimony, the Committee relied upon input from internal and external
stakeholders across the political spectrum, models of government funding
(such as TIGER grants and the Dayton, Ohio model), input from the
committees of jurisdiction, and the history of congressionally directed
spending.
The Committee voted on the framework on September 24, 2020. While
the vote was bipartisan and unanimous, Rep. William Timmons raised a point
of order on the CFGP, stating:
280. Fact Sheet: Renew the Earmark Ban. (2018, December 13). The Heritage Foundation.
See
https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/fact-sheet-renew-the-earmark-ban; The
Sausage Factory. (2019, May 5). Congressional Institute. https://www.congressionalinstitute.org/2019/
05/15/making-the-case-to-reinstate-earmarks/; Hudak, John. (2015, December 27). Congress in 2019:
Why the first branch should bring back earmarks. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/
blog/fixgov/2018/12/27/congress-in-2019-why-the-first-branch-should-bring-back-earmarks/
243
Image 10.4: Rep. William Timmons speaks to Chair Derek Kilmer during the Select
Committee’s final business meeting.
“I appreciate the important steps the Committee took to include
safeguards and improve transparency in the program, but believe
more still needs to be done. I remain concerned that seniority will
disproportionately control the amount of overall allocated funds
in this program, and that potential receipt of these funds could
be used to influence members to vote in a way they otherwise
would not on unrelated legislation.
"However, these recommendations do far more good than harm,
and I appreciate that this Committee took steps to put forth a
framework to reclaim our Article One authority. I look forward to
working with my colleagues in the House next year to address
these concerns prior to potential implementation.”
Rep. William Timmons, September 24, 2020
Through these discussions, a framework for the CFGP was developed
that included overall guiding principles as well as specifics for a process that
should be implemented. The Committee recognized while developing this
recommendation certain aspects of this framework may be difficult to enforce
or implement but felt the inclusion of these provisions were worthwhile to
ensure intent and goals were clear.
244
COMMUNITY-FOCUSED GRANT PROGRAM
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Community-Focused Grant Program (CFGP) is a competitive grant
program intended to allow Congress to harness its unique constitutional
authority to appropriate federal dollars through a congressional competitive
award process, with an emphasis on supporting projects that have the broad
support of local communities across the United States. Public entities,
including certain non-profits and including the public entity collaborating with
a Member of Congress to identify a local priority, may apply for grants, and
they must do so by submitting an application to at least one Member of
Congress. It is up to each member to determine which projects they will
support via a uniform request process to the appropriate congressional
committee. For-profit entities are prohibited from participating in the
program, as are relatives of members of Congress.
A hallmark of CFGP is end-to-end accountability and transparency, with
public access to every member request and supporting documentation, and
routine independent audits. For discretionary programs, the grant program is
limited to 1 percent of discretionary spending. The grant program will give
special consideration to projects that have broad support at the local level,
thorough supporting documentation, bipartisan support and multi-member
support.
Congress will aim to distribute grants equitably across states and
geographic regions, between rural, suburban and urban areas, and throughout
economic sectors. From time-to-time, major projects of national or regional
importance may merit a larger-than-normal grant share.
CFGP GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Enhance House Rules and Implement End-to-End Transparency
A top priority of this program is to ensure transparency from the start of
the application process to the final selection of grant funding. The Committee
recommends combining all rules governing congressionally directed spending
into the Rules of the House. Currently, House rules contain numerous
transparency requirements, but several prior reforms were placed in the House
Code of Official Conduct, rules governing the Democratic Caucus and
Republican Conference, or were adopted as individual committee rules. While
the Committee understands it could be difficult to incorporate these rules in
the Rules of the House, it was important to make clear these should become
House rules applicable to all Members and all committees.
This also includes reinstating transparency requirements prior to 2011:
Specifically, no request for projects may benefit a Member or their spouse; no
request may be made to private entities; and all projects that received funding
245
must be made public, among other requirements.281 The Committee also
recommends a ban on providing funds to for-profit entities, and an expansion
on the certification of Member or Member spouse limitations to include the
extensive House nepotism rules.
The Committee also recommends establishing a singular, public website
with every detail of the grant-allocation process, including information on
Member requests, accompanying documentation, and selected projects. The
website will be a “.gov” website, and easily accessible and sortable. Each
Member that participates in the grant program should have a prominent link to
this website on their own congressional website. The goal of this singular
website is to avoid the fractured process of 435 different websites posting
results. The Office of the Clerk of the House will manage this website.
The Committee recognizes transparency is key to accountability in the
process. Through this recommendation the public will be able to see those
that apply and grant requests that are awarded, and ultimately hold their
Members accountable should they feel programs or projects are not an
effective use of taxpayer dollars.
2. Create a New Competitive Grant Program
Figure 10.6: Potential Process for the Competitive Grant Program under the CFGP
Members, staff, and Members and their The appropriate
community leaders staff reccomend committee reviews Independent Audit
evaluate and programs for grant each submission and by the respective
prioritize the funding to the considers its agencies’ Inspector
applications and appropriate placement in General
programs committee legislation
Local communities
collaborate with
Members and apply
through a universal,
official form
Note: At each of these stages, information will be posted on a centralized, “.gov”
website to ensure total transparency.
A. A Process that Starts in Local Communities
Unlike prior endeavors that put the nomination and decision-making
process in the sole hands of Members, this program will start outside of
Washington and in the communities Members represent. Grant requests must
281. Lynch, M. (2015, May 21). Earmark Disclosure Rules in the House: Member and Committee
Requirements (CRS: RS22866). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22866.pdf;Earmarks and the Earmark
Process. (2011, March). Taxpayers for Commonsense. https://www.taxpayer.net/wp-content/uploads/
ported/images/downloads/TCS_Earmark_FAQ_2011.pdf.
246
originate with a public entity (including not-for-profit entities that serve a
public interest) or state, local, or tribal governments (including subdivisions of
state or local governments and including a local community or public entity
collaborating with a Member of Congress to identify a local priority) via formal
application submitted to at least one congressional office. Recognizing issues
related to community capacity, the committee also acknowledges that this
may also include a local community collaborating with a Member of Congress
to identify a local priority.
The Committee felt it was important to allow not-for-profit entities to
apply for a Community-Focused grant, given the valuable services many
provide to communities across the nation. From schools and hospitals, to
conservation programs and historical preservation efforts, the range of
services provided by not-for-profit entities vary greatly across the country.
One of the top priorities of the CFGP was to allow communities and Members
to have the freedom to identify projects in most need of funding. Ruling out
not-for-profits could hamstring that goal.
The Committee took important steps to ensure the process was easy for
all communities across the nation to navigate—whether a large city with grant
coordinators on staff or smaller, rural towns without resources on hand to help
them navigate the grant process. As noted, public entities can collaborate with
Members to ensure they are properly identifying projects and submitting
necessary information. The form used to make grant requests should also be
simple and allow communities and public entities to easily navigate the grant
application process.
Only after a project is submitted by the appropriate entity will Members
select which CFGP projects to support. Members will then submit those
projects as individual requests to the applicable committee for review.
Members are strongly encouraged to establish a process which
facilitates nonpartisan engagement of local elected officials and stakeholders.
A process could involve input from local economic development entities and
state and local elected officials before the Member moves forward with the
request. Prior to the 2011 ban, there were multiple examples of such processes
being utilized by members. For public entities requesting funding for
non-profit programs, Members should encourage consensus from local public
leaders. One option the Committee considered as a model for Members was
an approach similar to “the Dayton Model”—a non-partisan, independent
review board that reviews requests for federal funding.282
Applicants and Members will use a standardized grant application. The
form should include but shouldn’t be limited to:
282. See more here: The Dayton Region Priority Development and Advocacy Community (PDAC).
https://www.daytonregion.com/ddc/pdac.
247
Identification of whether the grant requestor is a public entity, or a state, local,
or tribal government
Detailed description of the project including data or evidence of project merits
Explanation of how the project is a good use of taxpayer dollars
Total cost of the project including a breakdown of expenses
Forecast of necessary future federal funding
Timeline for the project
Previous federal funding used to advance the project, if applicable
Non-federal share of dollars for the project if it is a public-private partnership
Citation of authorizing language for the program under which the project falls
(to be completed by the Member office)
Letters of support from other state or local officials and entities
A list of support from other Members (to be completed by the Member office)
Indication if the request is bipartisan (to be completed by the Member office)
If a project would impact another state, district, or region, Members are
strongly encouraged to work together with other Members on a robust,
bipartisan (if applicable) request. To further encourage bipartisanship and
transparency, committees should also strive to balance the prioritization of
bipartisan, multi-Member, and multi-district projects with the requests of
at-large and rural-representing Members. Committees are expected to
ultimately fund projects that benefit rural and urban districts alike.
Standing committees should apply this framework to appropriate
legislation under their jurisdiction. For example, the CFGP should be utilized to
allow for community input when the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure is crafting the highway bill or when the annual National Defense
Authorization Act is being developed by the Committee on Armed Services.
It is important to note, the Committee took care to balance the
importance of larger projects that could receive a great deal of Member
support with equally important projects that could receive support from just
one Member (a project in New York City versus a project in Helena, MT for
example). The Committee incorporated language to make the intent clear that
each project should be considered in an equitable manner.
Lastly, Members should submit this documentation and ultimate
requests through the same website (CFGP.gov for example) so that the
process from request, to public review, to approval or denial is seamless from
start to finish across committees.
248
B. New Caps and Tighter Guardrails
The Committee considered several options to prevent abuse by any
individual Member, and to ensure equitable distribution of grant awards. The
Committee recommends a cap to prevent the possibility of inequitable
distribution of funds, where, for example, some Members are successful in
directing vastly more funding to their district than other Members. The
Committee debated caps on the number of successful project awards and also
on size of awards, but both proved to be very difficult to implement.
Rather than be overly prescriptive, the Committee recommends that any
adoption of this program be guided by the principle of equitable distribution
of funds and take great care to avoid any situation where the program would
allow a small number of Members to direct far more investments than the rest
of the body.
All requests will be capped to a combined total of 1 percent of
discretionary spending, not including project-based accounts. Such a cap
should encourage the applicable committee to ensure funds are “distributed
equitably across geographic areas, between rural and urban areas” and among
project modes, similar to TIGER grants.283
If a CFGP request is funded in legislation, the committee should provide
the following information to the Clerk of the House to be included on the
Community-Focused Grants website:
+ Updated tables that detail Member justifications
+ Relevant grant application information
+ A summary of statistics and demographics impacted by grant awardees
(urban versus rural, average grant award, geographic disbursement, etc.).
Lastly, capacity for the Clerk of the House and any committee that has
plans to fund CFGP awards should be evaluated to accommodate the new
process, review of project requests, oversight of spending, and development
of websites.
C. Heal the Legislative Process
In addition to reclaiming Article One responsibility and ensuring a more
transparent and representative discretionary grant program, the CFGP
provides individual Members with an opportunity to represent their
community in the authorization and appropriations processes.
The Committee deliberated requiring congressional authorization of
programs before funds could be awarded. However, a delay in a congressional
authorization or reauthorization could have prevented projects from receiving
needed funds and concerns were raised such a requirement could be overly
prescriptive. Ideally, the CFGP would only be provided to projects under
283. See more information on TIGER Grants, see: The TIGER/BUILD Program at 10 Years: An Overview
For
(CRS: R45916). (2019, September 16). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45916.pdf.
249
authorized accounts. Understanding this may not always be possible, any
relevant committee shall include, on its website, the scope and criteria for
unauthorized accounts that contain Community-Focused Grants.
The Committee recommends that a CFGP appear in a bill that has
passed out of a committee. At a minimum, though, it should be required to
appear on the CFGP.gov website as a Member request. The Committee also
recommends that grant projects should be prohibited from being inserted into
a Continuing Resolution.
To prevent unvetted, politically motivated projects replacing or taking
funding from projects that went through the full process and were deemed to
have merit, amendments on the floor for new projects should not be
permitted.
D. Training for Member Offices
To ensure all offices and community members participate in the CFGP
with equal footing, the Committee recommends that training be provided for
staff and Members on how to apply. This training should be provided on a
routine basis.
Furthermore, the Committee recommends that offices develop training
for constituents and grant applicants, perhaps through district staff and online
resources. This will ensure that all programs—regardless of applicant resources
and experience—have an opportunity to apply for the CFGP.
E. Independent Audits and Clawbacks
Lastly, to further ensure that the process is transparent, fair, and
implemented as intended, the Committee recommends independent oversight
from the respective agencies’ Inspectors General. The agencies’ IGs should
identify waste, fraud, and abuse and offer recommendations where funds
should be reduced.
Rep. Susan Brooks also suggested that the CFGP could be implemented
as a pilot program for review after a couple of years, or as in specific
committees that would likely utilize the CFGP, such as the House Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure. The review of the pilot program could be
performed by GAO, and should analyze how the grant program is functioning,
highlighting areas of success or areas in need of improvement.
The Committee also considered a formal process for public comment.
However, the Committee did not want to give the appearance that there was a
beginning and end to public comment. End-to-end transparency of a process
starting in communities allows for public engagement and Member
accountability throughout.
250
CONCLUSION
The CFGP recommended by the Committee outlines detailed
requirements to ensure that congressionally-directed spending are
communities’ priorities; and is transparent from beginning to end, a good use
of taxpayer dollars, and fair. This framework, passed by the Committee on
September 24, 2020 holds great potential for Congress. From a constitutional
perspective, the CFGP is an important step to reclaiming Congress’ Article
One responsibility and power of the purse. In addition, the CFGP will provide a
much-needed refresh to the stagnant and inefficient authorization and
appropriations process.
Perhaps more importantly, this program is an important step for the
American people. The money allocated to support local communities belongs
to them—and they should have full access to the application and selection
process, from beginning to end. In addition to the transparency of the CFGP,
this program allows constituents to hold their Representative accountable in
the way the Founders intended.
Executive branch bureaucrats shouldn’t be alone in making decisions
regarding spending in congressional districts. That responsibility belongs to
the community leaders and Members that represent them. This program puts
the decision-making into the hands of those who know districts best: the
communities themselves and the Members elected to represent their interests
in Congress.
Committee Members shared the broad goal of restoring Congress to its
rightful place as a co-equal branch of government and focused on
recommendations to help Congress uphold the responsibilities given by the
Founding Fathers. By encouraging more thoughtful discourse and enabling a
more productive committee process, these recommendations will help
restores public trust in Congress and its Members.
251
CHAPTER 11 —
Reform the Budget and Appropriations
Process—Recommendations from the Joint Select
Committee on Budget and Appropriations Reforms
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Require an annual Fiscal State of the Nation.
2. Require a biennial budget resolution, with annual appropriations bills.
3. Realistic deadline for Congress to complete action on a biennial budget.
4. Require an annual supplemental budget submission by the President.
5. Encourage examination of how a two-year budget resolution will change
the schedule or approach in the budget process.
6. Strengthen budget enforcement.
7. Include total combined outlays and revenues for tax expenditures as an
optional item in the budget resolution.
252
INTRODUCTION
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence
of Appropriations made by Law.”
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7, U.S. Constitution
In crafting our nation, the Framers separated the powers given to each
branch of government to establish a true system of checks and balances.
Congress was given the “power of the purse”, and controlled our nation’s
entire annual budget and funding process for years. Eventually, the creation of
an initial budget was moved from the legislative branch to the executive,
establishing the system we still utilize today.
Here’s how the process is supposed to work: The President submits a
budget request to Congress for the following fiscal year in February. The
House and Senate then adopt a budget resolution with spending levels to
guide the appropriations process. The 12 appropriations bills are then passed
through committee and the House and Senate floor; differences are ironed out
in conference committee, and a final bill is signed by the President before the
new fiscal year begins on October 1.284
In reality, the budget and appropriations process is more akin to
“Regular Disorder.”285 In fact, one of the most drastic changes in congressional
procedure over the past few decades is the departure from the Regular Order
in the congressional budget and appropriations process.
Today, few if any appropriations bills are signed into law before the
October 1 deadline. In fact, this process hasn’t been followed “by the book” in
decades. Instead, Congress and the President often rely on omnibus legislation
and continuing resolutions (CRs). When appropriations bills do pass, they are
often delayed, and packaged together as one, large omnibus package,
spanning several topics and including unrelated legislative additions known as
“riders.” The process becomes overtly political, and often results in delays,
which cause last-minute, midnight-hour negotiations. If these negotiations fail,
the government runs out of funding, and shuts down. Employees are
furloughed, and whole departments and agencies are closed to the public. As
discussed in preceding chapters, Congress is failing to meet its Article One
responsibilities—and this failure is epitomized by the deterioration of the
budget and appropriations process.
The implications for this departure from regular order are increased
dysfunction, budgetary inefficiencies, and less accountability in how taxpayer
dollars are spent. Inaction and delay have led to extended shutdowns of major
284. Introduction to the Federal Budget Process (CRS: R46240). (2020, February 26).
See
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46240.
285. Lee, F. L. Schickler, E. (2019, October 29). Report on the Task Force Project on Congressional Reform.
See
American Political Science Association. https://www.legbranch.org/app/uploads/2019/11/APSA-
Congressional-Reform-Task-Force-Report-11-2019-1.pdf
253
portions of the federal government—including the longest government
shutdown in U.S. history from December 22, 2018 to January 25, 2019, right at
the start of this Committee’s mandate.286 These shutdowns, delays, and
continuing resolutions make it difficult for federal agencies to effectively
budget and plan ahead. And as outlined in Chapter 2, increased centralization
of the legislative process means more funding bills are bypassing the
Appropriations Committee and individual Member input.
The cause of the breakdown in the budget and appropriations process
can be attributed to larger factors that are discussed throughout this report,
including an expanding federal government and an increase in polarization.
The increasing scope of the federal government’s responsibility and budget
have made the budget process complex and bulky.287 When coupled with
polarization within and between the parties, the breakdown in the process has
empowered political leaders to take greater charge in negotiating throughout
the appropriations process.288 Party leaders can bypass the Appropriations
Committee to create large, omnibus legislation to appeal to the most Members
possible. But even with congressional leaders leading the way, compromise is
particularly difficult in the budget and appropriations process, as polarization
has widened the gap in spending priorities both within and between the two
parties.289
The recommendations discussed in this chapter target the underlying
cause of delay and dysfunction in the budget and appropriations process by
encouraging communication between the executive and legislative branches,
and addressing the most common hurdles in the budgeting process. These
recommendations were formed in close consultation with former Members of
the Joint Select Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reform
(JCBA) and build off the JCBA’s bicameral, bipartisan package in the 115th
Congress to significantly reform the congressional budget process. In addition,
the Committee was aided by the expertise of the Appropriations and Budget
Committees and two Committee Members who also served on the JCBA: Chair
Derek Kilmer and Rep. Rob Woodall.
The remainder of this chapter will discuss trends in the budget and
appropriations process, and the resulting “Regular Disorder.” The chapter will
then discuss work of the JCBA and the Committee’s resulting
recommendation package to improve the budget and appropriations process.
286. Zaveri, M., Gates, G, and Zraick, K. (2019, January 25). “The Government Shutdown Was the Longest
See
Ever. Here’s the History”. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/09/us/
politics/longest-government-shutdown.html.
287. See Chapters 10 (Article One) and 11 (Community Focused Grant Program) for more information on
the expansion of the federal government.
288. See Chapter 2 (Bipartisanship) for more information on the increasing role of leadership in
congressional legislating.
289. Hanson, P. (2015, November). Restoring regular order in congressional appropriations. The Brookings
See
Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Download-the-paper-1.pdf;
McCarty, N. (2014). The Decline of Regular Order in Appropriations: Does It Matter? Available at SSRN
2537444.
254
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
PRIOR REFORMS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGULAR ORDER PROCESS
As the preceding chapter details, Congress’s responsibility to craft and
control the federal budget is outlined in Article One of the U.S. Constitution.
This includes the power to raise funds, through taxes, (Article I, Section 8) and
then appropriate funds for the federal government (Article I, Section 9). How
the budget process occurs in practice has since been detailed and codified
through a series of statutes, congressional rules, and precedents.290 Outlined
below are some of the most notable congressional reforms that define today’s
budget and appropriations process.
The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which required the President
to submit his own budget request to Congress, marked the inclusion of the
executive branch in the budget process. This statutory requirement provided
the President with an opportunity to directly outline his budgetary
preferences.291 In 1974, Congress consolidated its own budget proposal under
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (CBA). The CBA allows Congress to
adopt a concurrent resolution on the budget. A concurrent resolution is not
law—so the President cannot veto it. So, while it does not have a statutory
effect, it does set the revenue and spending levels in points of order.292 The
Appropriations Committee relies on these allocations when crafting
legislation. These two reforms also provided the President and Congress a way
to reflect their own budget priorities, at times in contrast to one another.
Another significant change to the budget process was the creation of
mandatory spending laws, starting with Social Security in the 1930s. These
spending requirements circumvented the larger budget and appropriations
process. Today, these programs compromise the majority of all federal
expenditures.293 Other control statutes, starting in the 1980s, were also
introduced in an attempt to control the federal deficit. Most recently in 2010,
Congress reinstated the 1985 pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) procedures to limit any
increase in the deficit via direct spending. Today, PAYGO rules in the House
and Senate serve as points of order for certain legislation, often outside of the
appropriations process.
Comparatively, the appropriations process has stayed relatively cut and
dried throughout congressional history. The appropriations process, as
intended, begins after the concurrent resolution on the budget is passed by
Congress. In total, there are 12 appropriations bills, each funding the federal
programs and activities under their jurisdiction. There are 12 corresponding
appropriations subcommittees that research, develop, and pass their own
290. See details on the evolution of the budget process, see: Introduction to the Federal Budget Process
For
(CRS: R46240). (2020, February 26). https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46240.
291. Introduction to the Federal Budget Process (CRS: R46240). (2020, February 26).
See
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46240.
292. Ibid.
See
293. Ibid.
See
255
individual bills. These bills are then passed by the full Appropriations
Committee, and then the House and Senate (Figure 11.1). In addition to this
chain of command, there are expected deadlines for the appropriations
process in order to fully fund the government by the start of the fiscal year
(October 1).294
Figure 11.1: “Regular Order” Budget and Appropriations Process
1. The President submits his
budget request on or by the
first Monday in February.
2. The Congressional Budget
office submits their report
on the President's proposal
to the Budget Committee.
3. Committees submit
requests to the Budget
Committee, who then
report a concurrent
resolution to Congress.
4. The House and Senate
adopt a budget resolution,
setting spending limits for
each committee (302(a)
allocations) by April 15th.
5. Each House
Appropriations
subcommittee develops its
assigned appropriations bill.
6. The House
Appropriations Committee
reviews, and passes, each of
the 12 bills by June 10th.
7. Each of the 12
appropriations bills are
voted on in the House and
Senate.
8. Differences between the
chambers are reconciled in
a conference committee by
June 30th.
9. The President signs the
consolidated appropriations
bills (12 total) by October
1st.
THE DECLINE OF REGULAR ORDER IN THE BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS
PROCESS
In reality, the budget and appropriations process has widely departed
from this idealistic, “regular order” approach. Delays and inaction plague every
stage of the process—from the President’s budget submission, to
congressional passage of appropriations bills. Figure 11.2 outlines delays in
the submission of the President’s budget since 1923. As the figure shows,
budget submissions were overwhelmingly on time until the late 1970s—in fact,
the only delayed budget submission before that point was 1955, when
President Eisenhower missed the deadline by a single day. But today, budget
submissions are delayed by weeks, and in some cases, months.
294. Saturno, J. V., Heniff, B., Jr, Lynch, M. S. (2016, November 30). The Congressional Appropriations
Process: An Introduction (CRS: R42388). https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/8013e37d-4a09-46f0-b1e2-
c14915d498a6.pdf.
256
Figure 11.2: Delays in Submission of the President's Budget, 1924-2019
Note: Each annual observation shows the number of days after the deadline that the
President submitted his budget. Negative numbers are early submissions. The lighter
bars are the first budgets of a new presidential administration. Source: McCarty, N.
APSA Congressional Task Force, Appropriations Subcommittee.
The next step of the budget process requires Congress to present its
budget resolution, which is then adopted in both chambers, and reconciled by
a conference committee. This, too, has faced increasing delays and in some
cases, is not passed at all. Since 1998, Congress has only completed its budget
requirement half of the time. Trends in this sphere show a significant decline in
the ability to clear the four hurdles for passage (House adoption, Senate
adoption, House Agreement to conference report, Senate agreement to
conference report). Figure 11.3 charts this decline.
257
Figure 11.3: Progress of Continuing Budget Resolutions, 1976-2019
Note: The progress of each annual budget resolution is scored from zero to four.
Adoption of an initial resolution by either chamber scores one point, and the
adoption of a conference report by either chamber scores one point.
In addition to delays, the budget process has also become contentious
in the Senate in particular. Because budget reconciliation bills can be written in
a way to bypass the cloture requirement, they have been used as a vehicle for
other, often controversial, legislative language.295 This parliamentary maneuver
offers the Senate Majority an expedited legislative process that is not
susceptible to debate and provides a lower vote threshold.
Disappointing delays also regularly describe the appropriations process.
Today, only about 10 percent of all appropriations bills are enacted prior to the
beginning of the fiscal year.296 When Congress is unable to pass an individual
appropriations bill on time, it has two options: pass several appropriations bills
in an omnibus package, or pass a continuing resolution (CR). As discussed in
Chapter 2 (Bipartisanship), the use of omnibus legislation allows congressional
leaders to form a package of bills that will receive bipartisan support. For
appropriations, this often means pairing a more controversial appropriations
295. Schor, E. (2017, August 1). “McConnell plans to pass tax bill with just GOP votes” POLITICO.
See
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/01/mitch-mcconnell-tax-bill-gop-votes-241212.
296. McCarty, N. (2014). The Decline of Regular Order in Appropriations: Does It Matter? Available at SSRN
See
2537444. Lee, F. L. Schickler, E. (2019, October 29). Report on the Task Force Project on Congressional
Reform. American Political Science Association. https://www.legbranch.org/app/uploads/2019/11/
APSA-Congressional-Reform-Task-Force-Report-11-2019-1.pdf
258
bill (such as Health and Human Services) with one that will more easily receive
bipartisan support (such as Department of Defense). Figure 11.4 illustrates the
increased use of omnibus appropriating.
The implications of this, as has been discussed in other chapters, is that
individual Members—and even the Appropriations Committee—are bypassed
in the legislative process. Appropriations bills formed this way are often
released with little time for Members to review, and are immensely long,
making it difficult for Members and staff to review before a vote on the
floor.297
Figure 11.4: Appropriations Coverage, per FY, 1998-2016
Notes: Calculations by author298
In some years, Congress fails to pass a given appropriations bill or an
omnibus appropriations bill on time (as illustrated in Figure 11.4). In those
cases, to prevent a government shutdown, Congress turns to its other
alternative: CRs. CRs are used to keep the government funded until either
more appropriations bills or an omnibus bill is passed by Congress. And
unfortunately, not only are there more CRs over time, but these CRs span far
297. Curry, J. M. (2015). Legislating in the Dark: Information and Power in the House of Representatives.
See
University of Chicago Press.
298. Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices. (2016, January 14). (CRS: RL32473).
See
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32473/32; Reynolds, M. (2018). Vital Statistics on
Congress. Brooking Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/vital-statistics-on-
congress/.
259
more days on average.299 Congress is increasingly relying on CRs not only to
patch funding gaps, but actually provide funding in its entirety. Figure 11.5
compares the number of continuing resolutions passed with the number of
days these CRs cover.
Figure 11.5: Continuing Resolutions introduced throughout the fiscal year, FY
1998-2016
Notes: Calculations by author300
The implications of these delays and subsequent long-term CRs
reverberate throughout the federal government. When appropriations bills
pass on time, prior to the start of the fiscal year, government agencies can
plan their budgets accordingly. However, over time, the ongoing uncertainty of
stop-gap funding measures has led to hiring freezes, recruitment problems,
299. Duration of Continuing Resolutions in Recent Years (CRS: RL32614). (2012, January 19).
See
https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/
20120119_RL32614_f802252e401ba019a7e1cee930f7a7806dbffdd6.pdf.
300. Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices. (2016, January 14). (CRS: RL32473).
See
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32473/32; Reynolds, M. (2018). Vital Statistics on
Congress. Brooking Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/vital-statistics-on-
congress/.
260
and negative effects on the morale of federal employees.301 In some cases,
national security has been placed at risk by the threat of funding loss or
inconsistency.302 Worst of all, the American taxpayer is left footing the bill.303
The delays and departures from “Regular Order” in the budget and
appropriations process also has implications for the legislative activity and the
relationships between Members of Congress. When faced with a tense,
must-pass deadline, all other legislative activity is often put aside. But as
Matthew Owens, Executive VP and VP for Federal Relations, Association of
American Universities, testified to the Committee during the September 19,
2019 hearing on the Joint Select Committee’s findings, the responsibility to fix
Congress’s broken budget and appropriations process relies on Congress
itself:
“Namely, no single budget process reform or package of reforms
can by itself remedy the prevailing dysfunction. Process reforms
alone cannot force Congress to reach budget deals. Political will
is needed. But process matters, and small or large changes can
create ownership and buy in for new expectations and
enormously for budgeting. Right now, expectations are low, and
norms are broken. As was noted earlier, it has been more than 20
years since all appropriations bill were passed prior to the start of
the fiscal year.”
Matthew Owens, September 19, 2019
THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS
PROCESS REFORM
It’s with this responsibility in mind that The Joint Select Committee on
Budget and Appropriations Process Reform (JCBA) was formed. Similar to
this Committee, the JCBA was a bipartisan select committee. Unlike this
Committee though, it was bicameral, and included bipartisan Members of the
Senate. The JCBA’s mandate was specific: "significantly reform the budget and
appropriations process."304 JCBA co-chair, Rep. Steve Womack (AR-3)
testified on the JCBA’s approach during the Select Committee’s September
19, 2019 hearing:
301. Woon, J., & Anderson, S. (2012). Political bargaining and the timing of congressional appropriations.
See
Legislative Studies Quarterly, 37(4), 409–436.
302. Joint Select Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reform: Opportunities to Improve the
See
Legislative Process, 115th Congress. (2018, July 21) (Testimony of Leon Panetta). http://www.crfb.org/
sites/default/files/LEP%20Written%20Testimony%20to%20JSC%207-12-18_0.pdf
303. Continuing Resolutions: Uncertainty Limited Management Options and Increased Workload in
See
Selected Agencies. (2009, September). GAO. https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09879.pdf.
304. H.R. 1892, 115th Congress (2018)
See
261
“We should focus on budget process, not budget outcomes.
Outcomes are specific levels of funding or proposals to reduce
the deficit by a certain amount. Process is how Congress
determines how much to spend or how to determine what
policies to enact to reduce the deficit. I would like to see us
modernize our procedures which will hopefully set up Congress
for success in the future, regardless of who happens to have the
majority at any given time.”
Rep. Steve Womack, September 19, 2019
JCBA Members held several meetings over the course of its tenure and
developed serious recommendations to reform the broken budget and
appropriations process, return Congress to a system of Regular Order, and
regain control of the power of the purse. While the JCBA was unsuccessful
passing legislation, it crafted draft legislation that formed the foundation for
the recommendations outlined below.305 Relying on the extensive work of the
JCBA, this Committee worked alongside former JCBA Members, as well as the
House Appropriations and Budget Committees, to develop seven
recommendations, which are detailed below.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Require an annual Fiscal State of the Nation, to be given by the appropriate
official(s), as determined by or in coordination with House leadership.
Members of Congress must have access to nonpartisan information
about the many factors contributing to the nation’s debt and deficit in order
to develop sound fiscal policies and meet our long-debt and deficit
reduction.306 To encourage communication between the executive and
legislative branches and ensure that all parties involved in the budget and
appropriations process are making decisions based on a common set of facts,
the Committee recommends improving the communication between agency
officials and Members of Congress.
305. See a full overview of the JCBA, see: Lynch, M. Saturno, J. V. (2019, March 26). The Joint Select
For
Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reform (CRS: R45111). https://www.crs.gov/
Reports/R45111?source=search&guid=362bc3a569a0425398b25b2a6a1a828d&index=2
306. Committee Print: Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives (115-15). 115th Congress.
See
https://republicans-budget.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CPRT-115HPRT33612.pdf
262
For Congress to appropriately fund the government, all parties need to
be working with the same set of facts. Issues like the national debt, federal
budget requests, and deadlines should be understood and agreed upon by all
negotiators.307 A yearly Fiscal State of the Nation discussion will facilitate
these types of discussions and ensure all involved start off with the same
expectations and understanding.
2. Require a biennial budget resolution, while maintaining annual
appropriations bills.
The budget resolution has increasingly become a partisan document,
used by congressional leaders to highlight their policy preferences, and in
some cases as a political maneuver for Senate passage of non-budget related
bills. And when the budget process is inordinately delayed and politicized, it
slows down the important work of congressional appropriations. The
Committee recommends Congress institute a biennial budget resolution, with
annual appropriations bills. By setting 302(a) discretionary spending levels at
the start of each Congress, appropriations will be more efficient and able to
plan ahead, avoiding unnecessary delays.
A biennial budget would also provide Congress additional time to
conduct oversight on federal agencies and departments. When Appropriators
and authorizers have more certainty, they can turn their attention to those
entities that they fund and oversee, respectively. This also serves to buttress
Congress’s constitutional authority and ensures that appropriated funds are
being used responsibly and authorized programs are implemented
consistently with Congressional intent.308
In addition, the Committee recommends enabling a second-session
revision of the budget resolution for scoring purposes. This requirement would
give authority in the second year of a biennium to adjust the budget
resolution’s spending and revenue levels, committee allocations, and other
amounts to reflect an updated baseline used for scoring purposes.
3. Establish a realistic deadline for Congress to complete action on a biennial
budget.
Congress has continually failed to adopt a budget resolution by the
statutorily required April 15 deadline. In those years in which Congress has
adopted a budget resolution, it has adopted the budget resolution an average
of 36 days after the target date. The current deadline does not reflect a
realistic timeline. Prior congressional reforms have delayed the budget
deadline to reflect congressional pressures, with success.309 Thus, the
307. Press Release: Representatives Rice, Barr Introduce Fiscal State of the Nation Resolution. (2019,
See
October 3). Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. https://www.crfb.org/blogs/representatives-
rice-barr-introduce-fiscal-state-nation-resolution.
308. Committee Print: Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives (115-15). 115th Congress.
See
https://republicans-budget.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CPRT-115HPRT33612.pdf
309. Introduction to the Federal Budget Process (CRS: R46240). (2020, February 26).
See
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46240.
263
Committee recommends setting a realistic and achievable deadline of May 1
for the first year of the biennium, which would give Congress an opportunity
to complete its work on time. This delay is particularly necessary given the
recommendation of a biennial budget process.
4. Require annual supplemental budget submission data from the President.
Congress requires critical data from the executive branch to begin the
budget building process. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
cannot begin constructing its baseline for the upcoming fiscal year without
receipt of data, particularly prior-year and current-year spending, that is
normally transmitted with the President’s budget request. Without receipt of
CBO’s baseline, Congress generally cannot begin writing its budget resolution.
To create additional time for developing the baseline, and therefore, the
budget resolution and various appropriations bills, the executive branch
should be required to provide a supplemental budget submission that is
separate from the President’s policy proposals no later than December 1 of
each calendar year.
This supplemental budget submission should include:
+ Prior year fiscal data
+ Current year fiscal data
+ Credit re-estimates for the current year
This data would allow CBO to begin constructing the baseline, as well as
subsequently to enable the Budget and Appropriations Committees to begin
preliminary work in writing the budget resolution and appropriations bills
earlier in the process.
5. Encourage examination of how a two-year budget resolution will change the
schedule or approach in the budget process.
To be fully ready when two-year budget resolutions begin, the Budget
and Appropriations Committees should review their schedules and procedures
to determine the best ways of using the new biennial budget resolution to
expedite congressional work on appropriations and other budgetary
legislation. Their findings should be conveyed to authorizing committees, and
Congress as a whole.
6. Strengthen budget enforcement.
The budget process, particularly in the Senate, is susceptible to being
used as a procedural maneuver to bypass the filibuster threshold. This has
tainted the larger budget reconciliation process. Thus, the Committee
recommends that the budget reconciliation process only be used to reduce
deficits.
If Congress adds to the deficit, it should follow regular order to allow a
fuller debate. In addition, Congress could consider requiring an explanation in
the budget resolution committee report and conference agreement as to why
264
assumed changes in direct spending or revenue have not been reconciled.
Reconciliation is the principle enforcement procedure for direct spending and
revenue changes. There are reasons why some items may not be reconciled
but requiring an explanation may stop the assumption of large savings that are
not intended to be implemented. Thus, it would help produce a more realistic
budget path in the budget resolution.
7. Include total combined outlays and revenues for tax expenditures as an
optional item in the budget resolution.
Lastly, the Committee recommends an optional requirement for
including a total level of tax expenditures in the list of what could be in a
budget resolution. Given the fact that tax expenditures are a major component
of the federal budget, JCBA Members argued that this would encourage much
needed transparency to the budget process.310 This recommendation also
brings needed flexibility to the budget process.
CONCLUSION
The congressional budget and appropriations process is in dire need of
reform. Delays, and in many cases, inaction have become commonplace. The
result is increased delays throughout Congress and a strained relationship with
the executive branch. Without a timely budget, appropriators are unable to
plan ahead. Other, essential legislation is forced to the sidelines as Congress
scrambles to fund the government through omnibus legislation and CRs. And
without timely, individual appropriations bills, federal agencies and programs
are crippled by the uncertainty of future funding.
Congress has a clear responsibility as outlined in Article One to allocate
funds for the federal government—a responsibility that it is not currently
meeting. The recommendations outlined in this chapter and formed with the
JCBA provide solutions to return to a system of regular order. By improving
communication and information sharing between the two branches, and
exploring options like a biennial budget, Congress can remove the roadblocks
that have encouraged delays and polarization.
310. Committee Print: Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives (115-15). 115th Congress.
See
https://republicans-budget.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CPRT-115HPRT33612.pdf
265
CHAPTER 12 —
Improve the Congressional Schedule and Calendar
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Establish specific committee-only meeting times when Congress is in
session.
2. Create a common committee calendar portal to help with scheduling and
reduce conflicts.
3. Establish specific days—or weeks—where committee work takes priority.
4. Ensure there are more work days spent working than traveling.
5. The congressional calendar should accommodate a bipartisan member
retreat. more work days spent working than traveling.
266
INTRODUCTION
During its lifespan, the Committee heard from former Members of
Congress, current Members and their staff, and outside experts about the need
to reform the way time is spent in Washington.311 Between committee
hearings, floor votes, party responsibilities, constituent meetings, staff time
and travel, the demands on Member time continue to grow. Congress’s work
schedule while in Washington has drawn frequent criticism from the public,
media, and Members of Congress for being inefficient and unable to address
the problems Congress faces. While many factors lead to missed deadlines
and gridlock, as detailed throughout this report, a prominent suggestion for
reform is requiring members to spend more time in Washington working on
behalf of the American people.312 Yet finding more time to legislate, without
sacrificing other priorities, has been a persistent challenge for Congress.
As other chapters have detailed, demands on Members’ time and
resources have steadily increased. But despite this growth in responsibility, the
calendar has largely remained the same. In addition to an increase in D.C.
workload, Members’ travel habits have also changed significantly over the last
few decades. Regular and convenient air travel has made it possible for
Members from all over the country to go home every weekend—and many
Members want the opportunity to do so.313 In addition to constituent
concerns, Members’ families are more likely to live in the district today,
compared to years prior. These conveniences, while good news for Members’
ability to be home more often, have ultimately come at the expense of
legislative time in D.C. It also comes at the expense of Member relationships,
ultimately hindering the camaraderie that leads to bipartisan policymaking
and legislating.
Committee commitments present regular scheduling challenges for
Members as well. Members typically serve on over five committees and
subcommittees, with dozens of Members on each committee. Competing
committee meetings create daily scheduling conflicts for Members and their
staff.314
Despite an acknowledgement of the problem on both sides of the aisle,
from rank and file Members to congressional leadership, past reform efforts
have failed to address this issue sufficiently. Proposals and examinations to
reform the congressional schedule have been included in every House
reorganization study for the past fifty years.
311. The House Calendar and Schedule: Evaluating Practices and Challenges. 116th Congress (2020,
See
October 16) (Testimony of Ida Brudnick). https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20191016/
110095/HHRG-116-MH00-Bio-BrudnickI-20191016.pdf.
312. American Political Science Association letter to the Select Committee on the Modernization of
See
Congress. (2019, September 4).
313. Cornwell, S. and Cassella, M. (2016, February 1). “Members of Congress are trying to spend as little
See
time in Washington as possible”. Reuters.
314. Bipartisan Policy Center memo to the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. (2019,
See
October 14).
267
The Committee held a hearing on October 16, 2019, as well as several
Member meetings and virtual discussions to investigate options to reform the
House calendar.315 Members and staff explored the challenges of establishing
and managing a House calendar and schedule, including reviewing historical
information about prior attempts to address the calendar and schedule, and
the challenges of imposing one calendar on Members who have multiple,
competing demands. The Committee also considered how states manage their
legislative calendars, including efficiencies to help legislators’ time
management.
This chapter begins with an overview of past reforms on the House
schedule, and lessons from state governments that influenced the
Committee’s recommendations. In particular, the Committee focused on two
primary criticisms of the current schedule: the amount of time spent working
in D.C. and substantial conflicts and inefficiencies while in D.C. The chapter
then details the Committee’s concepts for reform.
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
PRIOR REFORM EFFORTS
In 1977, the House Commission on Administrative Review (Obey
Commission) issued a report examining the increase in “pressures on
Members’ time.”316 The Commission recommended that instead of the existing
ad hoc schedule, the House adopt a firm schedule of work periods at the
beginning of each session of Congress, allocate more committee time early in
the calendar year, and permit committees to meet while the House was
conducting floor debate. The Commission further recommended that all
committee scheduling information be entered into an electronic database to
minimize scheduling conflicts.317
In 1979, the Chairman of the House Select Committee on Committees
introduced a resolution to address committee scheduling by dividing
committees into three categories: A, B, and X. Group A committees would
have met for markups in the morning while Group B committees would meet
for markups in the afternoon. Group X committees would have the flexibility to
meet for markups at any time. All committees would have retained flexibility
to hold hearings at any time. The proposal did not receive a vote in the House.
315. The House Calendar and Schedule: Evaluating Practices and Challenges, 116th Congress. (2020,
See
October 16).; Virtual Discussion: American Political Science Association Task Force, 116th Congress.
(2020, June 18).
316. The House Calendar and Schedule: Evaluating Practices and Challenges. 116th Congress (2020,
See
October 16) (Testimony of Ida Brudnick). https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20191016/
110095/HHRG-116-MH00-Bio-BrudnickI-20191016.pdf.
317. CRS Report RL31835, Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Modern Reform Efforts, by
See
Judy Schneider, Christopher M. Davis, and Betsy Palmer. October 2003. Available at https://archives-
democrats-rules.house.gov/archives/RL31835.pdf
268
The last major effort by Congress to reform the Congressional schedule
was the 1993 Joint Committee on the Operation of Congress (JCOC). The
JCOC considered many proposals to reform the House schedule to improve
efficiency, reduce scheduling conflicts between committees and the House
floor, and promote predictability. House Members of the JCOC recommended
amending the schedule of the House to provide for:318
1. A four-day legislative week (expanded from three);
2. Specific and exclusive periods during which only floor proceedings, or
only committee meetings and hearings may be held;
3. Minimizing scheduling conflicts between and among committees and
subcommittees; and
4. Encouragement of the use of a committee scheduling system when
planning and scheduling meetings.
JCOC recommendations were introduced in legislation but did not
receive a vote.319 And JCOC recommendations invoked a Congress-wide
discourse—while over 100 Members signed a letter supported reforms
expanding the legislative work period, another 130 Members signed a letter
endorsing the existing House schedule.
Although past reform proposals were rarely formally adopted by the full
House, party leadership on both sides have adopted some of these reforms in
an effort to increase predictability and reduce scheduling conflicts. Kyle
Nevins, a former congressional leadership staffer with a background in the
congressional calendar, testified before the Committee that reforms
implemented since the 112th Congress have promoted predictability, reduced
conflicts, and allowed Members to stay connected to their district and
families.320 Since the 112th Congress, the House calendar has been published
in advance for the entire year, and has generally operated on a four-day
schedule. Today, a legislative day in D.C. is typically from 9am-7pm with floor
votes occurring after 1pm and no votes occurring after 3pm on the last day of
session. This allows nearly all Members to travel to their district. District work
periods are typically clustered around federal holidays. An example of a
typical month is below:
318. Organization of the Congress: Final Report of the House Members, H.Rept. 103-413, vol. I, 103rd Cong.,
See
1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1993), pp. 18
319. H.R.3801—Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994—103rd Congress (1993-1994) as introduced
See
320. The House Calendar and Schedule: Evaluating Practices and Challenges. 116th Congress (2020,
See
October 16) (Testimony of Nevins, Kyle). https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20191016/
110095/HHRG-116-MH00-Bio-NevinsK-20191016.pdf
269
Figure 12.1: Sample Month of the Congressional Calendar
July 2019
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
1 2 3 4 5
District work District work District work Independence District work
Day period
District work
8 9 10 11 12
D.C. work D.C. work D.C. work D.C. work
15 16 17 18 19
D.C. work D.C. work D.C. work D.C. work
22 23 24 25 26
D.C. work D.C. work D.C. work D.C. work
29 30 31
District work District work District work
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
INCREASING LEGISLATIVE DAYS
Pressure on Members’ time has only intensified since the 1970s.
Members represent a growing number of constituents, deal with an
increasingly complex policy agenda, and conduct oversight of an
ever-expanding executive branch.321 But despite these demands, the House
does not spend significantly more time in session (days nor hours) than it did
in the early 70s. It’s important to note, though, that there has not been a
notable decline in time in session either. Figure 12.2 documents the time spent
in session by the House over time, in both hours and days:
321. See Chapter 10 for more information on increasing congressional capacity in response to growth of
the executive branch.
270
Figure 12.2: Time in Session by the House of Representatives, 91st-115th Congress
Hours in Session Days in Session
3,000 450
400
2,500
350
2,000 300
250
Hours 1,500
200
Days
1,000 150
100
500
50
0 0
Source: The Brookings Institution, Vital Statistics on Congress, Table 6-1.
This illustrates the challenge facing the Committee on how to reform the
schedule and calendar—even though the responsibilities have increased, there
are only so many hours and days in the week. But while Members will always
have competing ideas of what an ideal schedule looks like, they all agree time
spent traveling could be more productive. As Committee member Rep. William
Timmons noted in the Committee’s October 16th hearing:
Image 12.1: Rep. William Timmons speaks during the Select Committee’s hearing on
the congressional schedule and calendar.
271
“I do think that there are opportunities for improvement. And just
briefly, we have 65 full days, 65 travel days right now. The
minimum number of travel days we could have is 26. And the
maximum number is 66. I don't think we could have more travel
days if we really tried.”
Rep. William Timmons, October 16, 2019
Previous reform committees have considered longer, more intensive
stretches of D.C. work periods followed by an extended district work period
that would increase legislative time and reduce time spent traveling, for
example “two-weeks on, two-weeks off.”322 With an extended district work
period, Members may not be able to return to their district as frequently, but
providing fewer, yet longer, stretches of district work periods means Members
would not sacrifice the total amount of time spent in their district. Committee
Member Rep. Mark Pocan spoke to the benefits of longer stretches of time in
the district:
Image 12.2: Rep. Mark Pocan speaks during the Select Committee’s hearing on the
congressional schedule and calendar.
322. APSA Task Force on Congressional Reform: Schedule and Calendar Subcommittee (2019).
See
272
“…I was just home for two weeks, and during that time, I didn't sit
back and catch up on, you know, binge watching of Netflix. I did
six town halls and talked to every single county that is in my
district. And I think that is part of what you also should do in your
job is explaining Washington to the district, but also, getting their
values out here.”
Rep. Mark Pocan, October 16, 2019
Alternatively, Congress could increase time legislating by adding
legislative hours to each day. However, that approach of intense, compressed
workweeks has been criticized by Members in the past.323
PRODUCTIVITY OF TIME IN WASHINGTON
In addition to concerns about the amount of time actually spent in D.C.,
there are inefficient scheduling conflicts between committees and floor work.
In an average four-day work period, committees only have two full days to
work, because the two days on the bookends of the week are partial travel
days. With little time to meet, and with Members serving on over five
committees on average, scheduling conflicts are common. A recent analysis by
the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) found that on just one morning, 131
Members (30 percent of the entire House) had a conflict between two or more
committee meetings.324 In some hearings, up to 97 percent of committee
members have a conflict.325 In total, there are about 10,000 scheduling
conflicts, per Congress on average.
323. When the House operated on a three day, Tuesday-Thursday schedule, Members objected to late night
See
sessions and said it contributed to family stress. See Roll Call Article “Will House Move to ‘3-on,1-off”
Schedule? More than 60 Members Sign Petition Calling for Three Straight Weeks of Work, Like Senate.”
By Karen Foerstel. June 1993 e
324. Bipartisan Policy Center memo to the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. (2019,
See
October 14).
325. Rachel Orey. “A Simple Fix to Congress’ ‘Calendaring Catastrophe’. March 11, 2020. Available at
See
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/a-simple-fix-to-congress-calendaring-catastrophe/
273
Figure 12.3: Number of Member Conflicts, 113th—116th Congress
Note: Data for the 116th Congress only includes the first session. Source: Bipartisan
Policy Center.326
These scheduling conflicts divert Members’ attention from expert
witnesses and nuanced policy conversations, reducing the quality of
Congress’s work. Chair Derek Kilmer and Vice Chair Graves noted the problem
of committee conflicts during the October 16, 2019 hearing:
326. Ibid.
See
274
Image 12.3: Chair Derek Kilmer and Vice Chair Tom Graves listen to witness testimony
during a Select Committee hearing.
“…I don't raise this concern as an individual member who feels
like I need a few clones to attend all of my committee meetings.
Rather, I say it as someone who thinks that important learning
and work is intended to happen in committees, and that work is
challenged when folks aren't there. That negatively impacts the
ability of Congress to deliver for the American people.”
Chair Derek Kilmer, October 16, 2019
“At this moment, my schedule requires me to be in three different
committee hearings at once. I’m scheduled to be here in the
Capitol, and two of my Appropriations subcommittees are also
meeting right now in Rayburn. Each of these hearings is a priority.
One is not more important than the other. But every day we are in
session, most of us are faced with impossible demands on our
time. Operating this way undercuts our ability to do the best job
we can for our constituents.”
Vice Chair Graves, October 16, 2019
275
Possible solutions to reduce conflicts between committees can be found
in state legislatures. Many state legislatures create blocks (also sometimes
called “groups,” “brackets,” “classes,” or “tiers”) of committees and require
members not to be in more than one in each group. Then, each group is given
certain time slots in which it can meet. This approach was recommended in
1979 by the House Select Committee on Committees.
In some legislatures, committee blocks and specific meeting times are
prescribed by chamber rules. For example, Colorado House Rule 25(k)(1)327
strictly allocates each committee particular time slots in which it is permitted
to meet. The table below depicts how this rule is applied.
Figure 12.4: Colorado Block Committee Schedule
Category Committee
Monday p.m. Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources.
Education. Finance.
Tuesday a.m. Business Affairs and Labor. Health, Insurance, and
Environment. Judiciary.
Tuesday p.m. Business Affairs and Labor. Judiciary. Public Health Care
and Human Services.
Wednesday a.m. Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources.
Education. Finance.
Wednesday p.m. Local Government. State, Veterans, and Military Affairs.
Transportation and Energy.
Thursday a.m. Local Government. State, Veterans, and Military Affairs.
Transportation and Energy.
Thursday p.m. Business Affairs and Labor. Health, Insurance, and
Environment. Judiciary.
Friday upon Public Health Care and Human Services.
adjournment as
calendared
As calendared Appropriations.
The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), the first organization to quantify
Member committee conflicts, has recommended block scheduling for reducing
committee conflicts. BPC proposes the following block schedule which have
optimally reduced scheduling conflicts in previous Congresses.328
327. https://www.leg.state.co.us/inethsr.nsf/Rule.xsp?id=HSERULES.25&catg=House&pg=3.0
See
328. Rachel Orey. “A Simple Fix to Congress’ ‘Calendaring Catastrophe’. March 11, 2020. Available at
See
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/a-simple-fix-to-congress-calendaring-catastrophe/
276
Figure 12.5: BPC Optimized Block Schedule for House of Representatives
Block A Block B Block C
Committee on Committee on Committee on Armed
Agriculture Appropriations Services
Committee on Budget Committee on Committee on Foreign
Education and the Affairs
Workforce
Committee on Ethics Committee on Energy Committee on Oversight
and Commerce and Government Reform
Committee on Homeland Committee on Financal Committee on Rules
Security Services
Committee on House Committee on the Committee on Weterans’
Administration Judiciary Affairs
Committee on Natural Committee on Select Committee on on
Resources Transportation and the Climate Crisis
Infrastructure
Committee on Acience, Committee on Ways Select Committee on the
Space, and Technology and Means Modernization of
Congress
Committee on Small Joint Committee on the Joint Committee on
Business Library Printing
Permanent Select Joint Committee on Joint Economic
Committee on Taxation Committee
Intelligence
When the system works as intended, Members should not find
themselves double-scheduled. Another alternative is to create committee-only
periods to avoid conflicts with floor debate and votes. For example, the
Virginia Senate requires committees to meet in the morning, before a floor
session and in the afternoon, after floor session. Susan Clarke Schaar, the Clerk
of the Virginia Senate, testified before the Committee about how the Virginia
Senate rules specify days and times committees meet. For example, the
Committee on Agriculture meets 9:00am on Monday, and additional meetings
must be approved by the Chair of the Rules Committee. This concept was
familiar to several of the Committee’s members who served in state
legislatures:
277
Image 12.4: Rep. Dan Newhouse speaks during the Select Committee’s hearing on the
congressional schedule and calendar.
“I served in the Washington legislature…it seems to me that if we
had blocks of time for committees, too, if one block conflicted
with another, you could not serve on both those committees. You
had to pick and choose. It seems like that might be one option to
try…[t]hat may be something we can impose upon ourselves.”
Rep. Dan Newhouse, October 16, 2019
Yet another solution to this is to block certain days or weeks as
committee work periods. Prior to the Committee’s October 2019 hearing, the
Bipartisan Policy Center suggested designating days in the middle of the week
for committee activity or alternating committee-only and floor-only weeks in
D.C.329 In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and remote work period, the
House inadvertently began scheduling committee-only weeks in response to
reduced floor activity. The Committee heard from many Members who have
found the committee-only time valuable.
329. Bipartisan Policy Center memo to the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. (2019,
See
October 14).
278
Figure 12.6: Sample Month of the Congressional Calendar During the 2020 Public
Health Emergency
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
1 2
D.C. work D.C. work Independence
Day
6 7 8 9 10
Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee
Work Day Work Day Work Day Work Day Work Day
13 14 15 16 17
Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee
Work Day Work Day Work Day Work Day Work Day
20 21 22 23 24
D.C. work D.C. work D.C. work D.C. work D.C. work
27 28 29 30 341
D.C. work D.C. work D.C. work D.C. work D.C. work
The Committee took into consideration prior reform efforts, as well as
state practices to develop the following concepts: First, these concepts aim to
make the overall schedule more predictable, with less travel for Members; and
second, they seek to make Member time in D.C., particularly committee work,
more efficient and effective. Unlike prior recommendations, these are
concepts for congressional leadership to consider when drafting future
schedules and calendars.
CALENDAR CONCEPTS
1, Establish a blocked schedule when committees may meet and extend formal
protections for committee work.
One of the biggest concerns the Committee heard from Members is that
they feel they need to be in too many places at the same time, and often point
to overlapping and conflicting committee meetings. The Committee found
that since the 110th Congress, Members sit on an average of 5.4 committees
and subcommittees. Efforts to deconflict committee meetings, to the extent
possible, would allow Members to spend more substantial time on committee
business and would hopefully reduce the need for certain committees to be
prioritized over others.
279
Evidence from state legislatures, as discussed above, has shown block
schedule can work to great success. Thus, the Committee recommends the
House establish a blocked schedule when committees may meet and extend
formal protections for committee work.
2. Create a common committee calendar portal so that committees can have
visibility into other committee activities and potential committee Member
conflicts.
In 1974, the House Select Committee on Committees (Bolling
Committee) recommended the establishment of a computerized scheduling
system for committees and subcommittees. This recommendation was
adopted at the start of the 97th Congress and remains in effect today.
However, this system is only being used to announce the date and time of
hearings and meetings, rather than to check for conflicting meetings to
correctly select a time with the least amount of conflicts for Members. From
1981-1992 use of this system to reduce scheduling conflicts was mandatory
but the requirement was stricken from House Rules in 1992.330 JCOC
recommended the use of this system to reduce scheduling conflicts.
The Committee recommends creation of a common committee calendar
portal so that committees can have visibility into other committee activities
and potential committee member conflicts. While Congressional staff already
has access to the date and time of other Committee meetings, it is not readily
available how many of their Members would be conflicted were they to
schedule their committee meeting in conflict with another committee meeting.
An internal portal that tracks Member obligations based on their committee
assignment would help committees schedule their meetings when most of
their Members are available.
3. To allow Members to take deeper dives into their committee work,
committee-activity-only weeks—or even committee-activity-only
days—without any floor activity could be established, building on the
precedent laid out during the COVID pandemic.
Conflict between committee work and floor time is one of the factors
that make Member time in Washington less productive than it could be. In a
four-day week, committees only have two full days to conduct business and
even then, Members must split their time between committee meetings and
debate and votes on the House floor. This compression of committee time
results in the scheduling conflicts already described.
To allow Members to take deeper dives into their committee work,
committee-activity-only weeks—or even committee-activity-only
days—without any floor activity could be established, building on the
precedent laid out during the public health emergency.
330. U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of the Congress: Final
See
Report of the House Members, H.Rept. 103-413, vol. I, 103rd Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1993)
Available at https://archives-democrats-rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc1h2.htm
280
4. Future Congressional calendars should aim to maximize full working days to
ensure there are substantially more working days than travel days.
Based on distance from D.C., family structure, and other preferences,
every Member of Congress has a different idea of what the House calendar
should look like. But despite differences in travel habits, one thing all Members
can agree on is they would like to spend less time traveling. As Rep. William
Timmons pointed out during the October 2019 hearing, the House currently
allows close to the maximum number of travel days possible
By rearranging the intensity, duration, and frequency of D.C. work, the
number of travel days can be reduced, allowing either more time legislating or
more time in the district. A calendar with less days interrupted by travel would
allow for more time for the committee-related reforms outlined above.
Previously considered adjustments to the House schedule included
five-day weeks with three D.C. work weeks followed by one district work week
(“three on, one off”)331, a five-day “one on, one off” schedule.332 Five-day
weeks would likely reduce travel days because Members would have less time
to go back and forth. If the House schedule included a longer stretch than
five-days, such as nine-day “super week”333 then travel could be reduced
further.
5. The congressional calendar should accommodate a bipartisan member
retreat.
Experts argue that the more time Members spend together, the more
likely they can develop a productive working relationship. Along those lines,
making room in the congressional calendar for a bipartisan retreat will improve
the institution’s ability to advance an agenda for the American people and
improve civility. The Committee previously recommended establishment of a
biennial bipartisan retreat for Members and their families at the start of each
Congress.
CONCLUSION
There is a direct tension between the amount of work that Members
must accomplish in Washington, D.C. and their district, and the reality that
there are only seven days in each week, and 52 weeks in each year. Between
committee work, time on the House floor, running a personal office, and
constituent work in the district, the demand for time is constant. In addition to
work pressures, Members of Congress each have their own personal schedules
to consider. For example, while the August work period allows some Members
with families to spend time with their children, other schools in different
331. Considered by JCOC.
See
332. The House Calendar and Schedule: Evaluating Practices and Challenges. 116th Congress (2020,
See
October 16) (Testimony of Nevins, Kyle). https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20191016/
110095/HHRG-116-MH00-Bio-NevinsK-20191016.pdf
333. American Political Science Association letter to the Select Committee on the Modernization of
See
Congress. (2019, September 4).
281
regions of the country start earlier. The calendar should work to reflect these
differing start dates. However, there is potential for reform by identifying ways
to spend time more efficiently, while still allowing Members the flexibility they
need to develop their own schedule.
This chapter presents solutions to eliminate the biggest time-related
headaches, like travel days and overlapping committee commitments, and
considering blocked committee assignments designated committee time, and
new scheduling technology to create a common committee calendar. By
considering how to spend time more efficiently, the House can not only reduce
frustrating conflicts, but provide Members with the time they need to focus on
the work that matters to the American people.
282
IV. Conclusion
Areas for Future Reform
As detailed in this report’s previous chapters, the Committee prioritized
reforms to help the legislative branch work more effectively and efficiently for
all Americans. Committee Members approached their work with the
understanding that recommendations to improve the People’s House should
ultimately serve the people. A Congress that works better is better equipped
to fulfill its obligations, as the Framers intended, to represent and legislate on
behalf of the American people.
Section II describes the important work of previous select committees,
some of which recommended reforms that are still utilized in the House today.
This Committee broke with the tradition of holding back votes on
recommendations until just before the committee is set to expire. Too often,
this approach positions committees to succeed—or fail—in one fell swoop. Any
public engagement or perception of the committee’s work is limited to just
one day and one vote.
Committee Members decided to take a different and more active
approach to passing recommendations. As detailed throughout this report, the
Committee consistently sought input from internal and external stakeholders,
allowing them to actively participate in the process. Committee Members were
determined to see the Committee succeed and agreed that listening to the
people who work in the People’s House was key to understanding what
needed to be fixed. That meant public hearings and public votes on
recommendations on a rolling basis. When the Committee had consensus, it
took action.
The result was 97 recommendations, all designed to make Congress
work better for all Americans.
These recommendations boost Congress’ technology capacity and
communications capabilities so Members can better connect with their
constituents. They “open up” Congress so that the American people can see
how their Members are voting in committee, and how proposed policies
change current law. They create more opportunities to encourage greater
bipartisan collaboration, ultimately improving the way Representatives
connect, communicate, and legislate for their constituents. And they improve
the congressional schedule and calendar, allowing Members less time traveling
and more time to meaningfully legislate and solve problems for the people
they were elected to serve.
Recommendations to support and improve benefits for congressional
staff will help recruit and retain talented individuals who are committed to
public service. The recommendations also reflect Committee Members’ desire
to see Congress recruit staff who are truly reflective of our nation—diverse in
background and in experience.
283
The Committee also passed recommendations to help Congress reclaim
its role as a truly co-equal branch of government and fulfill its constitutional
obligations as outlined in Article One. In the midst of a global pandemic, the
Committee highlighted gaps in congressional operations and made
recommendations that will help future leaders continue serving their
constituents without delay.
Despite the Committee’s success in passing 97 recommendations, there
are still areas of reform that need to be addressed. Because the Committee’s
lifespan was limited, Members chose to focus on areas where there was
consensus. There were also many important issues that fell outside of the
Committee’s jurisdiction. Committee Members heard many worthy ideas and
encourage future select committees, as well as internal and external reformers,
to pursue these issues. Some of these ideas are described below.
AREAS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION
IMPROVING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
The Committee heard a number of ideas focused on improving civic
engagement. Bringing people into the process is one way of addressing
Congress’ low public approval ratings and enabling the American people to be
full shareholders in the legislative process. The more engaged people are in
the process, the more likely they are to follow and learn about Congress.
Going forward, there are opportunities to consider a variety of ideas related to
enhancing civic engagement, including:
+ Embracing CrowdLaw. The term “CrowdLaw” refers to the practice of
using technology to tap into the collective intelligence and expertise of
the public to improve the quality and legitimacy of lawmaking.
Parliaments, legislatures and city councils around the world are
experimenting with using technology to strengthen meaningful public
participation in the lawmaking process. This is also sometimes referred to
as the “SIDE” Framework—standing for Stakeholders, Individuals, Data,
and Experience & Evidence.334 In 2019, the Natural Resources Committee
put this into practice by “collectively drafting” an environmental justice
bill with the public.335 There are still improvements to be made on both
the technical and engagement side, but as the Natural Resources
Committee illustrated, directly involving the public in the bill writing
process has strong potential for encouraging greater civic participation.
+ Countering disengagement with new, data-based tools for constituent
outreach and communications. Public disengagement can limit the range
of political perspectives Congress hears and leave the space to
hyper-partisans. New models create more integrated, data based,
334. Abernathy, C., Esterling, K. and Harris, M. (2019, October 2). APSA Task Force Memorandum: Congress,
See
Technology, and Innovation. LegBranch.org. https://www.legbranch.org/apsa-task-force-
memorandum-congress-technology-and-innovation/.
335. Principles for Environmental Justice Legislation, Proposed by House Committee on Natural Resources
See
Democrats. (2019, June 21). POPVOX. https://www.popvox.com/us/federal/prop/116/1.
284
constituent-focused conversations that raise up what we have in common
rather than what drives us apart. Research has found that Members can
have a skewed vision of the constituents in their district, but this
discrepancy can be resolved with increased contact and conversations.336
Encouraging electoral connections with constituents will benefit the
American people and Members of Congress alike.
+ Diversifying who serves in Congress. Congress should consider how to
diversify the demographic representation of Congress. Despite some
improvements over time, Congress remains overwhelmingly white, male,
and wealthy. In addition to the perspectives demographically diverse
Members bring to the table, research has shown that an increase in
“descriptive representation” leads constituents to be more likely to
contact and trust Congress.337 Further work could be done to make the
process of running for office clear to members of the public and to
reduce barriers to entry (including challenges related to candidate
fundraising).
+ Diversifying the voices in Congress. Along the same lines, Congress
should continue to undertake efforts to ensure that a diversity of views
are represented in the policy making process. In December 2019, the
chairs of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus,
and Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus—collectively known as
the Tri-Caucus—announced an initiative to track the diversity of witnesses
testifying before House committees. In a letter to their House colleagues,
the chairs wrote, “People of color and women are experts in their fields,
but are not always called as witnesses before Congress. We hope that the
Committees of the House will join us and keep diversity in the forefront of
their work beginning in 2020.”338 Data collection efforts like these are
important in helping Congress better understand and address
institutional shortcomings.
+ Making lobbying more transparent. While the Committee passed
recommendations to make Congress more transparent (see Chapter 1),
the Committee did not engage with explicit reforms to limit or regulate
lobbying in Congress. While lobbying is an important part of citizen
engagement, research has shown that certain organizations and
industries have an outsized influence in this arena.339 Future select
committees could consider recommendations to level the playing field for
all Americans.
336. Miler, K. C. (2010). Constituency representation in congress: The view from Capitol Hill. Cambridge
See
University Press.
337. Gay, C. (2002). Spirals of trust? The effect of descriptive representation on the relationship between
See
citizens and their government. American Journal of Political Science, 717–732.
338. Tri-Caucus Chairs Announce New Initiative to Promote Diversity of House Committee Witnesses (2019,
See
December 12). https://chc.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/tri-caucus-chairs-announce-new-
initiative-to-promote-diversity-of-house
339. Drutman, L. (2015). The business of America is lobbying: How corporations became politicized and
See
politics became more corporate. Oxford University Press.
285
REDUCING POLITICAL POLARIZATION IN CONGRESS
Encouraging bipartisanship in Congress was a priority of the Committee,
as noted in Chapter 2, but future efforts could focus on additional
opportunities to improve bipartisanship and civility in Congress.
+ Promoting evidence-based policymaking. While the Committee passed
some recommendations to facilitate more expertise in Congress (see
Chapters 3, 9, and 10), more can arguably be done in this space. As noted
by Committee Member Rep. Rob Woodall during the February 5, 2020
hearing, even committee hearing witnesses are divided along party
lines.340 Encouraging lawmakers to begin policy negotiations with the
same set of facts facilitates finding common ground.
Some ideas to encourage non-partisan, evidence-based policymaking
include: directing the Congressional Research Service to develop and
provide a training program for congressional staff on the understanding
and interpretation of evidence; establishing a fellowship program that
provides a pathway for evidence experts to provide tailored, credible, and
timely evidence for Congress; reinstituting rules that allow offices to pool
funding for personnel, allowing Members flexibility to hire evidence
specialists; new guidelines to make it easier for nonpartisan research
organizations to work with Member offices; creating a senior leadership
role in Congress to connect researchers and evaluators outside
government to appropriate individuals within the legislative branch.
+ Supporting Member Organizations. Caucuses are among the few spaces
left for Member collaboration outside of Committees, as well as serving
as a place where diverse voices and perspectives come together to
address national issues and further support the development of policy.
The number of caucuses has been growing steadily in the House, from 56
in the 104th Congress (when they replaced Legislative Service
Organizations) to 518 in the 115th Congress, suggesting representatives
do find value in them.
While the Committee made a couple recommendations governing
Member Organizations, future reforms could consider allocating more
resources to Congressional Member Organizations (CMOs), to further
encourage bipartisan collaboration and congressional capacity.
Committees have a more formal role in the policy process, but the
informal role that caucuses play may be an advantage in creating a less
adversarial process of knowledge generation and developing Member
networks. They are also a way for Representatives to share staff on an
ad-hoc basis. The Committee heard from staff leaders of congressional
caucuses, and Members themselves testified to the importance of
caucuses to share information and develop legislation together. To
support caucuses and their staff, future reforms could be considered to
ease Member offices’ ability to meet their funding commitments to
Member Organizations, simplify the budgeting process for Member
Organizations, and provide additional administrative assistance.
340. Article One: Fostering a More Deliberative Process in Congress, 116th Congress. (2020, February 5).
See
286
REFORMING CONGRESSIONAL RULES AND PROCEDURAL CHANGES.
The Committee heard from several experts recommending substantial
rules changes to congressional procedure. Below are possible
recommendations for future Congresses and select committees to consider.
+ Opening up the amendment process. Before the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970, no amendment votes were subject to a roll
call vote in the Committee of the Whole. While the Select Committee did
not make recommendations in this space, it discussed ideas like not
subjecting amendments offered in the Committee of the Whole to roll call
votes, to reduce incentives for Members to offer amendments designed
to score political points or force other Members to take difficult votes,
and having the number of amendments offered in a Committee of the
Whole be agreed upon by the Majority and Minority with each allotted an
equal number of votes on amendments.
+ Reforming the Motion to Recommit. Future recommendations could
consider changing the rules to encourage more meaningful minority
party participation. The Committee had a number of conversations
highlighting that the motion to recommit is often used—by both sides of
the aisle—as a political “gotcha” vote rather than as a substantive
opportunity for minority participation. The Committee was not able to
agree on reforms in this space but discussed a variety of options. For
example, rules could allow the minority to choose between filing a motion
to recommit or guaranteed floor consideration of a minority amendment.
This could encourage the minority to offer a substantive policy alternative
to the majority's bill.
CONSIDERING COMMITTEE SIZE AND JURISDICTION
Past select committees looking at congressional reform frequently
looked at the number of congressional committees and at committee
jurisdiction. This Committee briefly discussed the value of evaluating these
issues. The Committee heard from experts that believed some committees
were too large or had too broad a jurisdiction, and that overlapping
jurisdictions in congress have led to conflict and inefficiencies. Cognizant that
these issues were somewhat explosive in the prior reform committees, the
Select Committee decided to focus attention elsewhere. However, there may
be value in exploring the issue further.
REFORMING THE HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE AND OFFICE OF
CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS
Some Members raised concerns about the transparency, efficiency, and
potential politicization of the House Ethics Committee (“Ethics Committee”)
and Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), but the Select Committee did not
pass recommendations in this space. Additionally, the Committee heard from
staff through various listening sessions about the need to update the financial
287
disclosure system. Given the extensive ethics rules and guidelines governing
staff and Members, future select committees may evaluate outdated and
possibly ineffective regulations in need of modernization.
IMPROVING TECHNOLOGY IN CONGRESS
While the Committee passed several reforms in this space (see Chapters
4 and 9), Congress can always continue to improve. Some of the
technology-based reforms the Committee heard include:
+ Establishing a House Technology Working Group. The APSA Task Force
on Congressional Reform proposed establishing such a group to identify
technological improvements and collaborate on technology
modernization efforts for the chamber. A House Technology Working
Group made up of Members and staffers with interest and expertise in
congressional technology would serve as a venue for offices to
coordinate and share information about how to modernize institutional
operations. This working group can identify and evaluate technology that
can support lawmaking, oversight, constituent engagement and overall
operations for the institution and serve as a central clearinghouse for
information and expertise about technology. This group, or others, could
also consider how to move Congress towards more “dynamic data”,
including AI, policy modeling, and data-driven oversight. In this regard,
Congress is again falling behind the executive branch.
+ Enabling remote voting. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic,
Congress discussed a variety of options to ensure work could continue.
While the House pursued proxy voting, some, including Rep. Eric
Swalwell (CA-15), have suggested the House develop procedures
allowing fully remote voting.341 The further use of technology to enable
Member participation is a subject worthy of further exploration. Beyond
remote voting on the House floor, committees should consider how to
implement remote voting to increase efficiency and save time. As part of
its continuity of government and congressional operations
recommendations, the Committee recommended that committees
incorporate technology and innovative platforms, including electronic
voting systems, into daily work. Future select committees could expand
upon these recommendations.
+ Language translation services. Members of Congress increasingly
represent diverse communities of constituents who do not speak English
as a first language. Communicating with these constituents should not
pose challenges to Members and staff, and the burden of figuring out
how to communicate with their Representatives should not fall on
constituents. Some Member offices have their newsletters translated into
multiple languages, provide simultaneous translation services at live and
digital townhall meetings, and offer live, over-the-phone translation
services to constituents. However, these efforts are the responsibility of
341. Grisales, C. (2020, May 27). “House Casts its 1st Remote Votes, with Parties Still Divided on the Issue”.
See
NPR. https://www.npr.org/2020/05/27/863055639/house-moves-to-cast-its-1st-remote-votes-with-
parties-still-divided-on-the-issue
288
individual offices. Congress should do more to integrate language
translation services into its routine operations and make these services
available to Member offices at no cost to the Member’s Representational
Allowance. Language barriers should not prevent people from accessing
information and services from the People’s House. The provision of such
services is consistent with the Committee’s accessibility
recommendations described in Chapter 5.
ENSURING THE CONTINUITY OF CONGRESS
While the Committee passed continuity reforms to directly respond to
the remote work period (see Chapter 9), it did not address the actual
procedures for continuity of government. Prior select committees, most
notably the 9/11 Commission, have sought to address this issue as well, but
given the contentious nature of thinking about a large number of Members
being incapacitated, specific recommendations have been few.342
+ Analyzing continuity issues. Congress needs to engage in a thorough
analysis of continuity issues and develop a continuity of operations plan
for the continuation of government. Recommendations should consider
how elections will proceed in the case of mass vacancies. Given the
differences of state laws regarding special elections and the extensive
cost and preparation required to hold an election, a disaster in which the
majority of congressional seats need to be filled simultaneously holds
grave consequences for our democracy.
IMPROVING CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT
In addition to the Article One reforms detailed in Chapter 10 and the
budget and appropriations reforms of Chapter 11, more could be done to
address the discrepancy between executive budgets and congressional
oversight. Future select committees could study how to fund oversight as a
line item in executive budgets, or consider rules and principles to ensure
Congress can perform oversight of the executive branch expenditures.
SHARED STAFF
Shared staff are staff who are paid by more than one congressional
office or entity. They typically support multiple offices with a range of
administrative operations, finance, technology, systems and casework
functions. While the Committee gathered information from staff who serve in
a shared capacity, and explored ways to strengthen standards, training,
information sharing and accountability, it ultimately did not make
recommendations specific to this category of staff. The Committee, however,
recognized that steps might be taken to ensure consistent application of the
342. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, final report. https://www.9-
See
11commission.gov/report/.
289
rules that apply to shared staff and effective communication of those rules, as
well as administrative reforms to make it easier for offices to employ shared
staff. Meaningful change can be realized without wholesale reorganization of
the systems that are currently in place.
RECOMMENDATIONS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE
COMMITTEE’S MANDATE
While the Committee focused on issues within its mandate, Committee
Members were cognizant of the many factors that affect Congress’ ability to
uphold its Article One obligations and that contribute to dysfunction.
IMPROVING THE ELECTIONS PROCESS
+ Reforming the campaign finance system. This area drew widespread
discussion from Committee Members but was ultimately considered
outside of the Committee’s mandate. Members expressed, on a bipartisan
basis, frustrations regarding the role of fundraising and the extent to
which it takes time away from their legislative and representational
responsibilities.
+ Addressing partisan Gerrymandering. Discussions with Members and
political scientists during the Select Committee’s work highlighted the
fact that polarization in Congress was related to polarization in member
districts. This dynamic has been exacerbated by the means in which
district boundaries are drawn, with red districts becoming redder and
blue districts becoming bluer. While these issues were considered outside
of the scope of the Committee’s mandate, they may warrant further
analysis.
+ Creating multi-member districts/expanding the size of the House. When
Congress set its membership at 435 Members in 1912, there was one
representative for every 211,000 constituents. Following the 2020 census,
it is expected that the average U.S. House member will represent roughly
765,000 constituents. This report has noted the challenges of
congressional capacity in the face of growing district size, and pundits
and political scientists alike have documented the perils of overly-large
districts.343
Similarly, multi-member districts (MMDs) are electoral districts that send
two or more Members to a legislative chamber. Ten U.S. states have at
least one legislative chamber with MMDs. Proponents of multi-member
districts argue that they are more representative of district voters; for
example, if 60% of the vote goes to one party and 40% goes to another
party, a multi-member district would distribute seats accordingly. In a
single-member district system, the winner takes all. The Constitution does
not prescribe the method for electing representatives to Congress nor
the number of Members, but increasing the number of Members raises all
343. Editorial: “America Needs a Bigger House” (2018, November). New York Times.
See
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/09/opinion/expanded-house-representatives-size.html
290
kinds of other issues (space/additional pay for more Members, staff, etc.).
While the Select Committee discussed such out-of-the-box ideas, it was
felt that far more analysis would be needed.
CONCLUSION
The recommendations passed by the Committee were designed to bring
real, tangible reform to the legislative branch. And because of its commitment
to passing recommendations on a rolling basis, the Committee was able to see
many of its recommendations implemented in real time. Committee Members,
however, acknowledge that many of the issues facing Congress—including
technological challenges, the need for more bipartisan collaboration and
improved civil discourse, and stronger staff capacity—are not new and will
require continued investment and attention in the coming years.
The Committee’s final recommendation is to make modernization a
permanent effort. For an institution to remain current, it needs to constantly
assess and update. The ability to rapidly adjust operations to reflect modern
standards is good practice. An ongoing commitment to modernization and
transparent reform on behalf of the American people will ensure the
Committee’s mission lives on for future Congress.
291
Staff Acknowledgements
The following individuals from the Select Committee on the Modernization of
Congress contributed to this report.
Allie Neill, Staff Director
Jake Olson, Deputy Staff Director
Danielle Stewart, Communications Director
Rachel Kelly, Chief of Staff to Chair Kilmer
John Donnelly, Chief of Staff to Vice Chair Graves
Alyssa Innis, Digital Director
Marian Currinder, Professional Staff
SoRelle Wyckoff Gaynor, Fellow
Betsy Wright Hawkings, Fellow
Michael Massiwer, Research Associate
Mariah Harding, Clerk
Britney Lyons, Digital Fellow
Tianmi Stilphen, Intern
The following individuals from the Committee Members’ personal staff also
played an important role in reviewing the report and offering policy
recommendations.
David Bagby, Deputy Chief of Staff for Rep. Mark Pocan
Sasha Bernhard, Senior Policy Advisor for Rep. Suzan DelBene
Jen Daulby, Republican Staff Director for the Committee on House
Administration
Eddie Flaherty, Democratic Chief Clerk for the Committee on House
Administration
Jamie Fleet, Democratic Staff Director for the Committee on House
Administration
Devin Kelsey, Legislative Fellow for Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
Aaron Larson, Legislative Assistant for Rep. Dan Newhouse
Stacey Leavandosky, Chief of Staff for Rep. Zoe Lofgren
Herline Mathieu, Scheduler for Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
Tim Monahan, Republican Director of Oversight for the Committee on
House Administration
Aubrey Neal, Fellow for the Committee on House Administration
Andrew Nicholson, Legislative Aide for Rep. Susan Brooks
292
Hilary Ranieri, Deputy Chief of Staff and Legislative Director for Rep.
William Timmons
Keanu Rivera, Legislative Assistant for Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon
David Ross, Legislative Assistant for Rep. Rodney Davis
Megan Savage, Chief of Staff for Rep. Susan Brooks
Aaron Schmidt, Chief of Staff for Rep. Suzan DelBene
Nicholas Scoufaras, Legislative Director for Rep. Rob Woodall
Jennifer Taft, Chief of Staff for Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
File and source
- File
- CRPT_gpo-crpt-116hrpt562_gpo-crpt-116hrpt562.pdf
- Size
- 8,554,607 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4a3b086debd82ed4f5be1bd362a774b88ee7705b24b0627f078ba621ff3955ba
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov