[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                           


 
CONGRESSIONAL STAFF CAPACITY: IMPROVING STAFF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 
           INCREASING RETENTION AND COMPETING FOR TOP TALENT

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

           SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS

                                 of the

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 6, 2021


                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-04

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Modernization of 
                                Congress
                                
                                
                                
                                
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                
                                
                                


                  Available on via http://govinfo.gov
                  
                  
                  
                             ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
48-588               WASHINGTON : 2022                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
           SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS

                    DEREK KILMER, Washington, Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina,
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri              Vice Chair
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              BOB LATTA, Ohio
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota             RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia             DAVE JOYCE, Ohio
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas                GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
                                     BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas

                            COMMITTEE STAFF

                     Yuri Beckelman, Staff Director
                Derek Harley, Republican Staff Director
                
                            C O N T E N T S

                               __________

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Chairman Derek Kilmer
    Oral Statement...............................................     1
Vice Chairman William Timmons
    Oral Statement...............................................     2

                               WITNESSES

Ms. Catherine Szpindor, Chief Administrative Officer for the 
    House of Representatives
    Oral Statement...............................................     4
    Written Statement............................................     6
Mr. Brad Fitch President and CEO of the Congressional Management 
    Foundation
    Oral Statement...............................................    10
    Written Statement............................................    13
Mr. Aaron Jones, Director of Congressional Relations at the 
    Wilson Center
    Oral Statement...............................................    19
    Written Statement............................................    21
Discussion.......................................................    24
Ms. Greta Engle, Vice President of Employee Benefits at USI 
    Insurance Services, on behalf of Society for Human Resource 
    Management (SHRM)
    Oral Statement...............................................    35
    Written Statement............................................    38
Ms. Lynnel Ruckert, Former Congressional Staff
    Oral Statement...............................................    45
    Written Statement............................................    47
Ms. Fran Peace, Former District Director
    Oral Statement...............................................    50
    Written Statement............................................    52
Ms. Dao Nguyen
    Oral Statement...............................................    58
    Written Statement............................................    60
Discussion.......................................................    64


CONGRESSIONAL STAFF CAPACITY: IMPROVING STAFF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 
           INCREASING RETENTION AND COMPETING FOR TOP TALENT

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2021

                          House of Representatives,
         Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:03 a.m., via 
Zoom, Hon. Derek Kilmer [chairman of the committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Kilmer, Cleaver, Perlmutter, 
Phillips, Williams of Georgia, Timmons, Rodney Davis of 
Illinois, Reschenthaler, Van Duyne, and Joyce.
    The Chairman. I am going to bang the virtual gavel. The 
committee will come to order.
    Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the committee at any time.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes to give an opening 
statement.
    Listen, there is a very clear reason why this committee has 
held more hearings focused on improving congressional staff 
capacity than on any other topic. It is because, quite frankly, 
this institution's ability to effectively uphold its Article I 
responsibilities absolutely depends on the hard work of 
dedicated public servants who work here.
    Staff ensure that Members are able to do the jobs they were 
elected to do. They are often the first people our constituents 
encounter when they reach out to the Federal Government for 
help.
    They are also typically the first to speak with 
constituents who want to share an opinion or an idea related to 
the work of Congress.
    And, every single day, staff are on the front lines 
connecting citizens to their government. And that work matters 
so much, particularly now, given the many challenges our 
constituents have faced over the past year.
    Staff also help Members work through complicated policy 
questions. Their expertise and guidance are invaluable to 
Members who are working hard to make sure that their 
constituents' views are reflected in the policymaking process.
    So, when I say that staff are dedicated, I mean they are in 
every sense of the word. Members could not carry out their 
representational and policymaking responsibilities without the 
support of staff. And that is exactly why Congress needs to do 
more to support them.
    Modernizing Congress requires us to change the way we think 
about a lot of things, including staff. We know that modern 
organizations put a premium on not only attracting, but keeping 
talented people. They understand that investing in the kinds of 
programs and benefits that employees want is key to maintaining 
a high-performing and stable workforce.
    Now, unfortunately, Congress has a longstanding tendency to 
view these kinds of investments as expenses. The focus, in 
other words, is on costs rather than returns. This is an area 
where I think Congress really needs to change the way it 
thinks.
    Investing in staff pays off, and the returns are 
exponential. Staff with long-term institutional knowledge and 
deep ties to the communities in which we serve are so essential 
to making Congress work better for the American people.
    Instead of treating constant staff turnover as just the way 
things work on Capitol Hill, Congress should invest in the 
kinds of benefits and programing that would make a long-term 
career on the Hill attractive. Whether that is a first-time 
homebuyer assistance benefit or a childcare subsidy or a 
college savings plan or better healthcare options or all of the 
above, Congress needs to do better.
    Congress needs to do better, because small salary bumps and 
title changes can't compete with better paychecks and better 
benefits and a healthier work-life balance, and that is 
evidenced by the fact that the typical staffer leaves the Hill 
after 4 or 5 years.
    The longer Congress ignores the so-called ``brain drain'' 
from Capitol Hill, the harder it becomes for the legislative 
branch to uphold its Article I responsibilities, and that is a 
disservice to the American people, because what too often fills 
that void is hired lobbyists.
    Today, we are going to talk about steps Congress can take 
to regain a competitive edge in the career marketplace. We will 
hear former staff explain why a long-term career on the Hill 
often isn't sustainable for so many. And we will also hear from 
experts focused on empowering staff through mentorships and 
professional development programs. And we will learn about the 
latest in employee benefit trends and how Congress compares.
    So I am looking forward to this discussion and to hearing 
what the experts joining us today recommend.
    And I would now like to invite Vice Chair Timmons to share 
some opening remarks as well.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to our witnesses for being here today to 
discuss this very important issue.
    In the Rules of the House, where this select committee was 
established, it states that this committee's mission is to make 
Congress more effective, efficient, and transparent on behalf 
of the American people. There are many ways to achieve this 
mission, but one of the most important ways to do so is 
investing in staff, our teams.
    Our teams are everything. They are the ones who are 
communicating with constituents on a daily basis, whether it be 
a staff assistant answering a phone call, a communications 
director responding to a social media message or comment, or a 
constituent services representative handling a casework issue.
    These are the people that are essential to making Congress 
work better, more effective, more efficient for the American 
people.
    I believe a big part of the reason Congress is viewed as 
ineffective or dysfunctional is because we do not take the 
necessary steps to invest in our team members. We have seen 
numerous companies in the private sector put an emphasis on 
staff retention, whether that be through a benefits package, 
continued employee training programs, or just an overall better 
emphasis on the work-life balance.
    As the chair said, a typical Hill staffer leaves the Hill 
after 3 to 5 years. Sure, there are some that come to the Hill 
after college just for the experience, knowing they will not be 
here for more than a year or two. But the majority of staff 
leave because they simply cannot afford to stay.
    And I do not just mean financially. It is simply just--it 
is not sustainable mentally and emotionally. So many staffers 
become drained, and they have to leave.
    Being Hill staff can be a thankless job, and that is why we 
must take steps now to foster an environment of learning and 
growth. Paying a competitive salary may fix some of these 
problems, but it does not address all of the obstacles that we 
face.
    I am looking forward to hearing from today's panel of 
witnesses upon how recommendations can be made in the 116th, 
and new recommendations to foster a more positive environment 
for staff so that we can better serve the American people.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.
    Speaking of terrific staff, the terrific staff of this 
committee put together two A-plus panels of witnesses. Our 
first panel features three experts on staff professional 
developmental and training, and our second panel features four 
experts who will address staff pay, benefits, and retention.
    Our witnesses are reminded that your oral testimony will be 
limited to 5 minutes. And, without objection, your written 
statements will be made part of the record.
    Our first witness is Catherine Szpindor, the Chief 
Administrative Officer for the House of Representatives. 
Previously, Ms. Szpindor served as the Chief Information 
Officer for the House of Representatives.
    She joined the House in 2011 as the Director of Enterprise 
Applications, and then was promoted to Deputy CIO and Acting 
CIO prior to being named CIO.
    That was a lot of CIOs in one sentence. Sorry, Catherine.
    During her time in the House, she has directed improvements 
to technology infrastructure and applications, adoption of 
cloud technologies, and the implementation of collaboration and 
conferencing tools in support of remote working during the 
COVID-19 crisis.
    Ms. Szpindor, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to give 
an oral presentation of your testimony.

  STATEMENTS OF MS. CATHERINE SZPINDOR, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE 
   OFFICER FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; MR. BRAD FITCH, 
 PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE CONGRESSIONAL MANAGEMENT FOUNDATION; 
AND MR. AARON JONES, DIRECTOR OF CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS AT THE 
                         WILSON CENTER

                STATEMENT OF CATHERINE SZPINDOR

    Ms. Szpindor. Thank you. I appreciate it.
    Chairman Kilmer, Vice Chairman Timmons, members of the 
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about 
the CAO's efforts to improve congressional staff retention 
through our staff training programs. It is also an honor to be 
here with you and the other panelists.
    The CAO's motto is ``Member Focused, Service Driven,'' and 
this drives everything we do. Part of being Member focused is 
also being staff focused.
    Among more than a hundred services the CAO provides to the 
House, we take great pride in providing the training programs 
to develop the skill sets that staff need to be successful.
    We continue to see an enormous need in this area and are 
committed to stepping up our efforts to provide the most needed 
and relevant staff training.
    It is our hope that, by better preparing our staff for 
their work and aiding them to gain competence and skills needed 
to succeed, staff will stay on the Hill and become experts and 
leaders within our institution.
    CAO training has evolved. Many of you may remember when it 
was just a few classrooms where you could learn WordPerfect and 
other technical skills.
    However, in 2017, the CAO launched a House-focused 
professional development organization, the Congressional Staff 
Academy, to better align with the needs of Members and their 
staff.
    This effort resulted in new state-of-the-art classrooms, 
administrative systems, and, most importantly, new classes to 
address the needs of Member and committee offices.
    The team focused its limited resources on introductory 
professional development for select staff profiles, including 
chiefs of staff, communication directors, schedulers, 
caseworkers, and new managers.
    Each year since its launch in 2018, the Staff Academy has 
grown its course offerings and its attendance. Last year, the 
attendance for Staff Academy courses, not including required 
training, such as workplace rights, ethics, et cetera, the 
attendance was 8,548, which is a fivefold increase from the 
prior year. This year, we are on track to exceed that.
    That said, we are not satisfied with the progress to date. 
With continued focus on meeting the needs of Members and staff, 
we are doubling down on our vision for the Staff Academy to be 
an essential resource for every staffer in the People's House.
    This year, we are launching a new program focused on Member 
office staff skills. This program will be led by full-time 
veteran D.C. and district staffers who have excelled and know 
what other staff need.
    They will be teaching others what they have learned--
unfortunately, sometimes the hard way--and they will be 
recruiting their colleagues to train and mentor as well. Our 
team will focus on the everyday skills staff use to be 
successful in their role.
    So, for instance, a new district director will be able to 
learn from a veteran on how to communicate with their Member's 
priorities at a community meeting. A new chief might learn from 
a veteran chief tips for developing their budget. And a new 
legislative assistant might learn how to approach the Rules 
Committee or write questions for a committee hearing.
    We will use a mixture of best practice panels, internal and 
external speakers, quick tips, emails, videos, one-on-one 
coaching, quick lunchtime classes, and traditional courses to 
provide a full spectrum of content to our staff. Our hope is 
staff will learn things that no one ever tells you about to 
actually get things done.
    So far, our small team of full-time staffers have made 
great strides. We are in the process of hiring four new 
instructors with extensive Member office experience. We hope to 
roll out our new program this summer.
    As we expand the Congressional Staff Academy operations, I 
am confident we are in a great position to deliver even greater 
value to the Members and staff of this institution. We ask for 
your support and partnership as we seek to develop and retain 
staff in the House.
    Thank you. And I will be glad to answer any questions you 
may have.
    [The statement of Ms. Szpindor follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
    
       
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Szpindor.
    We had to create the Select Committee on the Modernization 
of Congress punch card for our second witness, a frequent flyer 
with the committee, Brad Fitch.
    After this visit to the committee, congratulations. I owe 
you a free latte.
    Mr. Fitch is the president and CEO of the Congressional 
Management Foundation, a position he has held since 2010. He 
spent 25 years in Washington as a journalist, congressional 
aide, consultant, college instructor, internet entrepreneur, a 
writer and researcher.
    I am concerned you can't hold a job, Brad.
    Mr. Fitch began working on Capitol Hill in 1988, where he 
served for 13 years in a variety of positions for four Members 
of Congress.
    Mr. Fitch, welcome back. You are now recognized for 5 
minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony.

                    STATEMENT OF BRAD FITCH

    Mr. Fitch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, 
members of the committee. I am grateful for this opportunity 
today to testify before you on the topic of congressional staff 
capacity.
    As you all know, one of the biggest challenges to staff 
capacity is high turnover. Many staffers leave their jobs due 
to this punishing schedule, comparatively low pay, and general 
public derision.
    According to your own ``2019 House Compensation and 
Diversity Study Report,'' staff in Member offices stay in their 
position an average of 2.5 years, while leadership and 
committee staff stay 2.7 years.
    One of the issues leading to staff turnover is staff pay. 
To be sure, most people who apply for a job in Congress don't 
do it for the money.
    In our research we conducted with the Society for Human 
Resource Management as part of our ``Life in Congress'' series, 
we asked staff why they stay in their jobs. They cite 
meaningfulness of work, the desire to help people, and their 
dedication to public service for the top reasons for staying.
    However, the reasons they cited for leaving have to do with 
low compensation and professional development opportunities. 
The desire to earn more money is the top reason they cite for 
leaving their job.
    And turnover on Capitol Hill results in a cost of 
institutional memory, policy expertise, and process knowledge. 
And this puts Congress at a significant disadvantage.
    Consider looking at Congress and the entire public policy 
arena as a three-way competition between the executive branch, 
the legislative branch, and the private sector.
    CMF conducted an analysis of representative staffers from 
these three areas who all worked on the National Defense 
Authorization Act.
    The key executive branch staffer had 30 years' experience 
and was paid nearly $200,000. The staffer working for a member 
of the House Armed Services committee had 4 years' experience 
and was paid one-third of that. And the lobbyist working for 
the defense contractor had worked on the bill 30 years and was 
paid ten times what the House legislative assistant was paid.
    Put simply, Congress is significantly overmatched in the 
public policy arena.
    With that context in mind, CMF provided 11 recommendations 
in its written testimony, and we would like to highlight five 
here today.
    First, increase the Member's Representational Allowance by 
20 percent. And this change, by the way, is not really an 
increase, but just rather a correction for the years the House 
cut its own budget. To make the House more competitive for 
hiring outstanding employees, it should consider an actual 
increase in pay for staff.
    Second, establish a salary threshold for junior staff. Too 
many congressional staffers have to take a second job just to 
make ends meet. A minimum salary floor would ensure a living 
wage for your employees.
    Third, consider a recommendation related to overtime pay in 
Congress--or, to be more accurate, the lack of overtime pay.
    As this committee knows, the Congressional Accountability 
Act applies certain rights and protections of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act to congressional staff.
    The House may need to make some changes to ensure that the 
institution is following the intended purpose of the 
Congressional Accountability Act.
    Specifically, the Department of Labor recently changed the 
minimum salary threshold for overtime eligibility to just over 
$35,000.
    We urge the committee to thoroughly examine this issue and 
make recommendations to the House to ensure that the 
institution is not only living up to the letter of the 
Congressional Accountability Act, but the spirit of the act as 
well.
    Fourth, increase the budget for the Congressional Staff 
Academy. Initially under the leadership of CAO Phil Kiko, and 
now under CAO Catherine Szpindor, the House has made a gigantic 
leap forward to enhance professional development opportunities 
for staff.
    The establishment of the academy and the plans the current 
CAO has for its growth are, quite simply, the most important 
and most consequential steps the House has ever taken to 
improve professionalism, job retention, and effectiveness for 
those who serve in Congress.
    Fifth, the House should also consider changing the student 
loan repayment program so that all staff have equal opportunity 
to equal benefits.
    Currently, each office receives the same amount, regardless 
of how many eligible employees it has, and independently 
determines how to distribute those funds.
    We recommend changing the student loan program to replicate 
transit and healthcare benefits.
    Finally, for the House and Senate to genuinely address the 
challenges to staff capacity, the institution must change its 
culture.
    Too often, given the extraordinary demands on the job, 
staff are viewed as easily expendable and easily replaced. This 
not only has a tangible negative impact on the institution of 
Congress, it exacts a terrible toll on these amazing public 
servants.
    A recent news story looked at the insurrection of January 6 
and the aftermath impact on the attack on congressional staff. 
One congressional staffer said in the article this: ``Staff in 
general have a feeling like they are being invisible, like 
nobody is looking out for us.''
    Staff are the lifeblood of this institution, and the 
culture needs to change and treat them accordingly.
    This committee has been an oasis of constructive thinking 
on how to improve the institution of Congress, and your work 
can create a transformational change that will not only impact 
the people who work on Capitol Hill, but will create a 
legislative institution to better serve our Nation.
    And as this chairman and vice chairman have wisely pointed 
out on many occasions, ultimately your mission is to enhance 
the product and services you deliver to your principal 
stakeholder, the American people.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Fitch follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Fitch.
    Our next witness is Aaron Jones, the Director of 
Congressional Relations at the Wilson Center, which runs highly 
regarded training and professional development programs for 
congressional staff.
    Previously, Mr. Jones served for 8 years in the office of 
Representative Hal Rogers. His expertise is in Federal 
budgeting, the appropriations process, legislative history, and 
U.S. politics.
    Mr. Jones, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF AARON JONES

    Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Vice Chairman and 
members of the committee. Thank you for asking me to testify 
before you today.
    As the chairman said, I currently serve as the Director of 
Congressional Relations for the Woodrow Wilson International 
Center for Scholars, a Federal trust instrumentality created by 
Congress in 1968 to provide a place for scholarship, open 
debate, and actionable ideas that the legislative branch can 
use to create policy.
    We do not advocate positions. Rather, our job is to provide 
Congress with the expertise that you need in order to make 
informed decisions and take educated votes on the issues our 
Nation faces.
    Through the policy education programs that we run at the 
Wilson Center, we know that there are men and women within this 
institution who care deeply about growing professionally, and 
they care deeply about this country, and they want to work with 
the other side to find common ground. This may not be something 
that the media likes to report on, but that doesn't mean it 
isn't happening.
    Our job, as people who care about our country and this 
institution, is to continue to provide these opportunities and 
to make sure that we do not create a self-fulfilling prophesy 
where we say that there is no bipartisanship, therefore, we 
must make it so.
    I served as a staffer for Congressman Hal Rogers in the 
mid-2000s for several years. And as a staffer seeking to grow 
professionally, I actually applied to the Wilson Center's 
Foreign Policy Fellowship Program in 2013 and completed the 
program. I traveled with a staff delegation trip to Mexico in 
2014 that was arranged by the Wilson Center for a group of 
alumni from the program.
    I never dreamed as a staffer that participating in this 
program would lead to my becoming the Director of Congressional 
Relations and managing that very same program, but it has been 
wonderful to see the growth that I have seen in staff.
    The Wilson Center runs several policy education programs 
for congressional staff, the vision of which is to allow 
congressional staff to come together, learn, and grow. The core 
of our programs is the Foreign Policy Fellowship Program, which 
is supported by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New 
York.
    This program targets mid- to senior-level staffers and 
consists of six classes held on Friday afternoons. Each session 
focuses on a different foreign policy topic and lasts for 2 or 
3 hours.
    Participants also engage in interactive simulation 
exercises that are designed by our experts, and these exercises 
place participants in groups where staffers from both Chambers 
and both parties have to work together to come up with 
responses that appeal to the whole group.
    Finally, there is also a social hour, which of course this 
portion has been omitted during the COVID pandemic, but we 
intend to reinstate that as soon as conditions permit.
    We also run master class sessions on various important 
issue areas that are targeted for senior-level staff. These 
classes take deep dives on issue areas where staffers work for 
several hours studying it. So far, we have conducted master 
classes on cybersecurity, Russia, China, the Arctic, North 
Korea, and there are upcoming sessions on Africa and water 
security.
    Beyond these offerings, we also have classes on 
cybersecurity and artificial intelligence that follow the 
foreign policy fellowship models and master class models.
    To date, we have had nearly 1,300 congressional staff 
participate in the various classes that we offer--including, I 
might add, one member of the second panel who will be 
testifying before the committee today.
    Upon graduation from these programs, staffers become part 
of an alumni network. We engage these alumni by offering 
additional briefings, forums, delegation trips to keep staffers 
informed, and, most importantly, interacting with each other.
    As Members know, the congressional delegation activities of 
traveling with their colleagues cannot only be an educational 
asset for policymaking, but it also builds relationships and 
friendships that extend beyond Chamber, beyond party, and can 
last a lifetime.
    We have heard directly from participants that their 
experience within our programs have led to staff working 
together across the aisle either to create legislation or 
simply to have a sounding board with the other side as they 
craft their policies.
    After 8 years of running this program, the Wilson Center 
has developed a reputation among staffers for providing solid, 
nonpartisan expertise, and this is useful to their Members as 
well as to their careers.
    Many staffers hear about this opportunity for professional 
growth by word of mouth, from their peers and from their 
colleagues. One participant recently told us that he had heard 
about our programs while he was doing interviews on the Hill, 
describing the opportunity as a professional development 
opportunity and perk for the job.
    I am often contacted by chiefs of staff and other hiring 
managers on the Hill who take notice of our programming that is 
listed on candidates' resumes, and this is very rewarding for 
us.
    I hope that I have demonstrated today that this proves that 
there are rays of sunshine through the clouds of partisanship 
that we are often hearing about. It is my hope that places like 
the Wilson Center can continue to find resources to maintain 
these types of programs for congressional staff, not only for 
their individual professional development, but for the health 
of a vibrant democracy.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
    We are now going to move into member questions. Just so 
folks have a sense of the batting order, it will be myself, 
followed by Mr.Timmons, then Cleaver, Davis, Phillips, Joyce, 
Williams, Reschenthaler, and then Van Duyne.
    So with that, let me recognize myself for 5 minutes, and 
let me start with Ms. Szpindor.
    I wanted to share that I have been hearing good feedback 
about the Staff Academy. It is obviously a tough job training 
people how to do these jobs, which often require a pretty 
unique skill set and, when it comes to Congress, occasionally 
an understanding of archaic traditions.
    In the past, there has been some feedback of frustration 
with trainers telling staff how to do their job or without 
having necessarily an understanding of how Congress actually 
works.
    I guess I was wondering, has there been consideration of 
hiring staff part-time to just develop curriculum and lead 
courses? I think the thinking is this could help pay our 
talented staffers a bit more and ensure that our training is 
based on current experience. Has that been considered?
    Ms. Szpindor. It has. And, quite frankly, that is why we 
decided that, while we are hiring these four additional 
individuals, two who can help with district office training and 
two who can help with--on the staff here on the Hill--these 
individuals we are hiring are individuals who have recently 
been staffers at the House.
    And we are hoping that not only can they help us in 
preparing some of the course material and doing the training, 
but they can also entice other individuals, through sort of an 
adjunct type program, to come in and contribute in those 
courses, to add to them, to maybe do some additional 
instruction during a live training course or a videotape 
training course.
    So, yes, we have realized that, in order to really make 
this identify with those individuals in the office, we need to 
have people who have actually done these things before and can 
talk with the staff that they are trying to train to make them 
understand what was successful for them, and maybe that can be 
carried over to make them successful as well.
    The Chairman. I want to follow up on the training that you 
offer. I am pretty struck that retention can often be tied to 
the degree to which a staff member feels that the office in 
which they work is investing in them and that their 
relationship with their manager is one of a loving critic who 
is investing in them and trying to help them improve 
professionally.
    Having said that, oftentimes in this environment you have 
people stepping into management roles who haven't managed 
before.
    So can you talk about the management training courses that 
you offer and the feedback you have gotten from staff who have 
attended those? And are you able to measure the effectiveness 
of those programs and whether they are having a positive impact 
on office culture and retention?
    Ms. Szpindor. Yes, I can.
    We have a number of leadership programs that we do offer 
throughout the year, both for staff--and within the CAO, as 
well as staff management training and staff training for those 
in the offices.
    We measure a lot from feedback that we get from the 
evaluations that are done from the classes. But also we have 
our customer advocates that are assigned to each of the 
offices. They provide us feedback.
    We understand that our evaluations over the past couple 
years have improved, and right now we are getting about a 97 
percent positive feedback on our course evaluations over the 
past year. So that is good. We want to improve. We want to do 
better.
    Our attendance tells us that it is popular. Our people are 
attending. As I said earlier in my presentation, we had this 
year alone--I am sorry, last year we had attendance of 8,548, 
and these were with the nonrequired training programs that we 
all go through, like the workplace rights, like ethics, like 
cybersecurity training.
    This year we have already trained 3,676 employees. So we 
expect to really beat the records that we have had in the past 
as far as training that we have done.
    So we feel like that there are some really good indicators. 
Our evaluations are going up. Training attendance is going up. 
And we are beginning to offer more and more training for 
individuals.
    The LinkedIn courses alone require--I think there is 
something like a total of thousands of courses that are 
available through LinkedIn learning that people can view at any 
time. They are online, and they are in seven different 
languages. For anyone who needs something in a language besides 
English, they can take this training.
    We get a lot of people that go in and take a variety of 
management courses through that particular medium, because it 
is easy to go online and do the training.
    So we are looking at a variety of ways to provide the 
training, and we see that we have got to improve in what we 
offer to the staff, which is why we are hiring the individuals 
that we are this year. And I expect the growth to be really 
good in the number of people that are attending and in the 
evaluations that we receive.
    So I am pleased.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Szpindor. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Next up, we have got Mr. Timmons, and Mr. Cleaver is in the 
on-deck circle.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am going to begin with Mr. Fitch.
    Mr. Fitch, you referenced increasing the entry level 
salary. What number do you think is appropriate there? I mean 
$15 an hour is thirty, thirty-one, thirty-two thousand dollars. 
Is that sufficient, or where are you going with that?
    And I guess another question is, how many people on the 
Hill make less than $32,000? Is that really a big problem that 
I am not as aware of?
    Mr. Fitch. Well, if you are one of those people that are 
making less than $32,000, it is a big problem, because you are 
looking at ramen noodles for dinner most of the time.
    And the number, I am not going to offer that at this time. 
I would like the opportunity to research that further. And I 
think that, at some levels, it may need to be adjusted based on 
location.
    I mean, we live in the Washington, D.C., area. We did a 
little analysis, a quick analysis of what an entry level 
employee at the IRS would make as a staff assistant, and at the 
entry level they are paid $38,000 as a minimum. And we were 
just looking at comparative to the executive branch.
    I think this is something that should be actually explored 
a little bit in some focus groups with some of your own staff 
and look at their experiences at how they are making ends meet 
with a $30,000 or a $29,000 a year.
    And, unfortunately, I do think it does require some level 
of a mandate, because we continue to hear stories of managers 
who are, frankly, engaged in a race to the bottom to bring in 
the lowest-paid staff member. And they treat it like a badge of 
honor, which is just horrible.
    But you can't manage all culture at one time. So I do think 
that the House having some kind of floor will address some of 
those deficiencies.
    Mr. Timmons. Sure. And I guess the challenge there--I mean, 
I think D.C. is one thing, because the cost of living is so 
high, but certain more rural areas, if you are in a very rural 
area, it is just a different story for an entry level job.
    But I definitely agree. We pride ourselves on taking care 
of our team members. So it would be interesting to know how 
many people are working on the Hill that make less than $32,000 
a year. I am sure we can look into that.
    Thank you, Mr. Fitch.
    And, again, I wanted to appreciate, I was just looking at 
my email. Three, 4 years ago, it was 2018, is the first time I 
emailed you, and I emailed you at 6 a.m. And you got back to me 
four hours later, and you said, ``I am really sorry for the 
delay.''
    And I just think that is great. We hit the ground running 
because of the resources that you offer, and I just really 
appreciate the role that you all play in helping Congress 
really get offices set up. So thank you for that.
    Mr. Fitch. My pleasure.
    Mr. Timmons. Ms. Szpindor, I want to go back to you 
regarding the recommendations that we made in the 116th.
    Do we need to do something, direction through 
appropriations, or are there changes that can be made without 
needing actual directive? Could you just give us an update 
there?
    Ms. Szpindor. From the last Modernization Committee?
    We are making progress on that. We are prepared at any time 
to sit down and begin updating you on the progress we are 
making.
    Yesterday, in fact, we have rolled out digital signatures 
for congressional offices to use through our new Quill program, 
and that is one of the things that we have been working on from 
a modernization standpoint.
    We have probably about 20, 25 projects that are ongoing 
that we think is consistent with the request that was made in 
the 116th. And we are tracking all the others to make sure that 
we have them prioritized and ready to go as soon as we have 
staffing available to start working on those.
    So we are making good progress, and we would love to sit 
down with you at any time and review those projects.
    Mr. Timmons. Sure. Thank you. Thank you so much for that. 
We really appreciate all your hard work. And just please use us 
as a resource to get you whatever additional help you need to 
get all of these things implemented. We really do appreciate 
all your hard work.
    One specific area. Could you talk about the recommendation 
regarding onboarding training for new employees? Have we made 
any progress there?
    Ms. Szpindor. Well, our HR Department has developed a human 
capital program where part of that is recruiting and ensuring 
that we have recruiting that is sent out to a variety of 
different groups to ensure that we have a broad diversity of 
individuals that are applying for our courses and a much 
greater audience of recruiting firms that we can pull from.
    So we are seeing that, from a recruiting standpoint, we are 
seeing many more applications and many more submissions than 
what we have in the past.
    Mr. Timmons. Sure. I don't want to take--I am over my time. 
I apologize. We are going to definitely get with you soon.
    But, again, thank you so much for all your hard work, and 
we look forward to helping you through this process. Thank you.
    Ms. Szpindor. I thank you for that. Thank you.
    Mr. Timmons. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Vice Chair Timmons.
    Next up, Mr. Cleaver, and Mr. Davis is in the on-deck 
circle.
    Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. 
Timmons, both of you, for this meeting today.
    I would like for all three of our witnesses to respond to 
this question.
    How do you think the American public would respond to the 
Members of Congress adequately paying its workforce? What would 
be the response of the taxpayers in your estimation?
    Mr. Fitch. Well, I will take the first one. And I think you 
have obviously teed up, Congressman, one of the challenges. 
Anytime Congress, quote/unquote, ``spends money on itself,'' it 
is criticized, sometimes unfairly. I remember looking at the--
when they spent money on the Capitol Visitor Center, we even 
had critics. And I am like, ``What about the word 'visitor' do 
you not get? It is not the Congress.''
    But there are ways to address that. So, if you didn't want 
to see an overall increase in the overall either legislative 
branch budget, you could shift costs within the legislative 
branch. For example, certain institutional costs could cover 
things that are currently paid for by the MRA, everything from 
hardware, software. There are more creative ways to do it. And 
I think that may be one of the ways that this committee may 
want to recommend so it doesn't have to eventually take the 
hit.
    But in the end, the legislative branch has to get on an 
equal footing with the executive branch, and that may mean an 
increase in pay.
    But I think you do need to look at internally how the 
numbers go, because a lot of the money, as you know, is being 
eaten up in security and in building costs at this point in the 
leg branch, and that has got to be addressed at some point or 
else that is going to continue to suck money out of the 
personal, committee, and leadership offices.
    Mr. Cleaver. Thank you.
    Mr. Jones.
    Mr. Jones. I am happy to take a stab at it as well.
    I think that one of the problems is a perception of the 
American public that staff are paid a whole lot more. I don't 
think that there is a recognition [inaudible] that there is low 
pay in Congress.
    And, also, I think there is also a perception of big 
offices with a whole bunch of people working, and they are 
working 9 to 5, and that is it. I can't tell you how often I 
have picked up the phone at 6, 8 o'clock at night when a 
constituent calls in and they are shocked that somebody is 
answering the phone.
    But I think there is a perception problem that needs to--
this is something that needs to be talked about.
    And I worked for Congressman Hal Rogers when he was 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and those that are on 
the committee that are also on the Appropriations Committee can 
remember well the circular firing squad that we had during the 
last recession in what Mr. Fitch called the race to the bottom 
on congressional staff salaries.
    We are still recovering from that. Member pay and/or Member 
Representational Allowances are still recovering from that to 
where I know staffers today who are being paid as much as I was 
when I started in 2006, 2007. But I think perception among 
constituents, when you show constituents [inaudible].
    Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
    Ms. Szpindor. I will add just a few comments.
    I mean, I think that we can provide excellent staff 
training, all three of us can who are speaking today. But, 
really and truly, if the staff can't afford to live in D.C. and 
they can't afford to function with the salary they have, then 
that has got to be addressed.
    I think that it is going to be the way it is presented to 
the American people. We have to give them the ability, if they 
are going to work here, to be able to make the money they need 
to live.
    And all of the great training we provide and everything 
will certainly help them be able to function in their job, but 
still, at the end of the day, if they are not able to find a 
place to live that they can afford, that is going to cause 
retention to suffer.
    Mr. Cleaver. Thank you.
    Mr. Fitch, I was at the White House two weeks ago for a 
meeting, and I looked around the room in the Oval Office with a 
number, about eight Members from both sides of the aisle.
    And I looked at the people who were standing around the 
walls, the people who work over in the White House, and every 
single one of them, every one that was in that room once worked 
over in the House of Representatives.
    Shuwanza Goff, for example, was the floor manager that I 
think Mr. Kilmer would remember easily.
    And I am sitting there thinking, these are thieves over 
here in the White House. These are convicts. They are stealing 
all of our people.
    Now, I didn't say that to the President, because I have a 
lot more sense than that. But, my goodness, I thought it was 
horrible.
    My time is up. But you mentioned, Mr. Fitch, about this 
branch of government falling behind, and one of the reasons is 
that we train people over here for a year or two, and then the 
White House--I don't care what administration it is--they steal 
them.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver.
    Next up, we have got Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the 
opportunity to be here today.
    And all the witnesses. Great discussion.
    I do want to also echo some of the comments that were made 
by Derek, the chair, in regards to the Congressional Staff 
Academy, Ms. Szpindor. I think, looking ahead, we will be in a 
much better position to retain staff and be able to move 
forward.
    And, as many of you know on this committee, we have former 
staffers that are now Members of Congress.
    So this is a committee that I hope will get a lot of things 
done to benefit addressing the issue that we are here to talk 
about today.
    Ms. Szpindor, during the last Congress we talked about 
making the CAO more of an outward-facing organization. How has 
that worked since you began? Because I am someone who believes 
a stronger, more proactive approach from the CAO to Member 
offices is something that we can have more Members be informed 
with.
    You mentioned earlier you have folks that are put in place 
to be our liaisons. But give us a little more detail about what 
you plan to do even more so in the future.
    Ms. Szpindor. Sure.
    Well, I think a big step for me was hiring someone to just 
focus on customer relations. Lisa Sherman came in, a former 
chief of staff, and with her expertise and having worked in 
Member offices, she has really added a fresh perspective to how 
we believe we can move forward.
    And I think, by the work that she is doing to hire these 
new instructors from the staff, this is going to help us a 
great deal.
    But she also has some great ideas on how to market the 
products that we have directly to the staff. Because what we 
are finding out, Congressman Davis, is that we have a lot of 
things that we have developed that people really just don't 
know about.
    Mr. Davis. You are right.
    Ms. Szpindor. And I think that, by having a marketing 
branch, an outreach branch that is part of the CAO, we can 
mature that to where we are providing information that each 
Member office needs to know about the services we provide and 
how to get in touch with us and in touch with the right people 
to be able to acquire those services or get help with those 
services.
    We are also looking at major changes to our technology 
group and how we are reaching out and working with each office. 
And I am not quite prepared to announce that. We are working on 
it. But we are looking at how we can provide more services, 
more real-time, modern services to the offices, and you should 
be hearing about that in another month or so.
    Mr. Davis. Great. Great. I think Lisa is great. I worked 
with her in my capacity on House Administration before, and the 
Franking Commission. I am glad you are seeing her make a 
difference and put that office perspective in place within your 
agency. I look forward to hearing some more from you in the 
future and sitting down with Lisa to talk about some of the 
things you just mentioned.
    You know, one program that I always highlighted when I was 
a staffer and continue to highlight to my team is the student 
loan repayment program here in the House. I watched some of my 
colleagues pay off their student loans with this program.
    But there were things that Mr. Jones mentioned about the 
lowest-paid employees--Mr. Fitch mentioned about the lowest-
paid employees. I always was upset as a staffer that the 
lowest-paid employees were the ones who couldn't take the full 
benefit because of the tax provisions that used to be in place. 
But many of my colleagues on this committee and other 
colleagues joined me in passing a bill that I authored that 
would take away that tax penalty for up to $5,250 a year.
    How are you letting employees and letting offices know that 
now they can offer this same program and their lowest-paid 
employees can take the full benefit without having to worry 
about paying Uncle Sam in the future?
    Ms. Szpindor. I know that our Payroll and Benefits group 
has held sessions with offices. I know that we have sent out 
material.
    I think that it is a great point. We need to do more in 
that area to make them aware of that. I think, with the way we 
have been working remotely and everything, it has been a little 
bit more difficult for our Payroll and Benefits group to be 
able to get that message out to everyone.
    But I will take that back, and we will see what we can do.
    Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, Catherine, and thank you to the 
witnesses.
    And thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thanks, Mr. Davis.
    Next up, we have got Mr. Phillips, and Mr. Joyce is in the 
on-deck circle.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I realize I am a little 
too modern for Congress. I do have a tie here, everybody. It is 
just I forgot to tie it. So we will get to that in a future 
hearing.
    I want to thank our witnesses and reflect on the fact that, 
when I came to Congress from the private sector, amongst my 
many unpleasant surprises was how poorly we resource our 
offices, particularly since we are the customer service 
department for over 700,000 people.
    And what saddens me is that we are a country that seems to 
regularly undercompensate the most important people in our 
country, teachers and first responders and police officers and 
firefighters and public servants in our own offices.
    I am embarrassed when I have to review compensation for my 
team and recognize their sacrifices to all of us and to the 
country, and want to celebrate this hearing, because, frankly, 
the only way to rectify it is actually a simple way, which is a 
little bit of courage, I think, from all of us.
    With that said, I wanted to start with you, Ms. Szpindor, 
relative to professional certificates and professional 
development.
    I understand that it is not in the public's interest for 
public dollars to be spent to further educate or enhance the 
careers of public servants, but in the private sector we would 
sometimes resolve that by paying for college or classes or 
professional certificates in return for a commitment to stay on 
board for X number of years so there is a return on that 
investment.
    I am just curious, from your perspective, what is the 
rationale on the prohibition that precludes us from paying for 
staff training and professional certificates, and if there is 
some way you think that we might present it in a thoughtful way 
that could move the needle.
    Ms. Szpindor. Well, I think you just mentioning that is 
going to help quite a bit.
    We do, I know, within the CAO provide quite a bit of 
additional training for people to go and take training courses 
that prepare them for the certifications. It has been our 
policy not to pay for the exact certification, but to provide 
them whatever training they need to be able to qualify for 
that.
    And as far as college courses and college training, I have 
always been a big proponent of that as well, having come 
originally from the private sector. And for some of our 
employees, we do let them go to training at MIT or Harvard when 
there are professional development courses that they have. We 
set aside training dollars to have them go and attend some of 
the one-week, two-day, three-day courses that some of the 
larger institutions provide.
    We certainly can continue to go back and look at the 
policies that we have around certifications. For me personally, 
having a number of certifications, one being for project 
management and other things in my career, it is helpful when 
you cannot only provide the training, but you can also cover 
the costs for the certification, because sometimes those costs 
are very expensive.
    Mr. Phillips. Terribly so, I would agree.
    And I want to make it clear, too, I don't see public 
service as a path to become wealthy, but we should be certainly 
competitive.
    Now, I am not familiar with the data. If any of you could 
share with us your estimate of the gap between comparable jobs 
in the private sector relative to various categories of the 
offices in the House. Anybody have a sense of how significant 
you think the gap is in the pay in percentage terms?
    Mr. Fitch. Yeah, I can speak to that, Congressman Phillips. 
We have done research on that. And it is does vary widely.
    On average, it is about 20 percent between private sector 
and executive branch, but it does vary widely. So, for example, 
if you are a House legislative assistant and you move off the 
Hill to K Street or an association, you are probably going to 
look at a 20, 25 percent bump.
    If you are a Senate chief of staff, you are triple your 
salary within a year. So if you see a Senate chief of staff 
leaving their job, you can pretty much bet that they have got a 
kid who is about 10 or 12 years old and they need to raise 
money to get them to college. And I have seen that happen 
multiple occasions. But in general it is about--the average is 
about 20 percent.
    Mr. Phillips. All right. I see my time is running out.
    Just a message to my colleagues. I think we can do better, 
and I think we should be attracting the best and the brightest 
to public service. No better way to do so than at least be 
competitive.
    With that, I rest my case and yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Phillips.
    Next up, we have Mr. Joyce, and Ms. Williams is in the on-
deck circle.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member Timmons.
    I have got little bandwidth here at the house, so even 
though my screen might be black, I am still here with you. I 
apologize for that.
    And, Congressman Phillips, I am deeply offended that you 
did not wear a tie. I have got mine on.
    Mr. Fitch, in your testimony you discuss the level of 
vitriol flowing into the offices from phone lines and the 
internet has reached unprecedented and dangerous levels.
    Do you have any recommendations for the committee on what 
the House can do to better prepare our staff for handling 
difficult and even--those calls--but even sometimes stressful 
situations that might start to occur when we reopen?
    Mr. Fitch. Yes, I do.
    The Congressional Management Foundation actually wrote a 
short blog after January 6 in coordination with the American 
Psychological Association. So a couple of recommendations we 
have.
    First of all, obviously staff training in dealing with 
difficult situations, role playing can be very helpful.
    Secondly, we recommend that offices strongly consider 
during these periods of time changing their phone policies to 
have phones roll over to voicemail.
    We have had offices do this. And a lot of Members resist 
that: ``No, somebody has got to be on the phone.''
    No, you don't, because what you are giving up is you are 
putting that staffer on the front line to get death threats and 
all sorts of vitriol.
    And what we have found, when offices have made this change 
and they follow up with the constituent two, four, even ten 
hours later, the constituent is perfectly happy.
    So it doesn't reduce your customer service if you allow the 
phones to go to voicemail and then respond. What it does do is 
it reduces the mental stress and mental health toll on your 
staff.
    So I think that is one of the biggest things that 
individual offices can do, whether the committee makes a 
recommendation of best practices. But the technology is there 
for offices to do this and help their staffers get through this 
difficult period of time, this whole kind of time calms down in 
a post-January 6 world.
    Mr. Joyce. Well, I am certainly in agreement on having that 
break, if you will. I have a certain individual here in the 
district that seems to call me after happy hour and is an 
executive at a large corporation. Now, I have found that the 
things he says on the phone are disgusting, and I can't imagine 
the staff having to deal with the same thing.
    And the trouble with this, too, is I think staff sometimes 
feel like they are supposed to be that buffer. I didn't find 
out this guy was calling and leaving these messages and doing 
this stuff for a little while until he raised the ante and all 
of a sudden they thought my personal safety might be in 
jeopardy.
    And you begin to worry about the effect on these young 
people and what we can do as a whole to try to bring this 
vitriol down.
    Well, I will pass on any further questions and my remaining 
time back to you, Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Joyce.
    Next up, we have Ms. Williams.
    Ms. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I think I speak for so many people that are serving 
with us today, especially on this committee, that serving as a 
Member of Congress is an absolute honor for me. And as Members 
of Congress, we are fortunate to have staff who feel the same 
way about serving our constituents.
    I know that my staff is top-notch, and I will put them up 
against anyone for the work that they are doing to serve our 
district. But for too many congressional staff there are so 
many obstacles to coming to the legislative branch and actually 
staying here, as we have been exposing and discussing today.
    From the prospective intern with a dream of pursuing public 
service, which I get those random phone calls that people are 
wanting to start to work in my office because they want to 
truly serve the people, to longtime Hill staffers that are 
starting a family, too often we see people turning away from 
the Hill based on factors like income and how are they going to 
actually raise a family.
    And we have to do all that we can to ensure that it is 
affordable and feasible to serve as a staffer in Congress. So I 
am so happy that we are having this discussion today.
    Mr. Fitch, I know we have touched on this, but I want to 
package it all up in a nice little bow for the committee and 
for everyone that is watching.
    How could investing additional resources in the legislative 
branch for staff pay and benefits help ensure that we are able 
to attract candidates for congressional staff positions who 
represent the diverse backgrounds and experiences of the people 
in our district?
    Mr Fitch. Well, that is a big challenge, and I think the 
House made a tremendous leap forward when it established an 
Office of Diversity and Inclusion. And I think it should 
continue on that path, and we are continuing to work with that.
    I will admit, as a nonprofit organization, in the wake of 
the George Floyd murder and the protests, we asked ourselves 
how we could help as well to try to increase diversity of 
candidates. And I think part of it, frankly, has to be an 
investment.
    I did just a back-of-the-envelope look at how much money 
the Congress spends on bringing in diverse candidates--and this 
is back of the envelope, so don't hold me to this--but just 
back of the envelope, Google spends about 75 times more on 
diversity and inclusion programs than the Congress, 75 times.
    You have got less than 10 people focused on that. And it is 
a great start because, you know what? Ten years ago, you didn't 
have any people focused on it. So it is terrific that it is 
moving in this direction. The Senate needs to follow suit and 
do the same thing the House is doing. But I think there does 
need to be more resources. There needs to be efforts to build 
relationships with historically Black colleges and universities 
and build that pipeline pool.
    And the other great thing that is going on, there are some 
terrific nonprofit intern programs because we all know the 
intern pipeline is the way to staff. You look at Pay Our 
Interns and College to Congress are the two fantastic 
nonprofits that we work with that are trying to diversify the 
intern pool so that those future interns become future chiefs 
of staff.
    Ms. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Fitch. And just another 
question for you.
    So we all know that it is important that once we get good 
staff that we are actually able to keep them. And we want them 
to be able to buy homes and start families and send their kids 
to college. And you talked about that Senate chief of staff, 
when their child is getting ready to start thinking about 
college, that is when they leave.
    So what are some of the top reforms that we should keep in 
mind, gear it toward helping congressional staff build long-
term wealth as they start their careers here so that they don't 
have to turn away when they have these big life changes?
    Mr. Fitch. Well, I think one metric that has been mentioned 
here earlier today is you do need to have a comparison of what 
your competitors are paying. And so be mindful that this is a 
competitive environment. It is still the most attractive job in 
Washington. As being a former staffer, I can say that. It is 
still one of the best jobs. I did it for 13 years. I wouldn't 
give it up for all the world.
    But I do think you have to look at the competitive 
offerings. And that means looking at benefit structure. For 
example, we have talked about college paying. Right now, it is 
a tuition--it is a student loan reimbursement for the loan. 
Well, some private sector organizations--and we have just heard 
the CAO does this--actually pays for college courses, not just 
the loan. And so looking at a garden variety class payment 
program, which is done very much in the executive branch and 
the private sector.
    And so I think looking at some of those programs that are 
in the private sector, and, again, if you are mirroring the 
private sector, you are much less likely to get criticized if 
you are doing the same thing as Eastman Kodak and Google. And I 
think that is one thing to look at because I do recognize that 
public perception is a factor.
    Ms. Williams. Thank you so much.
    And, Ms. Szpindor, I had more questions around professional 
development, but you have given us lots of information.
    And my time is expiring, so, Mr. Chairman, I will yield 
back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms.Williams.
    I think the other members who were on and in the queue have 
left. I don't know if--I just want to make sure that is 
correct. I don't see them popping up.
    Does any member of the committee have any other questions 
for this panel? Otherwise, we will move on to our second panel.
    Okay. So let me say thank you to each of our witnesses. 
Really, this is good and meaty stuff, and I really appreciate 
you sharing your time and expertise with us.
    So, with that, we will proceed to our second panel if we 
can get them onto the Zoom.
    Our first witness is Greta Engle, vice president of 
employee benefits at USI Insurance Services and a member of the 
Society for Human Resource Management.
    In a career spanning 30 years, Ms. Engle has worked with 
many employers in employee benefit plan consulting, funding 
alternatives, regulatory compliance, and employee engagement.
    In the pandemic environment, she has helped her clients and 
HR colleagues manage new employee benefit challenges, including 
engaging a remote workforce, return-to-work strategies, vaccine 
incentive programs and emergency savings benefits.
    Ms. Engle also founded HR Leadership Group, which helps to 
address the latest HR concerns.
    Thank you for being with us, Ms. Engle. You are now 
recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral presentation of your 
testimony.

STATEMENTS OF GRETA ENGLE, VICE PRESIDENT OF EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 
   AT USI INSURANCE SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF SOCIETY FOR HUMAN 
      RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (SHRM); LYNNEL RUCKERT, FORMER 
 CONGRESSIONAL STAFF, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF; FRAN PEACE, FORMER 
DISTRICT DIRECTOR, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF; AND DAO NGUYEN, FORMER 
           CONGRESSIONAL STAFF, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF

                    STATEMENT OF GRETA ENGLE

    Ms. Engle. Thank you so much. Chairman Kilmer, Vice Chair 
Timmons, and distinguished members of the committee, I am so 
grateful to be here and to discuss the latest trends in 
employee benefits, particularly, as Chairman Kilmer mentioned, 
with respect to COVID.
    I am here before you on behalf of SHRM, the Society for 
Human Resource Management, with over 300,000 members who design 
and implement benefits to recruit and retain top talent 
worldwide. SHRM research routinely finds that benefits are an 
important part to an employee's overall job satisfaction. They 
can improve productivity but also reduce turnover.
    And, again, in the private sector, employee benefits make 
up approximately one-third of the total compensation cost. So, 
therefore, engaging in a strategic benefits plan to maximize 
that return on investment is something that HR practitioners 
are tasked with.
    Again, it is also a highly effective recruitment and 
retention tool. For the first time in history, we now have five 
generations of workers side by side, each with vastly different 
benefit needs. Meanwhile, employers continue to make benefits 
changes to support their workforce during the pandemic. Prior 
to, salaries in the private sector remained flat for more than 
10 years.
    While the pandemic has exacerbated this challenge, it has 
also led us into new opportunities. Employers and employees 
alike have incurred financial hardships, underscoring the 
importance of financial stability. As a result, more employers 
are implementing or considering financial wellness programs and 
benefits, like employer-provided educational assistance, 
including student loan repayment, as a benefit, emergency 
savings accounts, again, often with matching employer 
contributions.
    Benefits like educational assistance can be used for 
employees pursuing opportunities to upscale themselves or 
rescale as they return to----
    The Chairman. There we go. Please continue.
    Ms. Engle. Sure. Ultimately, these strategies will extend 
beyond the workplace and allow employees to pursue better 
livelihoods for themselves, their families, and future 
generations.
    In surveys, millennials tend to value benefits more than 
other generations. Some analysts have predicted that this 
preference will cause the trend to more benefits to continue as 
baby boomers leave our workforce and our Nation recovers from 
the pandemic.
    A few of the latest trends in benefits start with 
healthcare. The bottom line is that the private sector is 
moving more towards a value-based system, where we are looking 
to actually measure the performance of provider networks for 
both quality and cost and offer lower out-of-pocket costs to 
employees.
    Employers are also adding a new incentive, such as getting 
MRIs from a cost-effective center. Again, there is no clinical 
difference from one MRI to another, but they can have vastly 
different financial cost. Again, that is more out-of-pocket 
spend saved for the employee.
    Continuing in popularity are also HSAs, Health Savings 
Accounts, which make up most of my employer clients today, and 
there is often a matching contribution for those.
    Mental health, again, you covered it earlier, but 117 
million Americans are facing a shortage in mental healthcare 
providers, and we are seeing a significant value and an uptick 
with respect to mental health providers via teleweb.
    Prior to the pandemic, in our own clients, USI saw 
approximately 12 percent who were on antidepressants, with only 
3 percent having been formally diagnosed by a mental healthcare 
professional. So we are turning to drugs more than service. 
During COVID, medications in our data spiked to 18 percent of 
employees. And that may become our new benchmark.
    Even before the pandemic, flexibility in leave were on the 
rise, with more organizations trying to offer some new 
programs. Paternity and maternity pay is something that we have 
seen an uptick in as well. Americans are waiting longer to 
begin their families, and one of the biggest things that I am 
seeing now is in infertility but also adoption programs. Again, 
in vitro fertilization jumped just 19 percent in 2019 but 29 
percent back in 2020.
    These are just a few of the trends that we are seeing in 
the world of the workplace and, again, commend you for what you 
have done in student loan repayment programs. And retaining top 
talent is something that we are both committed to. SHRM 
welcomes the opportunity to be a resource to you, and together 
we can build better workplaces and create a better world. I 
look forward to your questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Engle follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
     
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Engle. You stuck the landing 
at 5 minutes. Good job.
    Our next witness on this panel is Lynnel Ruckert. Ms. 
Ruckert served as then Majority Whip Steve Scalise's chief of 
staff for 8 years. She began her career in 2001, answering 
phones for the Energy and Commerce Committee, and departed in 
2016 as the highest ranking House female staffer on Capitol 
Hill.
    During her D.C. tenure, she worked with Congress and the 
White House to develop and execute strategy on major trade, 
healthcare, and tax issues. Since returning to Louisiana, she 
has served as the chief of staff to Attorney General Jeffrey 
Landry and as the Assistant State Treasurer.
    Ms. Ruckert, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF LYNNEL RUCKERT

    Ms. Ruckert. Greetings. My name is Lynnel Ruckert. I spent 
15 years in Washington, D.C., before returning home to 
Louisiana. It was an honor of a lifetime to serve in the House 
of Representatives as a staff assistant scheduler, legislative 
assistant, deputy chief of staff, and finally chief of staff 
for 8 years.
    On behalf of the thousands of House staffers working today 
and the legions of Capitol Hill alumni, I thank Chairman Kilmer 
and Vice Chairman Timmons and the entire committee and staff 
for your efforts to strengthen the institution we love.
    I will never forget my first business card with the 
congressional seal, but the seal does not pay the rent. Paid 
parking, metro reimbursement, student loan repayment program, 
increased choice of on-campus eateries and the Thrift Savings 
Plan are positive aspects of Capitol Hill life.
    Some ideas that the committee has discussed to further 
enhance the employee experience and which I support are 
considering an optional bimonthly payment system. The current 
monthly payment system can be difficult to manage, especially 
when living paycheck to paycheck.
    A floor salary and pay bans for each position would be 
helpful to recruit broad talent from varied backgrounds that 
are not so dependent on supplemental dollars from home.
    A human resources department that provides training to 
develop and retain staff, promote bipartisan events for staff 
to mingle, give recognition for years of service, and allow for 
flexible work schedules during work periods.
    As important as the institutional support provided to staff 
is the support provided in individual offices by the Member and 
the staff who manage them. A positive office culture that 
invests in and promotes mentorship in the professional 
development of staff is essential. Those who manage 
congressional staff have the opportunity to make or break their 
staff's congressional experience, and this committee can help 
promote and strengthen the support for building a positive 
office culture, which help retain and enrich the staff 
experience.
    A mentorship-type philosophy is a great benefit to the 
individual staff and institution. It is possible to incentivize 
junior staffers with exposure by providing opportunities to 
staff the boss for meetings and events, sending them to 
training to learn about issues and expand their knowledge base, 
give them an opportunity to travel to the district, meet with 
real people that are affected by their work, establish a 
speakers series for new staffers on how to set up for success 
on Capitol Hill and beyond.
    It is also critical that we find a way to retain staff 
longer. The knowledge they cultivate over the years is a great 
benefit to the Members and their constituents. Some ideas to 
retain senior staff are: establish an in-house credential 
program aligned with a school for a grant masters in 
congressional operations or policy, reward tenured staff with 
bonus pay for years served, allocate premier parking spots for 
longevity as an incentive to stay, allow time off for deeper 
professional development experiences off campus.
    The institution of Capitol Hill is unique and offers 
endless possibilities. As a Hill staffer, you learn how to work 
with others to achieve a common goal, how to think proactively 
and remove obstacles to reach success, and time management 
skills.
    I hope your continued work serving on this committee acts 
as a turning point where thousands more staff will have a 
positive experience on this shining city on a hill. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Ruckert follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
  
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Ruckert. I appreciate your 
testimony.
    Our next witness is Fran Peace. Ms. Peace served as 
district director for Congressman Wally Herger from 1987 to 
2013. Prior to that, she worked for Congressman Herger when he 
served in the California State Assembly.
    Ms. Peace has also worked in the insurance and realtor 
industry and is actively involved in community service work, 
including with the Beale Military Liaison Council, which serves 
Active military families and veterans from Beale Air Force Base 
in northern California.
    Ms. Peace, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF FRAN PEACE

    Ms. Peace. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Kilmer and 
Vice Chairman Timmons, and members of the committee. My name is 
Fran Peace, and I come to you today as a former district 
director for 26 years in northern California.
    I was asked to comment on congressional staff recruitment, 
development, and retention. Before I get started on what I 
believe to be the nuts and bolts of district operations, let me 
first state that my background is from the private sector, 
focusing primarily on customer service in the major retail 
industry of insurance work and other realtor, and I was also 
the CAO for a small financial investment company.
    Working with people and meeting deadlines was my strength. 
Recruiting personnel in the district is unlike Capitol Hill, 
where Member offices have access to a likely pool of candidates 
from the House resume banks. In the district, many times we 
stick a blind ad in the local newspaper advertising for a 
customer service representative. Bold as this may sound, we 
attracted a wide variety of potential candidates who had 
excellent customer service credentials.
    I was raised in an environment where the customer is always 
right. This attitude served our office well, especially as it 
applies to casework and fieldwork. We also looked at community 
service and whether the candidate devoted time to service 
organizations. This is key to determining a service-beyond-self 
attitude. Outreach beyond the normal political service majors 
can be helpful in recruiting qualified personnel. Being part of 
a dedicated team is paramount to staff development.
    It is important for district leadership to understand the 
challenges presented by outside influences. Pressures from 
constituents, whether it be from angry casework callers, 
written inquiries, or from protests from angry groups, become 
an unstable environment for staff. Excellent training must be 
available, whether it be from CRS, the management 
organizations, or similar services specializing on how to 
provide service with a smile.
    Being on the front lines, understanding what constituent 
service representatives experience on a daily basis is 
important to not only your district, but to the national scene 
of why Congress exists in the first place, and that is to serve 
the people who elected you.
    Once elected to Congress, your offices and personnel are 
there to serve everyone. It doesn't matter if you are 
Republican, Democrat, Independent, or Libertarian. You now 
represent everyone. Service is the only commodity or product 
you have to sell.
    Many times your district staff feel isolated, being so far 
away from Capitol Hill. It would have been helpful to have 
regular congressional staff communications, like newsletters, 
webinars, or, back in my day, conference calls, to share best 
practices between district offices, and even post-employment 
opportunities along with helpful resources to resolve issues. 
This communication should be available to all staff.
    Retention of personnel depends on how well we gel with each 
other. As district director, we had regular staff meetings, 
many retreats and staff potlucks. We celebrated birthdays, 
bring-your-dog-to-work days, and we worked to have fun.
    We implemented a trauma team to help resolve difficult 
casework issues. We would share casework problems and how to 
resolve the sometimes impossible. Webinars or even 
communication on the latest changes from Federal agencies that 
impact constituent work would have been helpful for staff to 
keep up to date.
    Finally, it is of utmost importance that the chief of staff 
and district director get along, not only get along but 
sincerely like working with each other. During my tenure, I 
served under only two chiefs in 26 years. I was fortunate to 
have worked with caring leaders. We had a special bond and 
truly enjoyed working with each other.
    Managing a congressional office is much like managing a 
Major League Baseball team. The manager of a pro ball team must 
be able to recruit players who gel with existing team members. 
The manager must also manage personalities, recognize pitfalls, 
and be able to resolve any potential problems.
    COVID-19 has given each of you this unique opportunity to 
rethink how we can do business post-COVID and for the benefit 
of all involved.
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment, and I look 
forward to our discussion later. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Peace follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Peace.
    And our final witness is Dao Nguyen. Ms. Nguyen most 
recently served as the executive director of Future Forum, a 
generational caucus of young House Democratic Members of 
Congress, of which I am proudly a member, although about to age 
out, I think.
    In this capacity, she oversaw the organization's expansion 
from 25 to 50 members and worked closely with congressional 
offices and stakeholders to develop coalition support for 
initiatives focused on engaging young Americans, empowering the 
next generation of public service leaders, and promoting 
innovative public policy.
    Dao, I am grateful personally for your service in that 
capacity, so thank you for your work on that front.
    Prior to that, Ms. Nguyen served as a senior staffer to 
Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy, a senior policy adviser to 
Congressman Adam Schiff, and in the office of Congresswoman 
Karen Bass.
    Ms. Nguyen, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to give an 
oral presentation of your testimony.

                    STATEMENT OF DAO NGUYEN

    Ms. Nguyen. Chairman Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons, and 
members of the Select Committee on the Modernization of 
Congress, thank you for inviting me to testify.
    I spent so many of my formative years on Capitol Hill 
sitting behind Members of Congress at hearings like these, and 
I never thought in a million times I would be sitting in front 
of you all, much less doing it virtually from my own home.
    My name is Dao Nguyen. I am here in my personal capacity as 
a former congressional staffer who proudly served in the House 
of Representatives for nearly a decade. In 2011, I bought a 
one-way ticket to D.C. to start my Hill career with an unpaid 
internship.
    I landed a full-time entry-level job in a personal 
congressional office as a staff assistant, and I went on to 
hold multiple legislative roles where I oversaw 10 to 12 vastly 
different policy areas at any one time.
    Finally, I had the pleasure of serving as the executive 
director of the Future Forum Caucus, a congressional Member 
organization of Members dedicated to issues important to young 
Americans.
    And like so many others on the Hill, I enjoyed forming 
long-lasting relationships with the constituents and the 
communities that we represented. I saw firsthand the impact of 
government each time we met with constituents on issues they 
cared about and again when we advanced solutions to problems 
that were raised.
    But truth be told, the longer that I stayed on the Hill, 
the harder it became for me to plan for my future. And I know I 
was and still am not the only staffer to feel this way. I felt 
the rub most as a junior staffer living in Washington, D.C., 
one of the most expensive cities in the country.
    As I advanced on Capitol Hill, I found it increasingly 
difficult to juggle mounting financial and personal obligations 
on a Hill salary. Like many other congressional staffers, I 
helped to care for family, I aspired to own a home, and I want 
to have a family someday.
    While I loved my time on Capitol Hill, I made the 
bittersweet decision to leave at the end of 2020, in part 
because I was offered a more competitive compensation package 
in the private sector that would provide more financial 
certainty and stability.
    I want to make it clear that I deeply cherished my time in 
Congress, and I have nothing but the utmost respect and 
appreciation for my former employers and colleagues. I was 
lucky to work in offices where I was paid a competitive salary 
relative to my peers and provided with opportunities for 
professional development within the confines of what these 
offices were equipped to provide.
    My appearance in front of you today is not about chastising 
nor criticizing the institution of Congress. Rather, I am here 
because I love it, and I want to help address institutional 
problems that often hold Members of Congress back from hanging 
onto experienced staff with institutional knowledge and 
expertise, with the ultimate goal of better serving the 
American people. And that is why I support the select 
committee's work in finding meaningful solutions to the issues 
of staff retention and recruitment.
    Based on my experience and the concerns voiced by my peers, 
I believe the implementation of the following recommendations, 
among others, would make a positive impact: provide a 20-
percent increase for the Members' Representational Allowance 
for committee offices and for leadership offices to increase 
staff pay; establish a nonbinding pay ban system in the House 
that provides a salary floor for each position and accounts for 
annual cost of living adjustments; provide congressional staff 
with opportunities to gain certifications; provide management 
training for senior-level congressional staff; and last but not 
least, ensure the health and safety of every congressional 
staffer on campus.
    And I want to make sure to emphasize this last point. The 
events of January 6th painfully underscored the degree to which 
congressional staff are vulnerable to security risks. As much 
as practicable, the institution of Congress has a 
responsibility to preserve the health and the safety of every 
person on its campus, including congressional staff.
    The congressional workforce plays an important role in 
helping Members of Congress deliver for their constituents and 
their districts, yet pay and benefits are often not 
commensurate with the work, the time, and the passion that 
staffers invest in Capitol Hill. These are structural issues 
that can often lead to low morale, high turnover of staff, and 
the inability of offices to retain and recruit top talent.
    Once again, I commend the Select Committee on its work thus 
far to address these issues, and I encourage you to execute on 
these recommendations and continue to seek input from both 
current and former congressional staff.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Nguyen follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    The Chairman. Thanks very much for your testimony.
    With that, we will move to member questions, and I will 
recognize myself for 5 minutes out of the gate.
    And, Ms. Nguyen, I want to start with you. I know that, in 
this job, there are long days, difficult days, and folks are 
able to power on because we feel like we are contributing 
positively to the country, but as staff begin to feel a sense 
of burnout and start considering a post-Capitol Hill career, 
what were the benefits that sounded the most attractive to you?
    What do you think would have the largest impact on 
retention? Is it first-time home buyer programs? Is it the 
benefits that would help a staffer start a family, like 
adoption services or IVF and childcare? Is it work-life 
balance? Give us some guidance as to what you think could be 
difference makers.
    Ms. Nguyen. Thank you, Congressman. Those are all really 
great options. And whether or not these additional benefits are 
going to help retain staff or recruit new ones, it is a yes and 
no. These options would be great and many of them are being 
offered in the private sector, but these options alone have 
their limitations.
    Sure, things like investments in 527s, fertility benefits, 
first-time home buyer benefits, all these things are great. 
They can help round out someone's compensation, but it is still 
no substitute for offering the congressional workforce with a 
competitive salary. What good is it to own a home if you really 
can't make that monthly mortgage payment down the line?
    If there are benefits that I believe are definitely worth 
expanding, I would really encourage you to prioritize expanding 
current benefits, including the student loan repayment program 
and access to childcare. And I know we touched on the student 
loan program earlier, and I really commend this committee's 
work.
    I know you all included a provision in the CARES Act 
allowing borrowers to skip payments for 6 months and avoid 
taxes on the benefits they receive, and it is my understanding 
that you are looking to reauthorization of this measure beyond 
the pandemic.
    But beyond that, I would certainly recommend that the 
committee explore an increase to the overall amount that 
offices can receive and can allocate because, as you know, 
offices are limited in the overall amount they receive and make 
available to individual staffers.
    Personally speaking, I graduated college with a relatively 
small amount of student loan debt. I was able to pay it off 
within a few years of my time on the Hill. But I did so because 
I was working in an office where I was one of the very few 
people who needed access to that benefit. So I, in turn, was 
able to access the maximum amount.
    But I know from anecdotal examples that many of my peers in 
other offices were not quite as lucky. They worked in offices 
where every person participated in the program, which brought 
down the repayment amount for each person, meaning that it 
would take much longer for folks to make a dent in their 
student loan debt. So I think that is what I would say on the 
student loan repayment.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Ruckert, I have a question for you. And I want to 
preface this by saying I don't want this to sound partisan, but 
I need your help. You know, you saw Leader Hoyer and Chair 
Jeffries recently come out, I think rather courageously, in 
proposing an increase in the MRA and establishing pay bands, as 
you recommended in your testimony, and delinking Member 
salaries from senior staff, so that hopefully Congress could 
retain senior staff.
    It seems like this needs to be bipartisan for us to 
actually get it done. And many of these things are things that 
this committee, on a bipartisan basis, have recommended. But 
you worked for a Conservative leader. Can you help us make the 
Conservative case for doing these things?
    Ms. Ruckert. Well, Congressman Kilmer, thanks so much for 
the question. I did advocate for the pay bands and the minimum 
pay for positions, and I think that is something that can be 
looked at bipartisanly. And other things I advocated for were 
management training for Members and also chiefs of staff and 
legislative directors so that not only it is a compensation 
issue, but are you working in a happy environment that gives 
you opportunity for growth and training? So I think it is a 
combination of compensation and also best management practices 
put into everyday working on the Hill.
    The Chairman. Anybody else want to take a swing at that 
pitch? Okay.
    Mr. Timmons.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might even answer 
that question. You know, I really think that we are spending so 
much money, it is just beyond my comprehension that we would 
not invest in having the best possible staff running our 
country. I mean, it is just beyond my comprehension that we are 
in a situation where we do not prioritize that.
    So, I mean, I fully support making sure that we are able to 
retain the best team possible because that is the way that we 
are going to get the better outcomes that we need. So it wasn't 
part of my question, but I will take a stab at it.
    Okay. So let's go to Ms. Ruckert. Did you have a tough time 
retaining staff? In my office, we lost two people I guess in 28 
months. They went to K Street and got a 50-percent pay 
increase. We couldn't compete with that. So, I mean, you have a 
lot longer history on the Hill. Could you talk about your 
retention challenges?
    Ms. Ruckert. Sure. Well, Washington, D.C., is far from 
Louisiana. And although Congressman Scalise hires people from 
all over, some Louisiana people move to Washington, and it is 
not what they think. So they are homesick, and they leave 
quickly. That was one sort of junior staff type issue.
    But then there is also--I think Capitol Hill is a great 
training program for any line of work you are going to go in. 
We had staffers that went on to become real estate agents, 
elected officials, own their own insurance agency. Because you 
learn how to be proactive. You learn how to be a problem-
solver. You have that Capitol Hill polish, which I think is 
when you are surrounded by smart, fast-paced people from all 
over the country, you learn great polish. And I think that 
helps Hill staffers get recruited away.
    Some staffers remain forever. Congressman Scalise has two 
staffers that have been with him since 2008, since he was 
elected. They may have taken a turn and left to go to private 
sector and then were wooed back because they missed the team 
atmosphere that he certainly cultivates.
    So it is a mixed bag of you are always trying to retain 
people. And my fellow chiefs would use creative ways to 
overcome the compensation and the tight office space by going 
out of their way to recognize their work, give them 
opportunities with the boss, highlighting them, sending a news 
release when they joined the staff in their college newspapers, 
in their hometown newspapers, just to give them exposure.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you for that. I guess I am going to add 
one more question to that.
    So my experience on the Hill was in 2006. I was a Senate 
staff assistant. I was an intern, then staff assistant. And I 
was staff assistant for then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. 
I saw him once. I saw him twice for like half an hour.
    Now, compare that to the House. And I guess he is 
leadership--he was leadership, so there is that variable. But 
compare that to the House. I spend all of my time with my team, 
and, you know, I have interaction with everybody.
    Is there a challenge Senate versus House, or is it pretty 
much the same issue?
    Ms. Ruckert. I have never worked on the Senate side, but I 
kind of always felt like the Member is sort of the sun, and the 
staff is the planets around them. And the closer you are to the 
sun, the happier the employees seem to be, for the most part.
    So we would go out of our way to make sure that, even 
junior staffers, interns--we would do a shadow day for interns, 
where they would spend the day with the Congressman, 
accompanying him to committee meetings and constituent 
meetings, just so they could see what his life is really like. 
Just always looking for opportunities.
    I was a chief of staff that had two children. So I didn't 
want to be with him every evening. So we rotated those 
responsibilities. And that helps with morale, I believe.
    Mr. Timmons. Sure. Thank you for that.
    Ms. Engle, could you talk more about the emergency savings 
accounts? That is a new concept to me, and could you elaborate?
    Ms. Engle. Yes, I would be happy to. So, there again, AARP 
put out a study--it was real impactful--where the average 
American doesn't even have $400 to set aside for an emergency. 
That was before the pandemic. So we know that there is a really 
serious issue of financial stability in the country.
    So some of my employer clients are looking at ways to have 
an incentive program where if the employee is putting aside a 
certain amount of money, that that employer will, in fact, 
match it, and it goes right into the employee's personal 
account that they own and they control.
    It is backed up with a group of programs around training 
and budgeting. Again, I echo Ms. Nguyen's sentiments around, if 
you don't have the money, it is kind of hard to manage the 
money.
    But, by the same token, there are a lot of tricks and tips 
that these professionals help employees with one-on-one 
education, so at least they are squeezing that dollar as 
effectively as possible.
    So I am excited that more of my clients are looking at it. 
I think that it is a really important benefit.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, ma'am. I am out of time.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    I want to thank all the witnesses for their time. Thank 
you.
    The Chairman. Thanks, Vice Chair Timmons.
    Next up, Mr. Cleaver.
    Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I apologize. I have got a Financial Services hearing at the 
same time. But I wanted to say this is a very important 
hearing, and I appreciate both of the leaders doing this.
    In response to the last question about the Senate, my 
postgraduate degree is in theology. I have found no theology 
that would allow me to believe that God actually wanted a 
Senate, but there is. You know, it is here. So I guess we have 
to deal with it.
    But here is my question: I dealt with this in some ways 
with the last panel. And this is for all three of you. And I am 
struggling with this issue. So I think that we are weakening 
one of the--weakening the legislative branch of the government 
when we lose our people to the executive branch of the 
government. And it is an every-4-year deal. And then once they 
go to the executive branch, then everybody in the world wants 
them.
    And so is that a good sale to the public? I mean, is that 
something that we can--that you think the public understands, 
that we are creating an imbalance in the branches of the 
government if our best or certainly the people who get the 
experience early on and then move to the White House--and, of 
course, we have bright people coming right on after them. But 
they go to the White House. Do you think the public cares? 
Anybody? Ms. Engle?
    Ms. Nguyen. I will take a stab at that, if that is okay. 
And I think that is a great question that you posed, 
Congressman.
    I think it boils down to the fact that Capitol Hill is an 
American workplace like other Americans workplaces. It is a 
competitive marketplace. At the end of the day, in order to 
ensure that Congress functions and elected officials can 
deliver for their constituents, Capitol Hill has to compete for 
the best and the brightest too.
    And Congress is competing against the private sector, as we 
have talked about, and sometimes other parts of the government, 
and it continues to keep falling far behind its competitors.
    In most cases, congressional staff love their jobs, and in 
order to keep doing them and to keep providing a good service 
to the public that they serve, they want and need to be fairly 
compensated. And many of them come to work ready to fight every 
day so that families in their districts and their constituents 
can make a good living and be fairly compensated as well.
    Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. Either of you, either of the other 
witnesses care to respond?
    Ms. Peace. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Cleaver. Yes.
    Ms. Peace. Let me just comment on the district perspective. 
I don't think anybody just graduating from one of our local 
colleges aspired to be a district office caseworker. What 
happens, normally we recruit them, and then they are good, and 
we want to keep them, but sometimes we have to compete with the 
State capital, which is 75 miles away.
    And, Congressman, you were saying that you lose folks to 
the executive branch. Well, we lose folks also to the State 
capital because they have a different system over there. They 
pay their staff better. They have step increases. They are paid 
longer--or more for their longevity.
    And then those people move on to Capitol Hill. So it is a 
steppingstone that is I think part of the natural way things 
work. I am not sure how you could avoid that because working in 
Washington, D.C., is very glamorous. Working in the district is 
not, but it can be.
    Mr. Cleaver. But if we paid more money, don't you think 
that would allow us to maintain those bright young people 
certainly for a longer period of time?
    Ms. Peace. Increase in salaries will help keep a potential 
district office worker, but in the district, especially from a 
rural district where I worked for 26 years, we represented 20 
percent of the State of California, and it took 4 or 5 hours to 
get from point A to point B.
    It is not glamorous being in the district as it is in 
working on Capitol Hill. There is always that glimmer of hope 
for a district worker if they don't have other commitments to 
try and get to D.C., 3,000 miles away. I just think it is the 
way the business operates. I am not sure, as a district 
director, I had any control over that.
    Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver.
    Next up, Mr. Joyce.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
    Ms. Peace, continuing on that, I agree that casework is one 
of the most important services our congressional offices 
provide to our constituents. It is right there on the ground 
level. It certainly requires a certain level of unique skills 
and expertise.
    You mentioned in your testimony that you implemented a 
trauma team to help resolve difficult issues inside your 
office. Could you explain to us how that worked and what other 
recommendations you have to attract, retain, and train 
effective caseworkers?
    Ms. Peace. A trauma team that we had in-house is just like 
an ER department at your local hospital. When you have a very 
difficult case--and all of you know some of the difficult 
cases; you might be dealing with a potential suicide or 
something like that--but you have staff available to bring that 
issue to a conference room, and we all hear about that case and 
we all provide input.
    Just as doctors would, you make recommendations on whether 
surgery is necessary or more X-rays and more consultation. But 
if you solve the more difficult cases as a team rather than 
place the burden on an individual, it helps to de-stress the 
situation.
    Mental health and wellness programs are an invaluable new 
tool that is available to many corporations. And I think 
something along those lines can be implemented at the district 
and Capitol Hill level to help caseworkers and staff cope with 
the unforeseen or the high-stress situations that are coming 
along our way, whether it is handling an angry protest.
    We have had situations where people actually remove screens 
from windows, and they come in. How do you handle that? Do you 
call the police right away, or do you try and de-stress the 
situation by working with the protesters?
    All of these things add a tremendous burden to an 
individual, but if you keep working as a team, they are 
solvable.
    Mr. Joyce. And certainly it would be a great exercise in 
team building.
    Ms. Peace. Yes.
    Mr. Joyce. I agree with you on that. Well, you know, and 
relying on your expertise, if you had a magic wand, what 
suggestions do you have to improve the way district offices 
operate?
    Ms. Peace. Thank you for that. Many of your district 
offices are very rural, and they are so far away from a major 
city. Traveling and reimbursement for gas, tow trucks. I burned 
through four different cars, four brandnew cars, and logged in 
about 800,000 miles during my tenure. The travel reimbursement 
rate per mile was fair at the time, but I am not sure how much 
it has increased.
    You know, gas cost in California is exorbitant. You pay for 
your insurance. You pay for tow trucks. You pay for accidents 
that happen on a stretch of highway. You are traveling in all 
kinds of weather. You are spending the night trying to get from 
point A to point B for a meeting. The miles in between is 
really exorbitant, and you are absorbing all those costs.
    Perhaps a better travel reimbursement might make it more 
equitable for your field staff and your district director to 
absorb the expenses.
    Mr. Joyce. You know, one last one. Security-wise, what 
security would you have between--you mentioned you wouldn't be 
calling the police yet if they are ripping the screens off the 
building. I am a former prosecutor. So I think they should be 
calling them right away when they are seeing the crowd. But 
what kind of security would you think should be in effect then?
    Ms. Peace. Well, in our district office, after this 
particular incident, we had a buzzer put in at the 
receptionist's desk to alert the police or sheriff, and they 
would come. But we also had a swinging gate. Where, you know, 
you have a counter and you have folks that want to storm your 
office, a 4-foot counter is not going to keep them out. You 
don't want to build a glass wall between you and your 
constituents. That is not customer service.
    I am not sure if rolling your phones over to an irate 
caller--I think he had mentioned it before--and then getting 
back to them. You have visitors that come and pound at your 
door. You can't keep your office locked up. You are there to 
serve your constituents. However unpleasant as it might be, you 
have to work and get through it.
    Right now, I think, just watching the news, the environment 
is a little different and maybe even a little more dangerous, 
but there are still things you could do to provide good 
customer service and keep your staff safe and secure from 
unforeseen elements.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you all for your time today and your 
answers. I have more questions, but I am all out of time.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member.
    The Chairman. Yes, Mr. Joyce.
    Mr. Phillips.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer.
    We recently had a hearing relative to congressional 
fellowships. My office takes advantage of a number of 
fellowship programs designed to bring people from various 
agencies, the administration, to our office. We cross-
fertilize, of course. But I am not aware of any programs that 
allow Hill staffers to actually take some time in the executive 
branch or various agencies.
    I am curious from any of you who wish to start, what do you 
think about that notion? First of all, why isn't there such a 
program? And based on your respective experience, do you think 
that would be a good offering for Hill staff to have a little 
bit of time in the other branch?
    Ms. Nguyen. I can start by saying that if I had to take a 
guess at why an exchange program like this doesn't currently 
exist, it is because congressional offices are underresourced 
as it is. And it would be tremendously difficult for a Member 
of Congress to allow a staffer to kind of take whatever time 
off in order to go work in a different agency or whatnot.
    But, with that being said, if we could tackle the resource 
problem and an exchange program like this could be created, I 
do think, from my personal experience, it would be a tremendous 
benefit because, as a congressional staffer, part of your job 
is also dealing with Federal agencies, communicating with the 
liaisons in those agencies to get things done for your 
constituents. And so to be able to have insight into how 
agencies work, how the executive branch works would be 
tremendously helpful.
    Mr. Joyce. I appreciate that. That was my suspicion.
    Anybody else? Any other shared perspectives or diverging 
ones? Okay.
    Ms. Peace. Congressman, let me just add there is a 
different perspective from the district. We would have loved to 
have more fellows come in from Social Security, the IRS, maybe 
Veterans Affairs because they are paid for by that agency to 
work in congressional offices. That tool is very helpful and 
should be kept in your box of tools.
    Mr. Phillips. Indeed, and that is my belief is cross-
fertilization is always a net benefit to everybody, and we 
should certainly seek ways to--if we are going to 
undercompensate, we should at least find ways to over-invest 
relative to experience and opportunities.
    Another question for all of you is relative to surveying. 
You know, Congress is pretty good at thinking we understand 
issues and then oftentimes imposing them without often asking 
questions of the people that we would most impact.
    I am curious, is there any precedent for doing a survey of 
Capitol Hill staffers, asking what specifically they want to 
see? What benefits, what amenities, what other investments we 
could make? Is anybody aware of any substantial survey work 
relative to Hill staffers? No?
    Ms. Nguyen. Congressman, I am not aware of such a survey, 
and I think I left more recently than anyone on the panel 
today.
    But I will say that that idea would be certainly a welcome 
one, particularly if it were provided on a voluntary basis, 
anonymous basis, so that staffers, particularly on the junior 
level, are able to voice the concerns that they have without 
fear of retribution. I think that would be an outstanding idea. 
And to be able to do it in a way where it is regular enough so 
that this committee and your colleagues are able to glean 
continuous recommendations for ways to improve conditions for 
the workforce.
    Mr. Phillips. I appreciate that.
    Ms. Engle. Congressman, if I can just interject, that is a 
great question. From a private sector perspective, just to rest 
assured that that is a best practice in HR. So, again, getting 
the data and then making data-driven decisions for better 
benefits.
    Mr. Phillips. One reason I love hearings like this is 
sometimes some of the obvious that we haven't even considered, 
including this. It just came to my mind as we are talking that 
we should ask the question of those that we are talking about 
right now and allow them to prioritize what we advocate for.
    So, with that, I will leave that in our respective laps. 
And thank you all very much for your perspectives and time. We 
are trying to make a difference, and you are helping us to that 
end, so thank you.
    And, with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Really great ideas there. I don't 
see any other members who have not yet had an opportunity to 
ask questions.
    Do any members have any additional questions for this panel 
before we let them go?
    Okay. Seeing none, let me thank our witnesses for their 
terrific testimony, some really terrific ideas and I certainly 
appreciate it.
    Speaking of staff, I want to thank the staff of our 
committee for putting together such a great hearing with such 
terrific witnesses. Really great work to our team.
    I also feel somewhat compelled to thank my internet 
provider since I did not have any disruptions today. I have 
been working so hard on rural broadband, I didn't realize I 
needed to be working on suburban broadband as well.
    So, without objection, all members will have 5 legislative 
days within which to submit additional written questions for 
the witnesses to the chair, which will be forwarded to the 
witnesses for their response. I ask our witnesses to please 
respond as promptly as you are able.
    Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days 
within which to submit extraneous materials to the chair for 
inclusion in the record.
    And, with that, this hearing is adjourned. Thanks, 
everybody.
    [Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]