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


                     PATHWAYS TO CONGRESSIONAL SERVICE
=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE 
                       MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              JUNE 8, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-19

                               __________

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


                    Available via http://govinfo.gov
                    
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-600                     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
                                     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

Dr. Molly Reynolds, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The 
    Brookings Institution
    Oral Statement...............................................     3
    Written Statement............................................     6
Dr. Steven Rogelberg, Chancellor's Professor, Department of 
    Psychological Sciences and Management University Of North 
    Carolina                                                         12
    Oral Statement...............................................    12
    Written Statement............................................    14
Hon. Gregg Harper, Former Member of Congress                         18
    Oral Statement...............................................    18
    Written Statement............................................    21
Discussion                                                           23

 
                   PATHWAYS TO CONGRESSIONAL SERVICE

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, June 8, 2022

                          House of Representatives,
         Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 
210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Derek Kilmer [chairman 
of the committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Kilmer, Cleaver, Perlmutter, 
Phillips, Timmons, Davis, and Latta.
    The Chairman. Okey dokey. 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 for an opening 
statement.
    So early last year when members of the committee met for an 
organizational retreat, I asked everyone to tell their story of 
why they ran for Congress and what they hoped to achieve. And 
as you can imagine, the stories that folks shared were deeply 
personal. No one jumps into a career like this on a whim. Most 
see problems that need to be fixed and want to help find 
solutions. That is the common thread that ties us together as 
Members of Congress, regardless of background or party.
    Of course, we are not the only ones who want to fix 
problems. There are plenty of individuals who share our desire 
to work hard and find solutions for the American people, yet 
they opt out of public service.
    Understanding why qualified people don't run for Congress 
is just as important as understanding why they do. The decision 
is personal, but factors like experience and connections and 
access to campaign funds also come into play.
    During the retreat, we also asked committee colleagues how 
Congress has so far met or failed to meet their expectations. 
And I guess it is not surprising that most expressed 
frustration with political and institutional dysfunction. 
Despite best efforts, we all sometimes struggle to do the work 
that we came here to do. But beneath that frustration, there 
remains hopefulness. I don't think any of us would still be 
here if we didn't believe on some level that we can solve 
problems on behalf of the American people.
    The challenge is figuring out how to do that, and for every 
Member the journey is different. Every Member has to figure out 
for themselves what success looks like. They have to figure out 
how this place works and what they can realistically 
accomplish. We all have big goals, but small wins are important 
too. Solving problems is about give and take, and I would be 
lying if I said this job didn't involve a lot of recalibrating. 
That can be frustrating, especially when it seems like you are 
doing a lot more giving than taking sometimes. And sustained 
frustration can definitely take its toll.
    And just as the decision to run for office is personal, so 
is the decision to leave. Some Members decide that they can--
that they can be more effective working to fix problems from 
outside of Congress. Others tire of being away from their 
families, and I have yet to meet a Member of Congress who 
actually enjoys fundraising.
    Turnover is healthy for any institution, including 
Congress, but losing Members with the kind of policy and 
procedural expertise needed to make Congress a strong, coequal 
branch of government is tough.
    I am looking forward to hearing what the experts joining us 
today have to say about the different phases of public service, 
especially about effective leadership. The committee will use 
its rules that allow for a more flexible hearing format that 
encourages discussion and the civil exchange of ideas.
    So in accordance with clause 2(j) of House rule XI, we will 
allow up to 30 minutes of extended questioning per witness. 
And, without objection, time will not be strictly segregated 
between the witnesses, which will allow for extended back-and-
forth exchanges between members and witnesses.
    Vice Chair Timmons and I will manage the time to ensure 
that every member has equal opportunity to participate. 
Additionally, members who wish to claim their individual 5 
minutes to question each witness pursuant to clause 2(j)(2) of 
rule XI will be permitted to do so following the period of 
extended questioning. Okay.
    So, with that, I would like to now invite Vice Chair 
Timmons to share some opening remarks.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, I want to welcome the witnesses. Thank you for 
taking the time out of your schedules to come and be with us.
    Congressman Harper, welcome back.
    And, Dr. Reynolds, I think you have the unique honor of 
being--this is your third time testifying before us? That is 
pretty impressive. I really appreciate all your time helping us 
do our job.
    This is an important hearing, and it is something that we 
have been focusing on really over the last 3.5 years. And we 
have been trying to make it easier to serve. Over the last few 
decades, it seems that Congress has been intent on making it as 
hard to serve as possible. A hundred Members of Congress sleep 
in their office, most of those not because they want to but 
because the cost of an apartment in Washington, D.C., is $2,500 
to $3,000 a month, and when you are sleeping in it 80 nights a 
year, that math just doesn't work.
    I stay in a hotel. I did this math after my first year, and 
I realized I can save a couple hundred dollars a night by 
staying in a hotel. So I have been doing that. I was fortunate 
enough to move out of my apartment just before the pandemic. A 
lot of my colleagues were not, and they had an apartment they 
were paying for for literally 6 or 8 months that they couldn't 
get out of, and they were staying at home. So, I mean, this is 
a real challenge.
    I do think it actually--I know a lot of people in the State 
senate that did not consider running for Congress because of 
the challenges associated with serving. You need look no 
further than the outside income bans and you start doing all 
the math. And, really, Members of Congress make about $80,000 
after taxes, which seems like a lot until you live in two 
places and your, you know, spouse and children are at home and 
trying to go to college. And, you know, it just--it really runs 
out quick.
    So I definitely think it is important that every American 
citizen that wants to run for Congress should be able to run, 
and that would make this body as productive and representative 
of our country as possible.
    So I think this is an important hearing, and I just 
appreciate you all taking the time, and look forward to hearing 
you all solve this problem real quick. Thanks.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. So I would like to welcome our three 
witnesses who are here to share with us their knowledge about 
how and why Members run and retire and how they can effectively 
engage and lead while they serve. Witnesses are reminded that 
your written statements will be made part of the record.
    I would like to welcome back our first witness, Dr. Molly 
Reynolds. Dr. Reynolds holds the distinct honor of testifying 
before this committee more times and on more topics than 
anyone.
    I will say, when we started off this committee, after 
having some folks testify multiple times, I said we were going 
to get punch cards. And if you hit a certain level, you 
qualified for a free latte. We actually have gotten you the 
Molly Reynolds inaugural latte as gratitude for actually being 
the, you know, the frequent flyer of the Select Committee on 
the Modernization of Congress. So congratulations. We are 
calling that the Reynolds Latte.
    Molly is a senior fellow in Governance Studies at The 
Brookings Institution, and studies Congress with an emphasis on 
how congressional rules and procedure affect domestic policy 
outcomes.
    Dr. Reynolds is the author of ``Exceptions to the Rule: The 
Politics of Filibuster Limitations in the U.S. Senate.'' She 
also supervises the maintenance of Vital Statistics on 
Congress, Brookings' long-running resource on the first branch 
of government.
    So, Dr. Reynolds, welcome back. You are recognized for 5 
minutes.

  STATEMENTS OF DR. MOLLY REYNOLDS, SENIOR FELLOW, GOVERNANCE 
 STUDIES, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION; STEVEN ROGELBERG, PH.D., 
 CHANCELLOR'S PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES 
 AND MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE; AND 
   THE HONORABLE GREGG HARPER, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, 2009-2019

                  STATEMENT OF MOLLY REYNOLDS

    Ms. Reynolds. Thank you. And thank you for the latte.
    Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Timmons, and members of the select 
committee, my name is Molly Reynolds. I am a senior fellow in 
the Governance Studies program at the Brookings Institution, 
and I am very appreciative of the opportunity to appear before 
you today to discuss pathways to and through congressional 
service.
    To start, let me assert that there is no universal right 
length of a legislative career, but research has revealed 
several benefits to Members of increased seniority. Members 
become more successful in advancing their legislative 
priorities as they serve longer, and committee and subcommittee 
chairs appear to become more effective the longer they serve in 
those roles. Importantly, there is reason to believe that some 
of these benefits to Members of seniority, especially in the 
majority party, have decreased as power has centralized in the 
hands of party leaders.
    As this committee considers recommendations, one area you 
might consider are ways to empower rank-and-file members in the 
legislative process and make clear their contributions to 
legislation.
    While there are clearly benefits to building seniority and 
continuing to serve, many former Members stress that the cost 
of remaining in the House eventually outweigh the benefits of 
doing so. Several decades of research reveal a number of themes 
about choices to retire that are useful to consider.
    In addition to considerations related to the electoral 
environment, Members are more likely to retire when the job, 
which Representatives pursue because they having a wide range 
of goals they want to accomplish, is no longer enjoyable enough 
to be worth doing. Work on a large wave of retirements in the 
1970s emphasized the increased demands on Members' times and 
the increased workload of the institution.
    Congress' collective legislative performance also appears 
relevant. Higher levels of legislative gridlock have been 
associated with higher retirement rates. Members' behavior then 
appears to reflect the same frustration that many of their 
constituents feel with Congress'.
    Institutional practices that shape Members' expectations 
about their future influence also matter. Members who believe 
they will either lose existing influence or who think it is 
unlikely they will gain power are more likely to retire.
    As you consider possible recommendations, it is important 
to recognize that some reforms that respond to this dynamic 
might be at odds with each other. So encouraging those with 
committee leadership positions to remain in the Chamber may 
leave rank-and-file members to feel even less powerful than 
they do at present. But recognizing that Members' expectation 
about their future influence shape retirement decision is an 
important first step.
    In addition, more moderate Members of both parties appear 
more likely to retire than their more ideological colleagues. 
And there is reason to believe that this dynamic may be one of 
the contributors to increasing polarization in Congress. The 
broader forces of partisan polarization in the American 
political system are likely beyond the reach of your 
recommendations, but knowing that Members who feel like they 
are out of step with their parties due to their relative 
moderation are more likely to retire does have implications for 
your efforts to foster bipartisan cooperation in the House.
    Finally, research also indicates that Members are 
responsive to shifts in the financial and time costs and 
benefits associated with service. Decisions to retire appear to 
be shaped by the financial consequences of doing so. While 
changes to congressional pay and pension benefits is a 
politically difficult topic, research does suggest that present 
and future compensation does bear on Members' decisions.
    In addition, Members appear to weigh other costs such as 
the time associated with travel to and from Washington in their 
retirement decisions, which, in turn, suggests that reforms to 
the congressional schedule or other efforts aimed at reducing 
the cost of serving might be fruitful.
    While decisions to retire are made by individuals, they 
have consequences for the institution when taken collectively. 
When considering committee activity, more senior committee 
chairs can mean more oversight hearings. Within committees, 
more senior members participate more in oversight hearings. Not 
all Members respond to the dynamics that animate retirement in 
the same way. As a result, departure patterns have consequences 
for the efforts to make the House membership look more like the 
country as a whole.
    These different responses come on top of systematic 
differences in who chooses to run for public office in the 
first place. Women, people of color, and people from working 
class backgrounds all face barriers in running for office. 
Women, for example, are then also more likely to retire when 
they have reason to believe they have reached a career ceiling 
in Congress than men are.
    Finally and most generally, Members leaving because they do 
not perceive the House as a place where they can be influential 
contributors to--where they can be influential contributes to 
the perception that Congress is not a place where the hard work 
of legislating is rewarded. If prospective members see the 
House primarily an arena in which legislators say things rather 
than do things, those who value the former will be more likely 
to seek office than the latter. And that trend can also 
decrease public trust in the institution.
    Thank you again for having me today, and I look forward to 
your questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Reynolds follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Reynolds.
    Our next witness is Dr. Steven Rogelberg. Dr. Rogelberg is 
an organizational psychologist holding the distinguished title 
of chancellor's professor at the University of North Carolina, 
Charlotte. He is an award-winning scholar, with over 150 
publications addressing issues around collaboration, 
leadership, effectiveness, well-being, and engagement. Dr. 
Rogelberg has engaged with the world's leading organizations. 
And his newest book, ``The Surprising Science of Meetings,'' 
was identified by The Washington Post as the number one 
leadership book to watch for.
    Dr. Rogelberg, thank you for being with us. You are 
recognized for 5 minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF STEVEN ROGELBERG

    Mr. Rogelberg. Thank you for inviting me to speak today 
about strategies for creating a positive and rewarding work 
environment.
    Congress is undoubtedly a unique context, but at its core 
it is comprised of humans, humans working with humans, humans 
being organized by humans, and humans being led by humans. 
While solutions need to be tailored, the fundamental science 
and learnings of organizational psychology around individual 
team and organizational health well-being and effectiveness 
still apply.
    I want to briefly discuss three primary strategies for 
creating a positive and rewarding work environment: leading 
self, leading others, and leading institution.
    Let's start with leading self. This is about the mind and 
mindset matters. Members should seek to view success in 
realistic terms to better engender a sense of accomplishment, 
embrace the concept of challenging but doable small wins rather 
than defining success through highly elusive legislative home 
runs.
    Examples of small wins could be getting a committee to hold 
a hearing on a topic you care about; seeing your ideas 
incorporated into legislation, even if you don't get credit for 
it; or even improving your constituent mail turnaround time. 
Small wins are typically under your control. Also, small wins 
can accumulate into great wins across people and time.
    Part of a new success lens is internalizing what it truly 
means to be a Member of Congress. You have the incredible honor 
of representing your entire district to better lives. At the 
core of this is service to others and our country. Let's 
contrast this orientation with, say, a focus on getting 
reelected. A reelection focus is not about helping others. A 
reelection focus is about the Member and their future. This 
type of focus is counterproductive from an organizational 
psychology perspective as it creates a values conflict with the 
essence of the role, and it puts service and helping others as 
a secondary focus.
    The research is clear. Service to others is arguably the 
greatest path to happiness and life satisfaction when fully 
embraced and enacted.
    Next, leading others. A Member's staff is the engine of 
their success. Let me share a few key lessons from the 
engagement research that a Member working in close conjunction 
with their chief of staff can do to promote a positive work 
environment.
    First, set the stage with vision. Communicate the small 
wins strategy, emphasize that success is about elevating lives 
and democracy and not your personal future as a Member.
    Second, reflect on your within-office processes that are 
under your control. Are they as efficient and streamlined as 
possible?
    Third, lead people well. Be a supportive leader, 
communicate readily, authentically, transparently, and promote 
voice in others. Help ensure the work itself is meaningful and 
staff is empowered. Help build a bond among team members, and 
do not tolerate counterproductive competitiveness among staff. 
Hold periodic team debriefs with staff to discuss how they are 
working together.
    Actively leading and growing your staff takes time you may 
think you don't have, but it is truly an investment that pays 
dividends in terms of collective performance, your performance, 
and retention of talented staffers.
    Last, leading institution. I recognize that this committee 
is charged with changing the institution for the better. I 
would like to share with you a process I have used in my client 
work that could be useful in your efforts. It is a process to 
identify key operational and procedural pain points undermining 
collective success. To facilitate the identification of pain 
points, bipartisan, small cohort groups can be formed. After 
identification of common pain points, I encourage you to only 
solve a couple of pain points at a time so the task is more 
manageable and achievable.
    However, and this is key, it is easy to overthink solutions 
and as a result do nothing as we look for the perfect solution. 
I encourage Congress to avoid paralysis with a set of time-
limited pilot experiments. Time-limited experiments, trying 
something for, say, 3 months, increases the chances of action. 
And if the experiment doesn't work, then reflect why, learn, 
and plan your next time-limited experiment until some 
reasonable success is found. This process can be part of a 
long-term strategy, a routine of sorts, to stay as efficient as 
an organization as possible.
    Overall, in any workplace there are things we can readily 
control and things we cannot control. How we lead ourselves, we 
can control. How we lead others, we can control. For 
institutional pain points, we can still make progress by 
engaging Members, taking reasonable bets, and doing thoughtful 
experiments.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Rogelberg follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman. Thanks, Dr. Rogelberg.
    And last but not least, we are joined by Congressman Gregg 
Harper. Congressman Harper previously served in the U.S. House 
from 2009 to 2019, representing Mississippi's Third 
Congressional District.
    While in Congress, he served as chair of the Committee on 
House Administration and the Joint Committee on the Library of 
Congress. He also served as a member of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce, leading both the Oversight and Investigations 
Subcommittee and the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection 
Subcommittee at different points in his tenure.
    Congressman Harper, good to see you. Welcome back. You are 
now recognized for 5 minutes.

            STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GREGG HARPER

    Mr. Harper. It is my honor to be here and to be with my 
friends, former colleagues, some that I might have just worked 
with on new Member training and orientation. But it is just 
great to be here.
    And I will just say that serving in the House of 
Representatives thus far is the greatest honor I have had in my 
life. And I would consider myself an institutionalist, someone 
that believes that this is an important body. We love the 
history, and just--you are just in awe when you are here. If 
you are not, they say you should go--you should go home and do 
something else.
    But I think this is a great hearing. And I appreciate it, 
Chairman Kilmer, Vice Chairman Timmons, that you guys have put 
this hearing on. I was going to say ``y'all,'' but I was afraid 
that some might not understand that interpretation.
    But it is--it is an amazing place. And when we have a 
hearing like this and we talk about barriers to service, you 
think back specifically on your own race to get here, what you 
went through. And Chairman Kilmer living on the West Coast and 
coming to the East Coast, it is a sacrifice. And people don't 
take it that way in the public.
    And it seems like everything that we have done as an 
institution, as a House to change this rule, make it more 
difficult for us, well, it has really improved our favorable 
opinions in the public when we have done that. So just do what 
is right for the institution and try--let's try not to worry 
about what that publicity or that news might be.
    But when we look at that decision to run, it is very, very 
difficult. And you look at what has happened--I mean, we have 
got all kinds of advice. When it was time for us to--we had 
won. Everybody would say, well, you have got to move your 
family up here. Well, I had a high school student and then one 
just out of high school with special needs. Their base was back 
in Mississippi. It would have not been good for them to have 
moved them up here.
    What do you do if you have small children? I mean, it is--
it is incredibly difficult. If you have small children, you 
move them up here. You think you are busy, and then you have to 
go back to the district. So it is a sacrifice.
    And then we have our friends in the media, when you are not 
in session, will say Congress is on vacation. Well, I always 
wanted some of those to come with me on my vacation and travel 
the 24 counties that I had in my district and see what a 
vacation looked like, because we know, and we haven't done a 
very good job, I think, on occasion of communicating that, that 
this is a 24/7. You have to escape probably to a foreign 
country to not be working. It is extremely difficult to have 
that time. So the family considerations are major on what you 
are trying to do.
    But then, I think we also have to decide, okay, is this 
going to be a place where only independently wealthy people can 
serve? Because it is not easy, as has been said already.
    When I came in, in 2009, I think there may have been early 
on a cost of living adjustment. But it has been at $174,000 
since 2009, no chance that that is going to happen. Even if the 
inflation rate was 7 percent, that means you are losing about a 
thousand dollars a month right there on your ability to do 
that.
    And the numbers, we don't know for sure how many people 
sleep in their offices. I was one of those. And it was who 
could--you couldn't afford $2,000, $2,500 a month. And in my 
situation, you know, my wife, who is a nurse, eventually had to 
cut back to part time and then retire in order to take care of 
our son who has special needs.
    Livingston has fragile X syndrome, a great young man. Many 
of--most of you in here have met him. And he is certainly a 
joy. And all of you know him because the internship program 
that you operate for students with intellectual disabilities 
from George Mason University is now named after him, which was 
just the most amazing moment that he was here with me when 
Rodney Davis made that announcement in a reception in 2018.
    So those things are just an example of what I went through 
on those decisions, but let's talk a minute about the income.
    There are some things that we can do. One is with the 
fiduciary relationship, as a lawyer, once I was sworn in on 
January 6 of 2009, I could no longer receive any income off the 
practice of law. Well, you know, you get elected in November, 
you have only got a short period of time. Some cases still have 
to be concluded. And I forfeited a little over $350,000 in 
legal fees that I would have gotten otherwise. So, in effect, 
that first term I worked for free, I guess we could say.
    And so why not make a simple change to say Members that 
come in, newly elected Members, give them some period of time, 
6 months at least, maybe a year, where you can conclude 
existing cases you had and keep that fee. I think that would 
certainly be a fair thing that we would consider doing.
    So leadership positions, of course, pay a little bit more. 
Speaker makes $223,500 a year. But when we look at being here 
and deciding when it is time to leave, it is different for 
everybody. I am no fan of term limits. I think the voters are 
smart enough to decide when the Member needs to leave. And I 
just know that--and I have never said this publicly until 
today--one of the key factors was I knew that if I stayed, I 
would not be able to take care of my son and my family. And so 
I had to at least have the opportunity to try to make more 
money.
    Today, Members of Congress make $174,000 a year, the same 
since 2009, while Federal district judges are making $223,400. 
If we believe in the Constitution and we have separate but 
equal branches, you would think that Members of Congress would 
make the same thing as Federal district judges. So don't go 
through this little raise. Just pass legislation that says the 
pay will be the same. You think Congress will be any less 
favorable if you do what is right for the institution? Just do 
what is right.
    And I thank you so much for the opportunity to be here, and 
I look forward to answering any questions that you have and I 
look forward to getting all of my hate mail on social media.
    [The statement of Mr. Harper follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Congressman.
    I now recognize myself and Vice Chair Timmons to begin a 
period of extended questioning of the witnesses. Any member who 
wishes to speak should just signal their request either to me 
or to Vice Chair Timmons.
    I want to maybe just start, Dr. Reynolds, with you but 
probably weave in Dr. Rogelberg into this, because it seems 
like these issues around Member efficacy and institutional 
efficacy are pretty substantial barriers in terms of people 
coming on board and sticking around.
    And, Dr. Reynolds, you testified previously in front of the 
committee, and you mentioned it this morning, about steps that 
Congress could take to allow Members to feel more efficacious, 
for lack of a better phrase, to claim credit for wins. Dr. 
Rogelberg, you talked about small wins, you know, just as an 
example, making sure that when someone introduces a bill that 
gets rolled into another bill, that they--that there is some 
means through which that gets acknowledged.
    Can you talk about some of the other--any other 
recommendations you think our committee ought to be thinking 
about in that regard? I know last year you mentioned something 
that the committee considered and hopefully might consider 
again, which is dual sponsorship. Talk about that or anything 
else you think we ought to be looking at so that Members feel a 
sense of efficacy.
    Ms. Reynolds. Yeah, absolutely. So as you mentioned, Mr. 
Kilmer, one recommendation that you all advanced is using 
Congress backup to make clearer individual Member contributions 
to legislation. I think this was a wonderful first step. Also, 
as you mentioned, a proposal to have--to make clear who, say, a 
lead cosponsor, particularly perhaps if it is someone of the 
other party.
    I think also there is probably room for committees to--in 
the spirit of Dr. Rogelberg's call for experimentation, I think 
there is probably some room for committees to experiment with 
this as well. You know, when a committee is putting together a 
draft to a piece of legislation, sort of making clear in that 
draft who contributed which ideas, where did they come from.
    And maybe different committees would take slightly 
different approaches to that but, again, I think in the spirit 
of sort of trying some different things, to make clear that 
individuals do make meaningful contributions to the process but 
need to be able to sort of feel like they are being seen as 
doing so to make it worth their while.
    The Chairman. Dr. Rogelberg, I want to kind of weave you 
into this because I am curious if you have looked at, whether 
it be organization--you know, businesses, nonprofits, any 
organizations, where there is a sense of the individual 
employee feeling frustrated with regard to their sense of 
efficacy either because of lack of organizational efficiency 
writ large or concerns around things like centralization of 
power where the agenda and the impact is not always driven by 
the kind of rank-and-file worker.
    Any observations on that or things that we ought to be 
looking at that might better empower the kind of rank and file?
    Mr. Rogelberg. The work experience of individuals, be it in 
a nonprofit or the government or a large tech company, the 
fundamental drivers of employee engagement and feelings of 
success are pretty common across all those different contexts.
    The fundamentals of what leads to an enriching experience 
comes down to doing meaningful work, working with people who 
you respect and trust, having leaders who communicate readily 
and authentically and transparently, having a good 
collaborative work environment. Those fundamentals help you 
deal with institutional pressures.
    When those core dimensions are not in place, the 
institutional pressures become even heavier. That is why it is 
so important to think about the process of change from that 
leading self, leading others, leading institution perspective. 
Right? We build resilience by addressing leading self and 
leading others. And going back to the concept of efficacy, that 
is where we can be efficacious. Right? We do have control and 
power. So if every Member really hits those domains 
effectively, then it gives them the greater ability to 
positively affect the institution.
    The Chairman. I have got about a thousand other questions, 
but let me kick it over to Vice Chair Timmons. And then I think 
Mr. Cleaver probably.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Congressman Harper, you were talking about term limits 
generally. We also have committee chair term limits for the 
Republican Conference in our Conference rules.
    What are your thoughts on those?
    Mr. Harper. Well, if I was the chairman, at the end of my 6 
years, I would say that is a horrible rule and you need to stay 
on. If you are someone who is trying to make your way through 
the system and have done the hard work--you know, you can argue 
it, but I have seen some who were very good chairmen that they 
were term limited for that and they were able to roll over to 
be chairman of another committee.
    Mr. Timmons. I actually think Congressman Conaway who 
recently retired, in my opinion, is probably one of the most 
impressive Members I have ever seen, and he was left because he 
was no longer going to be chair of Ag. Most people don't 
realize he was the chair of Ag, on HASC, and on Intel at the 
same time, which is----
    Mr. Harper. Unheard of.
    Mr. Timmons [continuing]. I mean, just wild.
    Mr. Harper. And such a great person. I agree. But that is 
one of the factors that you have to look at.
    I am not a--would not be a fan of saying you will have a 
uniform rule for the Democrats and the Republicans. I think 
internally that is something that the conference should work 
out in each party.
    Mr. Timmons. Okay. You were talking about Member salaries. 
I mean, we are just not going to pass--we are not going to have 
a vote on the House floor that fixes this, outside of----
    Mr. Harper. Shocking that you would----
    Mr. Timmons [continuing]. Outside of a Federal judge, you 
know, addressing it, which is possible. We are not going to do 
it. So outside of that, what do you think is possible that we 
could do to make it easier to serve in Congress?
    Mr. Harper. Certainly, you know, on that issue, before I 
answer your question, I would think that former Members, not 
that I am volunteering, but former Members would have standing 
to bring forth that constitutional argument on the pay.
    You know, I agree in the things that have been said about 
making your office environment better. I was really blessed 
with a great, great team in my office. It was almost 6 years 
before my first staffer left in DC. And when I was chairman of 
House Admin, we had just an amazing team.
    And I know what we did in my office was--and it is 
different for every district, but I made sure we paid our staff 
as much as we could pay them, and many of you do that. You get 
down to the end of the year, you have got excess money, you 
want your team to have extra money during that process to help 
them. It has become an even more difficult thing to do.
    And I--and one thing that not every office, at least when I 
was here, paid their interns. We paid our interns enough that 
they could at least starve to death slowly. So it was--and I 
think that is important. You want to have a good team. The 
interns, you don't want just somebody to come up on the 
strength of their parents' money. You want to have anybody that 
wants to come up here for a semester or summer should be able 
to do that. So I would hope that we would--we would pay them.
    You know, enjoyment of life, the money is a big factor, but 
enjoyment of life up here is good.
    I--to my recollection, I never publicly criticized the 
other--another Member. Now, if I had a problem with the Member, 
I would go talk to that Member and have that discussion with 
them. But, you know, it is difficult if you are friends with 
somebody and friendly with them and then 30 minutes later that 
Member is outside in front of the cameras. Yeah, I know it may 
be good theater and good politics, but it certainly doesn't 
create a warm, you know, environment. So those are a few things 
that I would think.
    And certainly, look, I have been social media sober for 3.5 
years. And, you know, social media is toxic, as you know. And 
if you are running a campaign, you have got a Facebook page, 
you don't want your family reading the Facebook page because 
they are going to get their feelings hurt. So it is a fact of 
life. I don't know that you can do anything else about it.
    But just, you know, it is okay to have friends on the other 
side of the aisle. And I think it works good for the 
institution if you can accomplish that.
    Mr. Timmons. Just a quick followup to that point. 
Congressman Cleaver and I just worked on some legislation in 
the Financial Services Committee, and I think most of the 
committee staff were surprised that we worked it out in about 
30 seconds where we had a small disagreement.
    Mr. Harper. That is great.
    Mr. Timmons. Great to work together.
    Dr. Reynolds, one last question. This might be hard, but 
can you make the counter argument to why we should not have 
bipartisan cosponsorships? Just like, I don't understand why we 
shouldn't. So could you make the argument? Like, come up with a 
reason.
    Ms. Reynolds. I can't make a good argument, in part, 
because I really do think the ability for Members to feel like 
they have the ability to point to something that they have 
accomplished is, you know, important to keeping folks invested 
in doing the hard work.
    And I--so the short answer is, no, I can't--I can't 
formulate a good counterargument for you, Mr. Timmons.
    Mr. Timmons. The chairman and I have some legislation that 
is probably going to get signed into law, and his name's on it. 
I am just a cosponsor. So, you know, I was just trying to see 
if we could find a counterargument. I am still very happy it is 
going to pass.
    Anyways, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Congressman Cleaver.
    Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good to see you, Representative Harper.
    Mr. Harper. Thank you, Congressman.
    Mr. Cleaver. I was thinking, you know, you retired, you 
know, just because you wanted to have a life. I think that is 
horrible that you abandoned us just to be happy, but it is good 
to see you again.
    Mr. Harper. You too.
    Mr. Cleaver. And as you were speaking, I was thinking, 
yeah, I don't ever remember him being nasty to anybody. But it 
brings to my attentions, there is an issue that we are almost 
hesitant always to talk about.
    And it is, I will never forget, I am in my home in Kansas 
City, because we couldn't get here. All of the airlines were 
shut down--I mean, the airports were shut down because of snow. 
And I am--I turn on the TV, and a reporter is saying, you know, 
the people are delivering mail but the Members of Congress 
can't come in and work.
    And I am thinking, you know--and the reporter, I don't 
think, meant any harm. It was, like, you know, it is going to 
get a good reaction around the country. We couldn't--the air--
Reagan was shut down. And so people start thinking, yeah, you 
know, everybody else is working. These guys are not working.
    And then when you add in what the late-night comedians do, 
and I don't mean any harm anywhere else, but some of the things 
we do, we have created the environment, I think, where it is--
you know, it is difficult to get an increase in our salaries 
because people are almost always believing, you know, we all 
have limousine picking us up and, you know, we live in 
mansions, because if you look at a movie about a Member of 
Congress, they always have a mansion and they have limousines 
and so forth.
    Mr. Harper. Private jet. Don't forget your private jet.
    Mr. Cleaver. And so people believe that.
    Help us. Help me. What can we--you know, if we started 
trying to work with the media to--I mean, they would probably 
think we are just trying to get nice stories out of them if we 
said, hey, look, you know, let's--I mean, you know, things are 
not--things are bad enough that we don't have to, you know, add 
on to it. And I guess we--they may interpret that to be a 
declaration of war on them. I don't know.
    Any thoughts about how--what can we do to begin to change 
the image? Because there are a lot of good people here.
    I mean, Roy Blunt called me 6 months ago, early in the 
morning. And he said, Hey, what are you doing?
    This is 6 o'clock in the morning. I am asleep.
    And so he said, You are the sixth person I called.
    That is one of the reasons that we are friends, because he 
is always honest. Most people say you are the first person I 
called.
    He said, You are the sixth person I called to tell you I am 
not going to run for reelection.
    I have been a Democrat all my life. My statement to him, I 
can say publicly, because I don't care, I said, Roy, please do 
not retire.
    I asked him more than once. He will confirm it, and I don't 
care. You can put it anywhere in the world. I asked him not to 
retire for a lot of reasons I won't go into here.
    But I think I am interested not with the illustrations and 
examples. I am just interested in any of your collective 
thoughts about what can we do to begin to change this 
atmosphere and how people perceive us, because it is not always 
accurate.
    Mr. Harper. I will touch that for just a second. And it is 
always going to be a Member-to-Member and a Member's district 
where you can have your impact with your local media and try to 
develop those relationships and be available. Maybe invite 
them, some of the reporters, to go with you when you are going 
to one of the cities in your district or one of the areas, 
particularly if you have a more rural district.
    You know, I originally had 28 counties when I started, 
redistricted to 24, and it is a 5-hour drive tip to tip. So, 
you know, we always tried, if we went into one of those cities 
in my district, we would stop in and see whoever was running 
the newspaper and visit with them for a little while.
    So I think we have to do it that way. Radio has always been 
very effective, radio talk shows as well, to go on there. 
Public broadcasting, lots of people will go onto news shows in 
that realm.
    But it is--on a national level we are easy to hate, and--
but I would think that we know that there will not be a bill 
passed before the November elections that increases the pay. 
But stop--let's stop blocking the COLAs. At least let the cost 
of living adjustments go through.
    And, you know, I loved being here. I mean, there are so 
many great things here, whether it is the excitement of 
constituents from home, a first time to D.C. and you give them 
a Capitol tour, and just the amazement that is there, or the 
Library of Congress that we--that is the most beautiful 
building here, the Jefferson Building, and the events that we 
have there. Enjoy those.
    And, you know, so part of it is, back home, being with your 
local media I think is your best bet. It would be nice to 
have--who is going to go on any of the national news shows that 
is a current Member and say, Congress needs to be making 
$223,400 a year? It is the right thing to do. We should have 
been doing it all along, but it is very difficult.
    And invariably too, Congressman, you know that we are close 
maybe to doing some things that would be good for the body, and 
then we have a really bad news story that comes up and you just 
have to sort of delay any discussion on that.
    Ms. Reynolds. You think I would know how to use the 
microphone at this point.
    So I will echo everything that Mr. Harper said about Member 
pay. I think it is important for folks to be compensated better 
for the hard work that you all do.
    But I think I will also point to the story you told, Mr. 
Cleaver, about your relationship with Mr. Blunt, and the kinds 
of Members that this institution--obviously, Mr. Blunt is now 
serving in the Senate--but the kinds of Members that the 
Congress is losing to retirement are the kinds of Members who 
have spent a long time here, building reputations as hard 
legislative workers. And the kinds of folks who are being 
attracted to service, not exclusively, but I think are more 
often than it used to be the case, want to sort of come and use 
Congress as sort of a platform from which to say things.
    When I was here before the committee last summer, my good 
friend from the American Enterprise Institute, Yuval Levin, was 
here with me, and he has been making this point eloquently for 
a long time that Congress has become kind of a platform for 
performance. And it is difficult to convince Americans that 
there are good people here, that there are good people here 
from a very wide range of backgrounds, and that, to my mind, it 
should be a wider range of backgrounds, but there are people 
here who bring their own life experience to the hard work that 
they do. And it is more difficult to kind of convince Americans 
of that when there are folks who, you know, to Mr. Harper's 
point, go outside and yell about their colleagues on camera.
    Mr. Rogelberg. I am going to just add a couple of things.
    So, first, just quickly on the pay, you know, typically in 
organizations we think about things as compensation packages. 
And pay is part of a compensation package. So it might be the 
case that there are other things as part of the compensation 
package that can serve to increase the standard of living and 
make it more appealing, whether it is a housing allowance, 
increasing housing allowances, or providing housing. But 
probably thinking creatively about a compensation package might 
be a way of gaining more traction, given that there is probably 
not an appetite to raise salaries.
    The other piece of your question I just want to comment on, 
and I am not an expert in this area, but media will constantly 
pounce to the extent that fodder is provided to them. So when 
the House is not portraying themselves as a collaborative body, 
respectful body, then when that leaks out, clearly the media 
will use that as the fodder of the story.
    So I think about the expression of, you know, praise 
publically, criticize privately. Right? Anything we can do to 
elevate collaborative standards and to create a narrative that 
is one that the media can't attack as readily. So the media 
attacks and then there is an ability to find evidence to 
support that narrative, and then the spiral continues.
    So as Congress becomes a place of collaboration, when I 
look at what this committee is working on, the changes that you 
all are doing could have such a tremendous impact. Like, that 
is the story. That is the story that can change that narrative.
    So I think to the extent that we can keep curating stories 
like this, stories like what you talked about with the 
retirement story, like, those are really important stories of 
creating that narrative that I think can convey a different 
message, a very exciting one.
    The Chairman. Go ahead.
    Mr. Harper. Mr. Chairman, if I could add to what Dr. 
Rogelberg said about other ways, certainly not only are we 
frozen in time in 2009 on pay, the fact that as Members of 
Congress we have two duty stations and we cannot get a per diem 
or a housing allowance, that is not a difficult fix to change 
that and provide something. And if a Member is independently 
wealthy, doesn't want to accept that, then they don't have to.
    But we--we are in danger of this being a place that only 
those that are independently wealthy or those that think this 
amount of money is like winning the lottery are going to be 
able to serve. So we need to make sure that we take care of the 
institution. And I think you raised, you know, a great point 
that look at that per diem issue and housing allowance.
    The Chairman. Go ahead.
    Ms. Reynolds. Can I say one more thing on the housing? I 
think another reason why this is really important to look at is 
because--and I--I completely understand the financial reasons 
why Members sleep in their offices. But I think that also 
stands to sort of degrade the character of the House as a 
workplace.
    You know, this is a place where people come to work, where 
you come to work, where your staffs come to work, where all the 
people who have to work here overnight come to work, you know, 
the folks who clean your offices. And having folks sleeping in 
their office sort of sets a--makes it a different environment 
as a workplace that I think also is--like, could stand to 
change.
    So on top of opening--potentially opening up service for 
more kinds of individuals, I think that is another reason to 
try and make some changes that would allow folks to not feel 
like they have to do that.
    Mr. Rogelberg. I just add very quickly. In organizational 
psychology, there is a concept of recovery. And sleeping in 
your office does not allow for recovery. That is an extremely 
counterproductive approach.
    The Chairman. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. I can't work the microphone either, Dr. 
Reynolds.
    What were you laughing about, Perlmutter?
    Mr. Perlmutter. When I see you, it makes me smile.
    Mr. Davis. I just want to say to Chairman Harper, thank you 
for not calling me at 6 a.m. to tell me you are retiring. I 
appreciate that.
    Mr. Harper. I think it was more like 8 o'clock.
    Mr. Davis. It probably 8 o'clock. And, you know, I wanted 
your job, so I was, like, good riddance. Take care, buddy. 
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
    No. But in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, you taught me how 
to be a better Member. You were such a great example as the 
chairman of House Administration, somebody who, you know, even 
though we were in the majority, you treated the minority 
members just as well as you treated us. You showed what a true, 
compassionate Member of Congress who is here to serve was 
supposed to do. And I was proud to serve under you.
    Matter of fact, you gave me opportunities to help fix this 
place. You know, you let me lead a couple of task forces when I 
was under your tutelage, one, to fix the Office of Finance when 
it came to travel. So we are more transparent because you 
allowed me to work with your team to actually put more 
transparency in place.
    And, frankly, you as the chair don't get enough credit for 
making the House of Representatives the most transparent part 
of our constitutional government when it comes to spending that 
we have. You gave me the chance to negotiate on your behalf.
    Go ahead and say bye. You are good.
    Mr. Harper. See you, Congressman.
    Mr. Cleaver. Good to see you again. Blessings.
    Excuse me, Rodney.
    Mr. Davis. See you.
    You gave me a chance to lead the effort to where we put our 
expenses online in a searchable, sortable document. And you 
know what? There was a news story this week. Oh, the House 
Statement of Disbursements came out. Good. Did you see one 
about the Senate? Did you see one about the Supreme Court? How 
about the executive branch?
    You don't get enough credit for what you did to make this 
place work. Otherwise, those two fixes I just mentioned, among 
others, would have been part of the some of the things that we 
would have fixed on this committee, because they were things 
that were necessary to do.
    And I am really proud that your legacy lives on through the 
Gregg and Livingston Harper Internship Program. That is one 
that gives so many--so many kids with special needs the 
opportunity to really get a sense of what government is all 
about. You have got a long legacy here, and we just hope we can 
follow.
    Some of the questions I had actually for you, sir, were 
centered around what you just mentioned about, you know, what 
is Congress going to be like when we kind of push out middle-
class Americans from wanting to join this institution? You 
mentioned in your opening testimony that you probably lost your 
entire first year's first-term salary because you couldn't 
recoup some of the legal work that you already did, that you 
were being paid for.
    So is there any more that you want to add on how we can 
disincentivize just ultra wealthy individuals from making this 
kind of a social media/Twitter/Facebook whatever playground 
and, unfortunately, pushing out those who I think are the most 
serious legislators?
    Mr. Harper. Well, thank you so much, Congressman Davis. And 
you have been a great friend, and you will forever be well 
remembered in my house for what you did in 2018 in that 
reception when you called Livingston to come up and stand next 
to you.
    I you don't know Livingston, he is 32, almost 33. But he 
has never met a stranger. And, you know, everything that I did 
here on working to start that internship program back in 2010 
was because that was our life, you know, with him.
    But, you know, I still cry telling the story about that 
day, you calling him up and then telling me to come up and 
stand next to him. It is one of the greatest memories of my 
life, and I thank you for that.
    And I will say that it is easy to be the chairman of a 
committee when you have got such great staff on the committee. 
But everything I learned about being a really good chairman of 
that committee, don't tell him I said it, but I learned from 
Bob Brady from Pennsylvania. I mean, just a prince of a guy, 
and we got along so well on that committee and I am just 
thankful, you know, for that.
    So there are a number of things that, you know, we look at 
on what we can do to make it better. But, again, I am going to 
go back to the general statement, Congressman, which is, just 
do what is best for the institution and don't worry about the 
fallout. If it is the right thing to do for the institution, 
just--let's just do it.
    And there comes a point where you know with--particularly 
with what we are facing now--Members are no different than 
others--it is a difficult time right now. And to know that, if 
we do nothing, then 10 years from now, maybe this committee is 
still working, we will have another hearing on why there hasn't 
been a pay raise in the last, you know, 24 years.
    So the cost of living adjustment, stop blocking that. Look 
at changing it to where you don't have two duty stations. I 
mean, legislative bodies typically in a State legislature, as 
you know, Congressman, they get paid when they go to the State 
capitol and they are in session. So there has got to be some 
way that we can do that.
    And if somebody just--I mean, we are going to be hated no 
matter what. So let's just do what is right.
    Mr. Davis. Oh, I don't hate Derek.
    Mr. Harper. I understand.
    Mr. Davis. No. No. Timmons, that is questionable.
    Dr. Reynolds, my last question. Regarding your research on 
Member retirement rates and trends, has your research compared 
the U.S. Congress retirement based turnover to any legislators 
in other countries?
    Ms. Reynolds. I am not familiar with work that looks at the 
U.S. Congress compared to other countries. There is some work 
that I am familiar with on Congress compared to State 
legislatures. State legislatures, as, you know, I don't have to 
tell several of you who used to be State legislators, it is 
more common for there to be term limits, which obviously 
changes retirement decisions. But otherwise, a lot of the same 
factors do appear to animate when people retire from State 
legislatures: age, pay, that sort of thing.
    Mr. Davis. It is interesting. I mean, we hear all the time 
that people come to Congress and never leave. Well, I mean, 
there are always the Don Youngs. May God rest his soul. And Don 
was a great legislator till the day he passed, and was a part 
of this institution. And I would call him a true friend to this 
day.
    But the truth is, Derek and I got elected in 2012. I am, I 
think, 150 in seniority probably with some of the specials. 
435, and we kind of moved up in seniority. That tells me that 
we have had a lot of turnover. I attribute some of that to the 
term limits that we have on our side for committee chairs and 
ranking members, because that gives--it gives the opportunity 
to have a fresh start.
    And I think that is one of the reasons why I am able to 
follow in the footsteps of Chairman Harper, who--I long for the 
days of bipartisanship when you were leading that committee. 
The place isn't the same right now, and I certainly hope--
actually, I have got to give Derek and William a lot of credit, 
and even Perlmutter here--it makes me sick to say that--but 
this committee is trying to do what House Admin used to do in a 
very bipartisan way of moving the House into a better position 
long-term for Members, staff, and everyone. And I have got to 
commend these guys and everybody on this committee for serving.
    And great to see you again, Gregg. Give Livingston and 
Cindy my best.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Harper. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. As I call on Mr. Perlmutter, I do want to 
also give him credit. Part of the reason we are having this 
hearing is, at his urging when the committee was established 
and the rule that was put in place to basically give us our 
marching orders, one of the things that Congressman Perlmutter 
pushed for was looking at pathways to leadership, looking at 
how Members come, looking at why they leave, looking at how 
they advance when they are in the institution.
    So I want to give you credit, and invite you to weigh in 
with your questions.
    Mr. Perlmutter. And thank you for having this hearing. And 
thanks to the panelists.
    This is both the ability of Members to rise and do good 
work when they become a chair, you know, because there is 
sharing across party lines and up and down, just to make the 
place run better, and to develop, you know, term limits to some 
degree.
    I mean, Gregg, your story is my story. And I hate to say 
it, but I am going to miss guys like Rodney Davis. You know, he 
hits me all the time. But this is a wonderful place, and the 
opportunity to serve our communities, our neighbors, the 
Nation, you know, it is a fantastic honor.
    But--and this--I want to start with you, Dr. Rogelberg, 
something you said, you know, about being effective, being 
efficacious. This is a subject--this pay, for instance, is one 
where if you come from a middle-class background, you know, 
working lawyer just like you, you know, eventually you have 
three daughters, you have three graduate colleges, you have 
three weddings. It takes its toll on the kitty.
    And you talked about the--to feel effective, you need to 
advance the conversation. And this conversation hasn't advanced 
on pay or housing or per diem or COLAs or really even 
healthcare. We went backwards on healthcare in terms of the 
cost of healthcare when we went from the House--or the Federal 
Employee Benefits Program, you know, to the Affordable Care 
Act.
    You know, when I went to the personnel, I found out that 
when I retire, I am going to be paying $500 a month less to go 
back onto the Federal employee health plan. So one of the 
things that has been so difficult for me is I would start 
griping about things. I would start griping about the pay or 
the housing or whatever, and somebody said, well, do something 
about it. Oh, okay. I have been trying, but it isn't happening. 
So, ultimately, well, then, do something else, which is not 
really what I wanted to do, but what I am--so can you explain 
about the desire of people to have an effect on their workplace 
and then not having any effect, what that does to the morale?
    Mr. Rogelberg. It is not good.
    Mr. Perlmutter. No.
    Mr. Rogelberg. So a meaningful compensation package is 
certainly important. But ultimately, it is not the most robust 
predictor of engagement, feelings of accomplishment, or even 
retention. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be in place, but really 
when it comes down to that sense of accomplishment and 
engagement with the work, it is through feeling that you are 
doing things that are important, you are moving the ball down 
the field. It comes from having colleagues that you respect, 
enjoy working with. It is from having leadership that you feel 
is supportive, communicative. So all those factors together 
really create that sense of connection to the institution and 
embeddedness.
    You know, I think about some research on lottery winners, 
for example. And what they found was that, if you ask people 
will the lottery change your life, everyone says yes, it will 
be a complete game-changer. And what they generally find is 
when someone won the lottery, their satisfaction with life 
actually did go up, but it was only temporary. It quickly 
returned to the level that they had before, in terms of 
satisfaction. Because, ultimately, the foundations, the 
fundamentals of their life hadn't changed. Right? They are 
still interacting with the same people. They still had their 
own personal mindset of how they were viewing life.
    So the point being is that when we think about trying to 
engender a sense of engagement, feelings of satisfaction, 
accomplishment, the entire ecosystem has to be addressed. And 
certainly compensation is one part of that ecosystem.
    Mr. Perlmutter. There was another thing, and then, Dr. 
Reynolds, I would like you to comment on this. And this will be 
sort of a policy thing, but I am going to use it as an example.
    So, you know, we obviously had these terrible shootings in 
the last couple weeks. And that is one. So in my district, I 
have Columbine and I have the Aurora movie theater. And, you 
know, it is, again, a thing where you are just, you know, 
pounding away at it, but not making much progress. And that--
you know, there are so many other places where we have advanced 
the ball. But I appreciate your answer.
    Dr. Reynolds.
    Ms. Reynolds. Sure. I will say two things. One, on your 
point about Member health insurance, I do want to sort of 
underscore that as something that we haven't talked about yet. 
I know that in previous discussions the committee has talked 
about this issue for staff. Mr. Kilmer, I remember you in 
particular talking about challenges that your district-based 
staff faced with this requirement. So I will just sort of raise 
that again as we are trying to think creatively and expansively 
about different parts of the kind of compensation package.
    On your question about Member efficacy, what I would say is 
that--I will credit the committee for its hard work on the 
return of congressionally directed spending and community 
project funding. This is, to my mind, one of the most important 
reasons for having that mechanism in place. Lots of folks, me 
included, talk about sort of the role of Congress in the 
separation of power system, of having the power of the purse. 
But I think it--it is equally, if not more important, because 
it gives you and your colleagues that sense of efficacy that 
Dr. Rogelberg was talking about.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Absolutely. And I think everybody, since we 
did in this last round of appropriations, you know, have 
earmarks that you have to justify, you have to be able to 
provide support, you know, that are community based. Each of us 
takes pride in that, you know, that even if--it is a bridge. I 
can't tell you how many ribbon cuttings I have been to bridges 
over the last 6 months or a year. And we took that away from 
ourselves as another way--there is this masochistic streak 
among us in some respects.
    And, Gregg, to your point, I mean, we need to do things 
that allow us to do good work. Compensation, part of it, being 
effective and taking pride in things. And sometimes, you know, 
somebody, Mrs. McGillicuddy may get mad that, you know, why did 
you build a bridge at, you know, 32nd and Youngfield? It should 
have been at 38th and Wadsworth. But that is part of the job, 
is we have got to take some incoming to do good work.
    Just general comments.
    Mr. Harper. I will certainly say that the return of the--I 
don't think I am allowed to say earmarks--congressional----
    Mr. Perlmutter. I can.
    Mr. Harper. A rose by any other name. It is a great--it is 
a great opportunity to help people in your district, and so I 
hope that it remains. It is--I think it has been restricted and 
explainable and transparent, all the things that the public 
would want, and they have been--overall, the projects I have 
seen have been very helpful and particularly a lot--and, you 
know, we have got certainly big issues in water and treated 
waste water projects that are just not very glamorous, but 
everybody is in great need. If a city is over, you know, 20 
years old, which almost all are, they have got some 
infrastructure issues. And so I think it is a great tool.
    And, you know, your process for you on this, certainly, 
again, we did things that--we do things that hurt the 
institution, hurt the House of Representatives. They give us 
zero credit in the public eye. That is why I said let's just do 
what is the best thing and the right thing to do.
    And I will tell you, it was going to be a real hardship for 
my staff to have to go to the Affordable Care Act. And so I 
know it is a public hearing, but I declared every one of them 
nonessential so they could stay on their Federal health 
insurance.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. That makes sense.
    The last couple points. One, you know, my dad was in the 
construction business, and he loved to point out every building 
he worked on. You know, it was just pride. And the community 
projects gives me that internal satisfaction, if you will.
    Last thing is, it would be very ironic if we had to have a 
Federal judge tell us what our salary should be. And it may 
come to that being the outcome of this, that we aren't the 
masters of our own ship, that we have to go to a Federal judge 
and say we are unwilling to treat ourselves properly because we 
are worried that Mrs. McGillicuddy will get mad that we got a 
cost of living raise, you know, or increase.
    So, you know--and obviously, I have had some conversations 
about bringing the lawsuit, but it really is--``ironic'' is the 
nicest term I can think about it.
    Mr. Harper. I think it is a great idea.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Okay.
    The Chairman. Okay. We have Mr. Phillips via Zoom.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Greetings, everybody.
    Many estimate that Members of Congress spend in excess of 
10,000 hours per week collectively raising money. It is not 
just the shameless waste of time--shameful waste of time, I 
should say, but it is the nature of having to generate that 
kind of revenue during the work hours.
    So my question is to you, Congressman Harper, share with us 
your experience. How much time did you spend doing that? How 
did that affect your outlook on this job? And any thoughts you 
might have about how fundraising and the shameless pursuant of 
money in this institution might also be affecting people's 
decisions to run or even stay here.
    Mr. Harper. You know, I guess I am a little bit of an 
oddity. I loved campaigning. And I told my wife when I got 
elected, if I enjoyed campaigning that much--if I enjoyed 
serving half as much as I enjoyed campaigning, I was going to 
have a great time. I don't know--and, of course, you know, it 
is district by district. It is different. Our media market was 
not one of the more expensive ones, so we probably didn't have 
to have quite as much money. Now, with outside money, it is 
much more difficult and challenging that you can be in that 
situation. So I do not really know anybody that truly enjoys 
going and asking people for money.
    And, of course, with the limits we have, you can have 
somebody who is a very wealthy donor who doesn't want to give 
that to you. So it is--you know, they will give you the limits, 
but if it was a statewide race and State government, they could 
basically write a check for whatever they wanted to. So it 
makes it much more challenging, I think, for the Members.
    But, again, I don't know if I have any advice for the 
committee on that, except to acknowledge it is no fun to have 
to go and do that. But it is--sometimes you have to defend 
yourself against outside groups that misrepresent what your 
position is. We see it all the time, don't we?
    Mr. Phillips. And, sir, yeah, I just want to say I concur 
with the need for it. I hear from too many potential 
candidates, outstanding young Americans on both sides of the 
aisle, who don't consider running for public office because of 
the shameless pursuit of money that is required, especially in 
this day and age. That is the root of my question.
    I am sorry. Did someone want to opine as well?
    Ms. Reynolds. Oh, I just want to thank you for this 
question, Mr. Phillips, because I think it ties in really--in 
really important ways to the conversation we were having before 
about middle-class Americans getting shut out of service, 
because the need to raise large sums of money profoundly shapes 
the perception of who is a viable candidate for office. And so 
if folks are not getting asked because they don't seem like the 
kind of person who can raise the necessary funds, that then 
shapes the sort of flow of candidates into the pipeline. And 
then once folks are running, the sort of time and resource 
costs of raising all of those funds.
    And I will just point out, for example, that it was not 
until, I believe, 2018 that the Federal Election Commission 
allowed candidates to use campaign funds to, say, pay for 
childcare while they were running. So the number of sort of 
ways in which the campaign finance system also structures who 
ends up running for office is quite profound.
    Mr. Phillips. I couldn't agree more.
    Just another quick question, because I only have 2 minutes 
myself, but--and, Mr. Rogelberg, I would appreciate your 
perspective on this.
    You know, how do we inspire young people to consider 
careers in public service? I think that interest has eroded for 
reasons we can all understand. And I think we can all agree, no 
matter one's politics, if we don't inspire thoughtful, 
principled young conservatives and progressives to consider 
serving their country, we are in trouble.
    Any thoughts from any of you about how we might do a better 
job of positioning, if not careers, at least moments of serving 
the country during one's career?
    Mr. Rogelberg. If you think about any position or any 
potential career path we considered as children, what was it 
about it that was potentially enticing? And it came down to we 
thought it sounded interesting and potentially impactful and 
meaningful and fun and exciting, and that was what our brains 
thought of as teenagers. The stories we hear are really 
important about that institution. Think about these days, now 
when you are applying for a job, you get on Glassdoor, right, 
you read all the employee reviews. All those things drive your 
decision to apply or not to apply. There is so much information 
from current and former employees.
    And when we see a narrative that is inconsistent with our 
values, our hopes, or aspirations, it just no longer becomes a 
potential place of employment that is going to attract us. So 
keep circling back to, you know, the health and well-being of 
the institution and the narrative that is conveyed and the 
stories that are conveyed.
    You know, one of the gifts of being invited to testify is I 
actually watched all your hearings that you have done. They are 
amazing. They are amazing. They represent the best of 
government and the best of people. Right? So the extent that we 
can start changing this narrative and really reinforcing and 
celebrating these types of initiatives and cooperations, the 
job is more appealing to everyone, including the current 
holders of the job as well as the potential holders.
    The Chairman. Feel like I should at this point----
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you. And, my friends, I unfortunately 
have to leave now. Please continue the conversation because I 
think it is an important one.
    But, with that, I am going to have to yield back and let 
you continue. I am sorry.
    The Chairman. Thanks, Mr. Phillips.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you everybody.
    The Chairman. At this point, I did want to thank the one 
member of the press core who is here. Thank you for being here. 
We are glad you are here. Thanks for being here. We are clearly 
viral at this point.
    So I want to maybe touch on a couple more things in a 
second round, and if other members do as well.
    One, Ms. Reynolds, and we kind of just touched on it with 
regard to issues like childcare and others, you know, research 
has shown that there are barriers that impact who chooses to 
try to work here, and then there are some things that represent 
disproportionate barriers to women, to people from maybe a 
disadvantaged community.
    Can you talk a little bit about what some of those unique 
barriers might look like and what, if anything, this committee 
ought to be thinking about in that realm?
    Ms. Reynolds. Sure. So I will start with recruitment. So 
the idea that women, candidates of color, candidates from 
working class backgrounds, are often recruited less frequently 
to run for office. Obviously, most candidate recruitment, and I 
think appropriately so, is outside the walls of this 
institution, but I do think that you inside the walls of the 
institution can do a lot to make sure that if someone from a 
marginalized background is interested in running for Congress, 
feels like Congress will be a place where they could fit in if 
they come here. You know, I think there are some even pretty 
small ways to do that.
    And you have spent a lot of really good and thoughtful time 
thinking about new Member orientation. Are there particular 
kinds of things you might offer candidates from nontraditional 
backgrounds or candidates who are working parents--I know you 
are, Mr. Kilmer--to sort of figure out how do I fit into this 
place? And that sends an important signal to potential 
candidates. So recruitment is one piece.
    There is also, I think, a concern on the part of potential 
candidates that they won't necessarily receive the necessary 
financial support to mount a campaign. Again, that may be 
outside the bounds of what you all can work on. This question 
of women in particular feeling like they can't balance family 
responsibilities. I know Mr. Timmons is quite interested in 
changes to the calendar and the schedule. And I think this is a 
place, again, where there is some work to be done to make the 
calendar and the schedule potentially work better for folks who 
have caregiving responsibilities of various kinds, like Mr. 
Harper.
    Also, you know, as the sort of demographics of this place 
have changed, there are just more Members from sort of dual-
career families in a way that was not true in decades past. And 
so just sort of thinking about those sorts of considerations.
    And then the last thing that I will say is there is a 
perception on the part of some candidates from marginalized 
backgrounds that they are not qualified to serve in this 
institution. I think to Mr. Cleaver's point earlier about sort 
of sending messages that this is a place where Americans from 
all walks of life can make meaningful contributions. I think 
that is important as well.
    The Chairman. The other thing that--and Dr. Rogelberg, you 
touched on this. So it is always striking to me when I am home, 
you know, oftentimes when I am engaging my constituents, they 
ask me how I am doing as though I have been diagnosed with 
terminal disease. You know, and it is not because of 
compensation. It is because a sense that we are banging our 
heads against the wall here.
    You made this comment about rethinking what success looks 
like and rethinking what wins look like. And I kind of want to 
double click on that a little bit. I used to say our team, you 
know, our job is to get pucks into the net. I am told because 
Seattle has a hockey team now, I am allowed to use hockey 
analogies.
    But I have rethought this. And I think it is a little bit 
more like the football game at Dave and Busters or Chuck E. 
Cheese's where there is like the really big, you know, hole 
that is right near you, and it is like 5 yards. And then there 
is like kind of the midsized hole that is a little bit further 
back, you know, which is like 10 yards. And then there is like 
the long ball, which is like a really tight hole and pretty far 
away.
    And, you know, our job is to try to like land as many as we 
can get. And some of them are going to be short passes and some 
of them are going to be midterm passes. And every now and then, 
maybe you hit the long ball, like maybe, though Congress has 
not been super about landing the long ball.
    But, you know, you have looked at how other institutions, 
how other organizations sort of navigate how to define success. 
Give us some learnings that we might be able to drive some 
recommendations in this.
    Mr. Rogelberg. So what I like about the small wins concept 
is that it creates a criterion of success that you can control 
more readily. Having a criterion of success that you don't 
control is an incredibly frustrating, miserable process and 
journey. What is key, though, with the small wins is to really 
recognize that small wins can come from many different places.
    They can absolutely be in the legislative bucket, right? 
There is small wins that can be found there. But there is also 
small wins with regard to how you develop others. Like, to the 
extent that you are elevating other individuals in your staff 
or other Members of Congress, there is tremendous satisfaction 
that can be derived from those small wins. Like, that is--at 
the end of the day, really, how you kind of affected a person 
is what helps you sleep well at night.
    And then there is small wins in the constituent bucket. And 
so to the extent that that individual is constantly really 
seeking out these small wins, believing that small wins do 
accumulate, you know, recognizing that the small win narrative 
could actually be very appealing to others. Right? If you think 
about what American--the people want is progress. Small wins 
represent progress.
    Furthermore, how could we possibly expect that big vexing 
challenges could be solved in one swoop of legislation? Small 
wins is just a natural fit with big vexing problems, and they 
do accumulate across time and across people. So really 
embracing this, you know, small wins concept, looking for small 
wins in multifaceted ways all help you recognize that you are 
making a difference. And that is what is so critical for 
retention and that feeling of success and accomplishment at the 
end of the day.
    The Chairman. And I want to bring Mr. Timmons in, but, Dr. 
Reynolds, because you have looked at this institution so much, 
any guidance on how we drive more small wins? I mean, so much 
in this place happens or, frankly, doesn't happen in big 
omnibus bills and reconciliations with bills that do or don't 
happen.
    Ms. Reynolds. Right. So I think this comes back to why, you 
know, both today and in previous conversations with this 
committee I have stressed this ability to find more ways for 
Members to claim credit for the small wins that make it into 
those big giant bills.
    The Chairman. Like dual sponsorship.
    Ms. Reynolds. For example, yes.
    The Chairman. Right.
    Ms. Reynolds. And I think that is--I think that is a 
really, you know--the way I would see it is that I think the 
small wins are happening and the structure of the institution 
is not giving all of you the credit--the opportunity to claim 
credit for the small wins that it could be.
    The Chairman. Go ahead, Mr. Timmons.
    Mr. Timmons. Congressman Harper, I want to talk to you 
about the schedule and the calendar. So we made a 
recommendation last Congress to travel less, work more. Going 
back to 2019, we were in session 65 full days. And most of 
those days--we had 66 travel days. So most of those days were 
2-day workweeks. Some of them were 3-day workweeks, but 
generally they were 2-day workweeks. And that makes it really 
hard for us to get all of our committee work, all floor votes--
it is just really jumbled. And so it kind of incentivi---it 
facilitates a--I call it pinballing. You are just going all 
over the place.
    So I have been thinking a lot about really encouraging the 
next schedule to include more 5-day workweeks. If you did 
literally just every other week 26 5-day workweeks, fly in 
Monday, fly out Friday, you would be working 78 full days and 
you would be traveling 52 days. So there is some more 
aggressive schedules that I would like, but I just want to hear 
your thoughts on that concept generally.
    Mr. Harper. Certainly. This is set up to be a very family 
unfriendly place if you are not careful. And so the scheduling 
is certainly--we have seen it, depending on the party in power, 
that scheduling changes. It can be in different formats. I 
think the most important thing is that it be predictable, 
whatever it is, and you certainly mentioned that in that 
regard.
    The thought that I would have to go Monday to Friday 
without seeing my family is not an attractive idea to me, and 
it means you can do no events and no business back in the 
district where you need to be. I like the idea of knowing you 
are going to have available that full week, but I always 
resented being up here to do work when there really wasn't 
anything to vote on. And so I would say, if there are things 
that need to be done, great. But we don't want to create busy 
work in that process.
    So I think my circumstances were different. If you lived to 
the east of the Mississippi River, yeah, it is not a problem to 
fly in in a few hours. But if you lived out west, boy, it is 
just brutal. It is absolutely brutal. So I think that it is 
just a consideration that whatever it is, be predictable.
    I just--I can just say personally that would not be a good 
thing if I knew I couldn't go home Monday to Friday and my 
family be back there. So at least, you know, if we were Monday 
to Thursday, I am gone three nights. Being gone four becomes a 
little less attractive, but I could argue it if you are 
figuring it out on the backside of that.
    But, you know, this year, we are in an election year and it 
is--so you are not here in October or August. Normally, August 
is district work period. So it is something that--I mean, I 
would--certainly if I was a Member, I would be willing to have 
that discussion, but just--I don't think necessarily it has to 
be a hard and fast schedule. It just needs to be predictable.
    Mr. Timmons. Sure. Thank you.
    One other question. We have been talking about dual duty 
station and all those variables. I mean, my understanding is 
the executive branch, all businesses in the world, and even 
everybody in Congress, except for Members, when they travel 
more than 50 miles away from their home, their duty station, 
they are generally expected to expense virtually everything.
    How did this happen? Why are there only 435 people in the 
world that are expected to pay for everything out of pocket 
when they travel?
    Mr. Harper. Well, it is so that the public will like us 
more.
    Mr. Timmons. That is not going well.
    Mr. Harper. No, it is not working, is it? But, I mean, it 
is so unfair, if we are talking about doing something that is 
equitable and fair, I mean, it is--should be treated the same. 
And it goes, again, to what we were talking about here today, 
that you--you are sort of boxed in to a certain life or 
lifestyle in many situations that you really wish you had the 
flexibility to do that. So it makes zero sense. And so it is 
something that is not that difficult to change. And it is not 
perceived as negatively as, say, a pay raise if you are just 
changing that.
    Mr. Timmons. I know. I have tried to sleep in my office; my 
team put the over and under at three nights, and I only made it 
two nights. There was a gentleman in the middle of the Cannon 
Office Building that was hitting a hammer for about 4 or 5 
hours starting at like 3:00 in the morning. I was like, what is 
going on? Do you need help? I can help you. Whatever you are 
hitting, it is not working. Anyways.
    Mr. Harper. Well, you know, when I was in Cannon House 
Office Building, interior courtyard, it was under construction 
for years.
    Mr. Timmons. It still is.
    Mr. Harper. So ear plugs and the masks still didn't quite 
help. You just did what you had to do.
    Mr. Timmons. Anyways, thank you again for being here.
    I.yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Mr. Perlmutter, you have anything else?
    Mr. Perlmutter. Just a story, quick story, and then just 
one final question.
    The story on the sleeping in the office, so friend of mine, 
Member of Congress from Iowa, I won't give his name, had a 
place. The washer broke. He just got out of that lease, and he 
says, you know, other people are staying in their offices. I 
will stay in my office. So he does. And I see him, and the bags 
under his eyes just keep getting deeper, deeper, deeper, 
because the cleaning people came in at 2 a.m. There was 
construction going on.
    We said--I was--had a place over here not too far from the 
Republican National Committee office, and I said, well, why 
don't you come over, we have got an empty room. You know, bring 
your air mattress, and you can, you know, catch up on your 
sleep for a week or two. He never left. He came and he never 
left. So he was my roommate for a very long--or, you know, 
housemate for a long time.
    The three of you as students of this institution, if you 
had one thing to improve the institution or the House of 
Representatives, what would it be?
    Dr. Reynolds, I will start with you.
    Ms. Reynolds. So I will limit my suggestion to sort of the 
context of this hearing, because otherwise, you could have me 
here for quite some time. But I like to say this question of 
how to improve Members' access to housing is where I would 
start, both because of the way that it would potentially 
address some of the compensation issues without directly 
involving a pay raise, and also because of, as I articulated 
before, what I think it means--what it says about the 
institution when a hundred Members sleep in their offices. I 
don't think that says something good about the institution and 
its respect for itself as a workplace.
    And so that is--if I had a magic wand, that is where I 
would start.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Dr. Rogelberg?
    Mr. Rogelberg. I guess I would go more macro. So in 
reviewing the hearings, so much conversation is about 
collaboration. And in the absence of collaboration comes so 
much frustration and that lack of a sense of accomplishment. So 
I am not a political scientist, but we certainly have certain 
practices that are leading to tremendous polarization within 
the body. And they would seem to be third rails, no one is 
going to tackle them.
    But ultimately, until some of those broader conversations, 
be it gerrymandering, the fundraising, the finances, term 
limits are resolved, it seems like the polarization is going to 
exist and we are able to dance around the edges. But in terms 
of truly creating a body that can come together in a meaningful 
way, we are just limited. So I guess that would be my wish, 
would be to be focusing on these broader institutional things 
that lead to the polarization.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you.
    Congressman.
    Mr. Harper. I mean, there is so many places you could go 
with that question, Congressman. But one thing that I think Dr. 
Reynolds kind of touched on is helping those that are 
marginalized have a pathway to get here. Well, maybe there is 
not an initial pathway to become a Member or run because of the 
timing and the opportunity, but one of the things that we have 
done with the internship program for those with intellectual 
disabilities is we give them to people that had maybe never had 
an opportunity to work outside of the home in any capacity and 
come in and be a part of the team. It changes the culture that 
was there.
    And when I became chairman of House Admin, I sat down with 
our team and I said, we have got the slot, we have got the 
money in the budget, find me the best recent graduate from 
Mason LIFE at George Mason University the students were using, 
and we are going to hire them full time. And we did that with a 
young man, who is still in a Federal Government position. It 
changed his life.
    So I would say, let's look at--at least on the committee 
structure, there should be a slot and funds to hire somebody 
with special needs to come in and work. So that would be mine.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Okay. I would like to thank all three of our 
witnesses for sharing their expertise with us. I would like to 
thank our committee members for participating. And also just, I 
want to shout out to the staff of this committee for once again 
prepping a terrific hearing with great witnesses. Thank you to 
them. Thank you to our stenographer for--I am sorry we all talk 
too fast--and to the Budget Committee for letting us use their 
room.
    And, with that, 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 adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
    
                            [all]