[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]