Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hearing On Constitutional Role Of Congress 20240713

Test of these taking back power from the executive branch is often a challenge that requires overriding a president ial veto which is increasingly difficult. A return to normal appropriations, increase in legislative oversight, particularly by a spending authority, an earmark reform that both returns the practice while strengthening its integrity requires no president ial signoff. In fact each step rests solely within the purview of congress and it would allow legislators to increase capacity, better represent their constituents, uphold their oath and recommit to the spirit and letter of article i of the constitution. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Were going to head into questions. Im going to yield my time to representative scanlan. I know you have another hearing to get to. Thank you so much, i appreciate it. And thank you, chairman kilmer and vice chair graves for holding this hearing. Weve had a number of hearings talking about kind of the Practical Impact of issues so its really interesting to get to the constitutional underpinnings of what were trying to do here. Certainly im new to the body, but ive heard quite a bit about ceding power to the executive, and we probably need to take some measures to claw it back. I have been astonished at the brilliance of our staff, both on the committee and the folks who are willing to work for members. But because of funding, et cetera, they dont stay very long. And as brilliant as they may be, if they cant afford to have a mortgage or they cant afford to start a family, they end up lacking some Life Experiences that might be helpful and we end up with the brain drain or the lack of institutional memory. So, very interested in i guess ill turn to dr. Kosar, if you could speak a little bit more to the effect about the disparity between permanent staffing in the executive and whats become kind of a revolving door in the legislature, the effect this has on our ability to function as a coequal branch. Oh, absolutely. I mean from the perspective of the staffer, the incentives are extremely strong to go to the private sector or go to the executive branch. In each case, the pay is better. If you look at the general schedule, the pay there, it regularly gets increased, locality adjustments, all that sort of stuff, it goes up and up. Congress meanwhile has kept a cap on not only paying members but that trickles down and also affects staff. And so a staffer can make what amounts to kind of a lateral move over to the executive branch and very quickly see 10, 20, 30,000 difference in pay plus they also get to be tethered to a schedule that is a little more controllable which as you decide to do the family thing or if you just get tired of doing the chaotic hill sort of exercise, can be extremely appealing. When it comes to the private sector, a professor from Madison University has put together some data on that and it gets into the lowlevel multiples that you can get from opting off to go to k street. I myself, i can tell you, a couple of years ago, i had a staffer who was looking to get off the hill, had less than ten years of service, but had served on some important committees, come in and ask me about possibly getting a job at the think tank and rapidly noted his fair market value was at least 225,000. Obviously we didnt employ that. He did find a job quite promptly and is doing quite well. Okay. I mean, so obviously raising pay is one thing. I note when i was looking over some of the charts that you noted that the member allowances and member pay hasnt increased and you note that in the charts, the number of office staff has reduced because thats the only way that you can raise anyones pay to kind of keep it in line, is to hire less staff, which obviously also would have an impact on the member. Yeah, absolutely. And that sort of effect is also happening at the legislative Branch Support agencies. My agency, i used to work for Congressional Research agency at one point employed over 900 persons and theyre down to a little over 600 now. If you keep the spending the same and the salaries are going to increase up a little bit, by definition youre going to end up with fewer people. Theres just less ftes to do the work there. In addition to pay raises do you have other staffing related recommendations that you would like to highlight . Sure. Sure. We did a survey of Congressional Staff in summer 2017. We got a good wide range of respondents from both chambers and people in a variety of positions, and certainly the compensation was an issue. Student loan repayment was flagged as a concern, just because you can only carry so much debt so far. If you dont have a lot to cover your housing, the amount of payments you make is its kind of a trap. There was also a concern about the lack of an obvious career ladder. I mean, you come in and its not as if theres a clear path forward. To some degree it feels like there is a brutal competition it elbow somebody else to aside so you can take their spot. Otherwise you will stay in the save spot. Otherwise you have to bail from your Members Office no matter how much you like them and go somewhere else. Thats nerveracking and thats not to everybodys taste. So career development, being able to show folks that, yes, build a career here, theres a way you can move up, there are various opportunities for moving up, and coupled with that is the training. Again, the feeling of being pitched into a seat, told to catch a couple of seminars on process or Something Like that in your spare time, but theres pressing legislative business so dont be gone too long, you know, everyone arrives here as an amateur, none of us come professionally trained to do this work. If we can pause and give staff a little more time to develop and invest in their skills to deal with the deluge coming at them, that would be valuable. Just one more question, dr. Hudak, your testimony, in addition to the memberdirected spending issues, addresses omnibus bills and the breakdown of the appropriations process and the impact that has on our ability to do oversight. Can you comment on the impact of staff reduction and lack of retention on those issues . Absolutely. And thank you for the question. The staff reduction really hits the Appropriations Committee in an outsized way. If there is significant staff turnover on a committee that requires ongoing yearly negotiations, those relationships are so critically important to the success of subcommittees and then ultimately the committee. And then the work across the chambers as well. Being able to trust an individual who youve worked on approps with before is critically important to making sure that you can have a working relationship in the future. And every as my fellow panelist said, every committee faces these same sort of challenges, but because of the constitutional requirements of appropriations, this is so important to think at least a little differently about in terms of training, in terms of salary, in terms of even the relationship and the environment that a subCommittee Chair or the chairman of the committee creates within, in order to see it more as a family, more as an ongoing working relationship that is not driven bipartisanship, thats not driven by whoever the chairman happens to be, but is driven by the constitutional commitment that the members of the committee and the staff of the committee is bound to. As i said, we should think about capacity across all committees but nowhere is that more important than approps. Ive seen extremely vigorous head nodding from both the audience and members, so thank you. I yield back. Vice chair graves has also yielded so im going to call on mr. Newhouse for five minutes. Does that mean i get to go somewhere else too, derek . Thank you all for being here. This is a tremendously interesting topic. I cant help but think that all the discussion about congressional capacity and the growth of the executive branch and its power and privileges, congress has been helpful in that effort, very complicit. I guess we cant blame the president ial or the executive branch. Weve allowed it to happen, we being the congressional, legislative branch. Now what do we do about that . So i guess theres a lot of things we can talk about there. Dr. Hudak, we did notice your shameless plugging of your book, but thats okay. President ial pork, thats something weve been talking about a long time here, congressionally directed spending, that truly is a constitutional responsibility of the legislative branch and not the executive branch. So in your observations, you talked a little bit about it, but i want you to, if you could, expand some of the things, if this is put back into place, that debate is ongoing, but if we do go back to some kind of congressional directed spending, tell us some of the things, first, transparency, or structure, help us avoid some of the pitfalls that led to its demise to begin with and how we could structure it so it could be successful. To return to earmarking, theres going to be a policy aspect of what needs to change in congress but also a political conversation that needs to happen. And i think a return to earmarking requires a bipartisan commitment, bipartisan cooperation in order for one party not to be able to accuse another party or one chamber, even, to accuse another chamber of trying to corrupt the process or bring corruption back to the process. Earmarks are not about corruption. Earmarks are about serving your constituents. And that messaging needs to come from the leadership of both parties and the leadership of both chambers first. Second, i think the types of reforms that were initially put into place in the late 2000s were a good first step in terms of publicizing a members name who is requesting an earmark, the recipient of that, the purpose of the earmark, and swearing that the member and the members spouse do not have a financial connection to the recipient or the company or the organization thats receiving it. Thats a great first step. I think Greater Transparency is necessary. Perhaps having an independent entity within congress, having it run through the Ethics Committee or have a select Committee Formed that vets each of these earmarks or vets them in groups is going to be very important, i think, to ensure both to ensure the integrity of the system but also to ensure that theres Public Confidence in the system. You know, most constituents love earmarks, they just dont like the other congressmans earmarks. And understanding that congress is looking out as the guardian of this process, and that there is enough transparency so that researchers like me, media organizations, and those institutions within the congress can make sure that this is being done right, will be a very helpful part of moving forward. Thank you. I agree with your statement that certainly we as elected representatives of the people know our district better than a bureaucrat from the executive branch. Mr. Kosar, you in your testimony compared the different Staffing Levels from a couple of decades ago until now. I think the only offices that i know of that have increased Staffing Levels are in leadership, and so certainly while we have ceded power to the executive branch because were cutting back on staff, would you say that perhaps there has been some ceding from the rank and file to house leadership because of staff disparities . Oh, absolutely, yeah. I mean, the model of congress in the last 50 years has transformed fundamentally. This used to be a place where there were incredibly powerful chairs who were often interlocked in these iron triangles with the bureaucracy and an interest group, and they commanded resources, they drove policy, they had large staffs. They were power brokers. Lyndon johnson, speaking of the chairman, referred to them as the whales on the hill and everybody else were the minnows. Thats gone away. The power of chairs declined, the Resources Available have declined. And yeah, the data show, i mean, the number of staff that leadership have in both chambers has increased dramatically. Its a different model of running the place. Its much more hierarchal, topdown. Something that many of us lament the fact that that has happened. Thank you all for being here, i appreciate the discussion. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Lofgren. Thanks so much. And im sorry i missed most of the oral testimony, but ive had a chance to read the written testimony, and i think theres a lot of good ideas in there. Let me just ask a couple of questions. Ms. Bean, you suggested that the house have kind of rival office of Legal Counsel reports, which is interesting. Some of us have thought that we ought to require the publication of the office of Legal Counsel opinions, in a way its kind of secret law, nobody has approved it, no one in some cases even knows the positions being taken. I would think not only should we require that but also if the house does counter positions, we should equally publicize that. What do you think that would do . I agree with you. There are a lot of olc opinions that nobody knows about that is controlling federal agency policy. And the ones that are made public, for example a recent opinion that says white House Counsel has an absolute immunity to any requests for testimony from congress, thats completely opposite to the courts that have considered that opinion, and yet that is the policy of the executive branch. So i think publicizing it is important. But even more than that, the Congress Needs to have its own answer in a bipartisan, thoughtful, wellsupported legal opinions, that when we go to court, we can say, weve had this opinion for 20 years, those people are subject to congressional subpoena and they should testify. Let me ask you this. And several people, most recently mr. Newhouse mentioned, its been over a period of decades that power has shifted from the legislative branch to the executive branch, and i think thats clearly the case. How we rebalance that is a challenge. Not only in terms of the Institutional Capacity which youve addressed but also in a fight between the legislative branch and the executive branch. I have a couple of ideas that i would like you to comment about. First, when the house or senate believes the executive branch is violating a statute, ordinarily we dont have standing to bring a case. So if that is a legitimate belief, i mean you could be wrong, i suppose, but if you feel the statute is being violated you really look to others to bring litigation, number one. Number two, when theres a challenge of that nature, the courts take their own sweet time. We have the capacity to require accelerated consideration in such matters, and the final question along those lines are the use of emergency powers. Ive asked Congressional Research service to compile all of the emergency exceptions, because there may be circumstances where the congress thinks the emergency exception is being misused. Obviously its the third branch thats going to arbitrate that. But that only works if the congress has standing, theres an accelerated review, and theres some standards for the courts to look at. What are your thoughts on that . Ill just offer the thought that i think youre completely right, congress this is part of the process of taking back some of the authority that weve given away, to create a system where we legislatively say, yes, we have standing, and yes, we can have an expedited process. In some of those cases, that might require the president to sign on or to override a veto, so its not an easy kind of thing. But thats exactly what Congress Needs to do, if they want to rely on the judiciary to resolve some of these disputes, there has to be a more equal Playing Field when you go, because when they delay in the courts, a lot of times that delay actually is a substantive decision because you dont get the testimony, you have to make a decision without the information. If for example the law is being misread by the executive, and two or three years goes on before its resolved, there really may be nothing left to argue about. Yes. A final thought. In order for us to successfully counter the executive branch and fulfill our proper role, we need to function, youve addressed that in terms of staffing, but we have a real problem, not only in terms of partisanship, but frankly in terms of the senate and their rules when any member can stop anything from happening, its very tough for the senate to legislate. Have you given some thought on what we could ask the senate to do to become more functional . Im a strong supporter of the filibuster rule. It has its role. It stops a lot of bad things from happening. When the senate wants to work quickly, it usually has to be on a bipartisan basis. I wouldnt agree with weakening the rule even further. When you look at the judicial nominations were getting now, when you could filibuster, both sides had to have nominees that were okay with both sides. Now that you can have a simple majority, were getting judicial nominees that one party thinks is good and one party doesnt think is good but cant do anything about it. So from my point of view, to push for bipartisanship, i would have a stronger, not a weaker, filibuster rule. My time has expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Woodall. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im going to take ms. Beans advice about using my five minutes and ask three questions that i hope youll submit back to me in writing and to the committee. The first, as it relates to the house and an equitable funding of staff on committees, no one believes that nancy pelosi is the leader of the house, shes the leader of the democratic party. You dont believe john boehner was the leader of the house, hes the leader of a Republican Party. Were a Different Institution where the senate is a more equitable distribution, the appropriate measure in an institution thats designed to be majority run, not run on the slimmest of margins. Can we adopt the senate model or are we a Different Institution and that mod wool not achieve our constitutional role . My second question is about the appropriate staffing level. Weve looked at lots of charts about staff going up, staff going down. My staff, i was an lc on capitol hill in 1994, my lc responds to more people in a shorter amount of time with a greater degree of complexity than we ever dreamed of doing. Whats a different level of comes a capacity measurement . Whats a different standard i can use, the number of people, because i dont think that really speaks to what were trying to do in article i. Its just the most convenient one that i can find. And third, weve talked about bipartisan staff versus nonpartisan staff. I thought ms. Beans point was well taken. When you do an investigation, having people who dont have any ideology may not be the right answer. Having folks from opposing ideology, working side by side, may be the right answer. What i found so valuable about this committee is not that people dont believe anything but that people believe deeply things but theyre able to have that conversation together. Do we disadvantage ourselves by hiring more nonpartisan people at crs, for example, as opposed to hiring a conservative budget analyst and a liberal budget analyst and having them produce that report together . My conversational question, i appreciate mr. Hudak standing up for article i, 89, its not that congress should return to the practice of earmarking, its not a practice, its a constitutional responsibility, and the fact that we are so politically sensitive these days, we need to we need to fight. I want to ask you all about something in dr. Potters testimony. Issues are complex, the executive branch does have more capacity. We are passing legislation, asking the executive branch to implement it. I would be perfectly happy bringing that capacity back to the house, passing longer bills to dr. Kosars point that contain more details but not leaving that to an unelected expert downtown to solve. In todays 2020 information flow, historically i would have been worried that congress cant respond fast enough. Today with litigation, the executive branch often responds more slowly than congress can. Is now the appropriate time in restoring article i to bring back all those regulatory responsibilities from the executive branch and begin to have the energy and Commerce Committee write Carbon Control policy rather than epa write that same policy . And dr. Potter, you raised that in your point number two, ill start with you. So i think theres much to be said for all of these points. The point i want to make in response to your comment about complexity is that complexity is increasing, i think that came across in all four of our written testimonies. And one thing in making these reforms that you dont want to do is sort of check the executive branch so much that it cant do its own job, right . So what youre suggesting is that congress should take back some of that role. I think a lot of the reforms my copanelists have suggested would help in that regard. But some of these issues are so very, very complex that i would think it might be useful to have someone who spends their whole career studying air pollution working on air pollution policy at the epa. I think theres some benefit to having career bureaucrats do a lot of this work. It is obvious to you that that air pollution expert should reside in that executive Branch Agency rather than on the energy and Commerce Committee . I think a lot of that depends on whether we can get people to, as dr. Kosar said, reassess their career. Right. A lot of my students who come to me want a career in government and ask about careers in the executive branch because there is a career path. And right now that same career path options for these experts dont lie as much in the legislative branch. So the capacity right now is not there. If it could be built over time, i think there is a role. I think dr. Kosar has written some proposals, as were talking about air pollution, for a congressional regulatory office. And i think that would be a really good idea for congress to consider. I have made ms. Beans point, mr. Chairman, i got one answer from one witness and now my five minutes has expired. I blame myself and time management. But 11 questions in, which was great. Ms. Delbene. Thank you, thanks to all of you for being here and participating. This is a really important discussion. Ms. Potter, i wanted to start with you. You talked about how the executive branch has grown. But a lot of that has been not in staff but in contractors. And i wondered if you could talk a little bit about what you think the impact of that is. Do they have the same incentives . Is there an incentive to keep having more work to do for the sake of making money . What impact do you think that has . So i think we dont know a lot about contractors in the executive branch. Its something as a researcher, its very frustrating to know exactly how many there are and what theyre doing because theres not a lot of transparency. So contractors create theyre an excellent temporary workforce if were having like a peak in workload, its great to turn to the private sector. But a lot of the issues, again, that were facing are long term, complex problems and we rely on contractors to do that work. In terms of what kinds of problems that creates, theyre not subject to the same Legal Protections or legal requirements that bureaucrats are, so the freedom of information act, judicial review, dont apply the same to contractors. I think in terms of long Term Government management, contractors are not the way we want to run our government. But it is currently how we are running a lot of our government, even though we dont see it. Theres a lot of reasons we ended up here. I dont think this is what we want to be doing with our workforce in the long term. And from an oversight standpoint, if we dont have the transparency to answer the questions youre talking about, that clearly is a problem too. Absolutely. Thank you. Dr. Hudak, youve talked in your written testimony, you spoke about earmarks already in our discussion, but in your written testimony you talk about the link between oversight and appropriations. Can you elaborate on that and talk a little bit about why you think that those are if we dont do a good job on the appropriations process, the challenge that creates for us on oversight . Absolutely. This congress, the house, i should say, in the past year, did an admirable job in terms of the appropriations process relative to years past, at least in the recent past. That is important for the function of the congress. Its important for the function of the Appropriations Committee. But its a critical check on the executive branch. By going through and doing the work of appropriations, you are looking line by line, program by program, agency by agency, to understand what is going on within the executive branch. There are a lot of issues in congress in Public Policy broadly that are true 50 years ago and they are true today. But there are other issues that either change over that time in dramatic ways or are no longer an issue that necessarily requires federal governments attention. If you are not on an annual basis looking at these programs, you are not doing your job as overseers of the executive branch. Youre not finding problems. Youre not finding successes as well, places that perhaps need more funding to do better work or to continue that mission. But beyond the sort of direct way in which this is happening, there is an indirect way. If congress is falling down on the job in terms of appropriations, youre telegraphing to the executive branch, whether thats Donald Trumps executive branch or Barack Obamas or george bushs or whoevers, that were not doing the hard work and its going to be harder for us to identify problems or to identify bad actions. Every administration has bad actors somewhere, whether theyre appointees, whether theyre civil servants. Its the nature of a large organization. And if the people who were supposed to do the accounting and the accountability are refusing to do that, you are, like i said, telegraphing to certain actors, youre probably not going to get caught. Thats not what congress is charged to do in the constitution and its certainly not what your constituents charge you with when they send you here. But its increasingly whats happening within the congress. And i guess if we dont get it done beforehand so that its done and theres clear visibility for a full fiscal year, it makes it harder on oversight because theres complexity that agencies are going through trying to operate in a short term world, waiting for a longer term bill to pass. Absolutely. And in that context, its much easier for mistakes to be made too, when youre operating in those short term funding waves. As much as congress is there to catch malfeasance, theyre also there to catch when those mistakes happen and help agencies make those corrections as well. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you. Let me recognize mr. Timmons. Ill put mr. Pocan in the ondeck circle and you will be next. Thank you for having this hearing and thank you for all coming and taking the time to testify today. My priorities this year are really divided into two categories. One is calendar, schedule, floor votes. And the second is budget. Thats my priorities for this committee. I think the chairman, weve talked about this at length, im optimistic we can find a path forward. I want to focus and ask you all about the calendar, the schedule and floor votes. The calendar this year we will be 55 full days. Last year we were here 65 full days. My constituents, when i tell them that, it kind of starts making sense why were so dysfunctional. We need more time to do our work. We need to be is scattered less. So one of the conversations weve had is to make a recommendation surrounding the ratio, the number of days that if we is it did a two week on and two week off schedule, we would be here 108 full days and we would travel 24 days as opposed to last year where we were here 65 days and traveled 66 days. We spend a lot of time in the airport. And i think that time could be better spent if we find more opportunities to do our work here. And with regard to the schedule, at the end of this, ill ask you your thoughts, by the way, in regards to the schedule, we often have overlapping committees, subcommittees, floor votes. Theres just overlapping obligations, as you can tell, someone already had to leave, had to go early because they had somewhere else to be. If we can create a block schedule format that does not facilitate this overlapping obligation and it will not be perfect because you will have rules Committee Hearings at weird hours, thats never going to change. With floor votes, spent time in the parliamentarians office, if we are here more, we can really nail down when were going to be on the floor, and we say, votes are from 5 00 to 6 30 or from 1 00 to 1 30, those are the only options, theres never going to be a situation where floor votes might be in the next half hour or two hours. If were here more, it might allow for more predictability for floor votes, which would be an incredible amount of time we would be giving back in addition to the time were earning with the calendar changes weve proposed. Do you all think one of the problems we have with this issue were talking about, ceding power to the executive branch, is that the process we have is flawed and if we worked on the calendar, the schedule, and floor votes we could potentially spend more meaningful time getting back some of the legislative branchs power . Yes. No, i mean, really, its time on task. And the amount of time that is allocated for you all to be here, you cant have a hearing when youre home. Thats contracted. And when youre here, you know, often i use the phrase swiss cheesing, your schedule is getting swiss cheesed, oh, by the way, you have to go to a fundraiser, theres two hours of your life, oh, by the way, you have to go to the dnc or rnc and make some calls, or you have to go here to do this sort of duty. How can you possibly do all these things youre supposed to do when these other things are picking away at you. Figuring out ways to spend the time here, to reduce the time burnt in airports, but also the time that gets torched on stuff thats not really valuable. I mean, the after hours speeches, some of the stuff at the start of the day. I mean, thats really valuable time, but its not actually achieving a whole lot. Im thinking, can we nix some of that stuff so we can get more out of our schedule, absolutely. I would also like to mention when i talk to Different Office about doing oversight, the members are pulled in so many directions that its very hard to find time to focus in a concentrated way on documents or witnesses. You go to this hearing, maybe youre studying your stuff on the way over. You have a couple of minutes before its your turn to get called. And that shows when you have an oversight hearing and televised, a lack of preparation, unfamiliarity with documents, not because youre not conscientious, hardworking people, but simply you have too much going on, theres too much travel, theres too much time in airports. So yeah. And the other thing to think about is social interaction. What we found at our subcommittee, we had a rolling Cocktail Party for 15 years. Every two to three weeks we would get together and have drinks with the other party. And the reason we did that is we found it strengthened our social fabric. It encouraged people to see each other as real people with common interests, and we started to find our social fabric got better and we were able to partner better. Its very hard to partner with people that you dont know and that you only see in passing in the hallway. Thats very true for staff. And i think its true for members as well. So if you had two weeks on, two weeks ago, there might actually be opportunities for people to get to know each other and that would improve bipartisanship as well. I couldnt agree with you more, that was actually how i was going to close it. I think we do not have enough opportunities to build relationships with our colleagues across the aisle. I think that that is part of the problem. With that, thank you, mr. Chairman, ill yield back. Thank you. Mr. Pocan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im going to associate myself with mr. Timmons remarks. I spend more time in the detroit airport than i do in the madison, Wisconsin Office on a weekly basis. The restaurant i go to most often is the Delta Sky Club rather than anything in my district as far as frequency. We spend an awful lot of time, when you live in a Smaller Airline market, it takes me its taken me up to 14 hours to do what is a 12hour drive from wisconsin, in flying. Thats all time youre not here doing your job. I just want to echo those. My questions are around staffing on the input and output side. On the input side, we pay remarkably low for an expensive town. The best way to get a job here is to be an intern. The best way to be an intern was, until recently, to work for nothing, now to work for next to nothing, which right away decides who can come up here and probably get jobs. And then when you finally get that staff assistant job you make 30,000, a onebedroom apartment is 30,000 a year, about, on average. Its just impossible. So theres input problem on staff which kind of selfselects a little bit. Then on the output side, i recently had a Communications Staff leave, and they took a job just writing opeds, and theyre making we said, is there anything we can do financially . Theyre like, im making 50 cents on the dollar of my new offer that they got. And its really hard to keep people in that longer level. Some of it is salary but some of it is the career path issue that you brought up. We just dont have the same thing. On those two parts of employment, the input side, and the output side, what are some extra suggestions that we could be looking at . Obviously the pay issue, theres no question, thats kind of i think a universal. But what else can we be doing to help on that career path and on who comes in here to make sure we have as diverse as our districts, we have people coming to work up here, so its not just people who are coming already from an economically advantaged viewpoint. Well, two things on the input. First of which is, last Year Congress decided that they were actually going to put aside a little money to be able to pay interns. I think thats valuable. But the amount that was provided really is not sufficient to help somebody who is a person of means and able to be here anyway versus one who is not. So i think rethinking that policy and asking whether it needs to be upped. The second is the housing issue. Thats the real cost. I mean, staffers are theyre a dedicated, tough bunch, they get by on ramen noodles and whatever, theyll cut costs if necessary, but if the only place they can live is a place where theyll get stuck with a high bill, thats an issue. One of the things that ive marvelled at for years is that we have the old page dorm sitting on capitol hill, unbelievably valuable asset, sitting there empty. Why cant that be converted into housing or privatized and sold off and the value of that put towards dealing with the problem in some way, shape, or form . Its just sitting there. So figuring out how to defer the cost of housing, i think that would be a huge help as far as the getting folks here who might not otherwise be able to afford it. I would also like to mention the oversight field. Often you like to have a lawyer. And when i was on the subcommittee, we were able to hire lawyers, most i would offer was 85,000, the people i was hiring were willing to take a more than 50 cut to work here because the work is so interesting and important. So people are willing to work for less. But how long can they do it . Their spouses are complaining and after three, four or five years, theyre like i cant do it anymore, i have to pay for college and they take off. We know about that problem. One thing that can help i think is training. The levin center, working with pogo and the lugar center, we do these boot camps twice a year for staff. We get house, senate, democrat, republican, we put them on bipartisan, bicameral teams, put them through fake scandals and put them through the process. They learn not only investigative skills, but also how you work with people who have different views than your own and you find out theres actually a value to that rather than a penalty. I think one of the things staffs have told us is they dont like working in environments that are very partisan where everybody is supposed to hate each other. That is not pleasant for staff. They want to work in a place where youre allowed to have bipartisan relationships, you are allowed to work with the other side. Ive seen it on both sides of the aisle where the members of congress have forbidden their staff to sign letters on any issue with the other side or to sort of fraternize with the enemy. So i think one thing is a change in how members see it in making a public commitment in bipartisan oversight would make staff a lot happier. When they come to our training they enjoy working with the other side. It challenges them and they find it interesting, but its hard to find that environment on the hill. I will add one thing which is i think there are some instructive example in the executive branch. Ive had a lot of former students join the president ial management fellowship as well as halfway Pathway Program which is a Program Students can intern in college and after they graduate get hired in the executive branch. I bring these programs up because theyre they give an introduction, youre getting great people, but they get great people and get them to stay because theyre getting the training. They might do a rotation in different parts of the executive branch and theyre really getting exposure. Some of those models might be borrowed from the executive and pretty neatly applied to the legislative branch. If i could really quickly, congressman, i agree with dr. Potter completely. I think one of the challenges that exists in the congress is not looking to other models about how to get this right, whether its the executive branch or whether its private business. Within the congress, i think a lot of people see staffing as 435 small businesses, right. They dont see congress as a large institution, like a large corporation, that you can take lessons from about how we do professional development, how we do staff relations, how we think about something as basic as a feedback loop within an institution to understand what can be improved and where fixes need to happen. Whether you even continue to think about the congresss 435 small businesses, maybe you think of them as like franchises, how does a company like starbucks or mcdonalds or subway allow individual units to have freedom, to have some level of autonomy, but put in some sort of basic requirements that each has to do, and that an overarching organization can help support. Thats going to be one of the ways that you improve staff relations and staff development, and keep people within the institution. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Davis. Thank you, mr. Chair, i see my good buddy mr. Pocan went ahead and took your recommendation for more time to question the witnesses, ms. Bean. Good job. Way to go. That was a little sly, buddy. Little sly. No, no, no, i think it is a great recommendation, for committees this size, and for the committee that im the Ranking Member on, that miss lofgren chairs, House Administration committee, five minutes of questioning is not enough for us to do not only proper questioning of witnesses, proper questioning of witnesses during a hearing but proper oversight. I cant get the questions asked for each of the agencies that we have. I like it. But ill tell you, ms. Lofgren and i Work Together to do second and third rounds of questions so a lot of this stuff can be easily solved at the committee level. If you have a cooperative chair, who i would ask for extra time but he wouldnt give it to me 7todatoday. Right . If i ask for unanimous consent, my colleagues would all object. I guarantee it. But im also the Ranking Member on the largest subcommittee in congress, highways and transit. Weve got 59 members. Now you use the Intelligence Committee during the impeachment process, as kind of an example of what to do, and i dont necessarily know if that would be a good idea on a Committee Like ours because that process empowered the staff and the members didnt get to ask as many questions and they were still pushed for time. We cant add to the time for questions and a lot has to do with the social media side. You have a committee of 59 members, by the time we get down to the end, were asking the same questions again, not because they want the committee to hear the answers, but because they want to post something on social media. Thats a problem too. Thats something to think about. But thank you for your recommendation. Dr. Hudak, im glad you brought up congressionally directed spending, earmarks, whatever you want to call it. I was a staffer back in the day when the process became much more transparent. What would it take for this institution to allow for congressionally directed spending to happen again . Would it be statutory . Rules changes . What does your Research Show . Right now the ban on earmarks exists because of formal or informal agreements within the caucuses and conferences within the house and senate. It wouldnt even take a statutory issue . It wouldnt require a rules change. There are people who made bad decisions before the era of transparency. We used to have to post all the requests online. Now if you look at just the last year of congressionally directed spending back then, that they called earmarks and you went to what was publicly available, put up on each members website, has anybody done any research in the years since those existed to actually see see what the outcome of those requests were, to see if the benefit that was put up on the website of a member actually came to the communities . I mean i can show you areas that im proud to represent that i can show you that have had projects that helped us grow economically in certain areas that started with a earmark. Highway projects. Telehelp was started with an earmark in my bosss old district and now its elsewhere. Those are things that dont get out enough. Where do you guys stand, mr. Hudak, helping us to compile the research to talk about the good things that actually happened . One of the best advertisers of earmarks are members of congress themselves. Youre working hard to get something through, and youre going to be the first person, rightly so, to help sell this to the public by saying this is what weve done, this is the project that were funding, this is the new, you know, the new technology thats going to help, be helped, because of what congress is doing. I understand that. Every time a member of Congress Tries to sell the benefits of a project theres somebody on the other side and in a political nature and sometimes outside groups, maybe on your side traditionally, that will find a reason why its not a good investment. Heck, there may be members of the senate that put together books that tell how these are not good investments. Yes. My point is, what are institutions what are associations like yours and groups like yours, what are you doing to help talk about whether that was a good investment or not . We can say it until were blue in the face and talk about what it means to our communities, but has anybody done any substantive research on whether or not the last round of earmarks or another round actually help the communities that they said they were going to happen, when they offered their transparency on their website when requesting that money . Theres certainly research that shows the economic benefits of congressionally directed spending and i can get you a list of some of that research after the hearing. One of the challenges with the period of time that youre discussing, mr. Davis, is that that period of transparency was actually quite narrow in time, right. Thats why theres a study. It makes it harder to study in terms of having fewer cases to look at so if we had 10 to 15 theres enough in that last year. Surely theres enough to conduct studies. My point is if we can have an additional period of time in which we have transparency, where we can look at this more rigorously across time, across space, across programs, the many ways that you can chop up congressionally directed spending, we are going to have a better idea of that impact. Were also going to have a better idea of the value of the transparency, whether it is actually doing what it is supposed to or not. What congress has done however has limited research in this space by shifting from lets say a wild west version of earmarking to a transpatient version of earmarking, to an environment where earmarking still exists in some ways, but it just happens behind closed doors and it happens in the shadows. The worst part of the earmark ban, i would argue, is that it drove all of this into the shadows and removed any transparency that existed on the in the process and those who are in powerful position, those who are Committee Chairs and others, have the ability to slip language, right ways, in a way that a freshman member of congress or a back bencher is just not able to do. And what else is not possible is for Research Organizations and media to be able to track that issue as effectively and do the kinds of research that youre talking about, as well. Thank you. If i had more time, id ask you if id ask you, dr. Kosar, if Committee Chairs, when they were more powerful, had a better grasp on the oversight process. But im out of time until we get your suggestion. Id like the record to show that you were out of time two minutes ago. Next, mr. Cleaver. Yeah. But he was right. He is right. I support that. A couple things. You know, first of all, you know, with the media. And then we we always overreact. I counted. I was here, zoey and i were here well, actually you were here, when we did earmarks. We had three people who got in trouble. Three out of 435 in 16 years. And and, oh, it was horrible. It was just the worst thing. Three people and theyre all in prison, which is whats supposed to happen. So i i think we weve we take it way past the logic. And today, we were told that mr. Defazio is going to begin the process of putting the transportation bill together. This used to be a time everybody was hallelujah. I mean, republicans, democrats, dancing, kissing. You know, this was like you know, this is the time to be saved. And and so, all of a sudden, you know, its just blase because everybody knew that the Little Bridge in the community thats been falling in for 45 years can get fixed. And i think its an embarrassment that we cant do that do this. The missouri delegation had lunch today. Every single one of us, when i was asked to give a report, mr. Chairman, mr. Ranking member, said are you are you guys gonna submit earmarks . And can you do it now, like today . I mean, everybody. We had one senator over and he wouldnt mind me, blunt a good friend of mine. And we did damage. I think it was 2010, i cant remember, president obama, of whom for whom i served as national cochair for his reelection said during the speech i will not sign any more bills with earmarks in it. The next day, i was quoted in newspapers all over the country saying the president is out of line. That thats not his i dont care if hes a democrat or a cleaver. Thats out of line. Thats our responsibility. Its our constitutional responsibility. To at least to the to the to the thing that i dont know if we can get addressed and, that is, i think human beings might be psychologically ha hardwired for tribalism. You know you know, you do it in the basic kinship and then facial features, football teams, you know, we just hardwired. And so there has to be intentionality for us to dewire it. And i think thats where the problem lies because as long as were tribal, even if president obama, i mean, hell tell you you know, id vote for him again. Whenever he went south, i didnt go south with him. And and i dont care, today, you know, whether somebody say says, oh, you didnt you werent loyal to the president. Im loyal to those 800,000 people in my congressional district. When kit bond retired, i was a keynote speaker at his retirement dinner. Hes a republican from my home and one of my dearest friends. When i was mayor, hed come sit down with me, sit down with the mayor of st. Louis and say, you know, we getting ready to do the things that you guys are interested in. And i just think we are bypassing the opportunity to really do stuff for our community. We have earmarks now. Youre absolutely right. Except theyre done in the white house. Obama did them. Bush did them. And trumps doing them. And were the ones sitting over here, you know, talking about theyre taking our power. We gave it away. Anyway, thats my sermon. Just saying, man, lets move on. Im through. Actually, before i yield to ms. Brooks, just on the point that mr. Cleaver just made, dr. Hudack, so you wrote a book about this, right . How not only has the authority been given to the executive but how that has gone. Sure. So when can you take a minute or so and just talk about so hows it worked with the executive Branch Running the show . Has has it all been sunshine and rainbows . Or has that authority been abused . Mr. Cleaver, thanks for your remarks. They were both spot on both on the history of earmarks and the participation and those behaviors. In the executive branch, there is far less transparency about earmarking, which is problematic. Certainly, visavis where the congress was before the ban went into effect. And what happens within federal agencies is that there is an easy understanding of where a president s political interests are. They are making sure that swing states get a lot of money and that those swing states get a lot of money, particularly in advance of an election. This is not some complex, political dynamic that some agencies get right and some agencies get wrong. This is very easy and does not need to be telegraphed. It doesnt you dont need the president to be pulling the strings. You dont need meetings to be held. Everyone knows what president s are interested in, and president s of both parties are interested in the same thing. And so what the Research Shows is that, yes, when given given the opportunity, the executive branch does not direct all the funding to swing states, obviously. But there is strong statistical evidence that you are looking at additional tens to hundreds of millions of dollars being directed to swing states. In given years. And who is losing out on that . Again, its not growing the pie. You guys set the size of the pie. What happens is if youre from a nonswing state, if youre from washington or youre from georgia although, maybe georgias going to be cashing in soon. I dont know. You are not going to be doing as well as a florida or a michigan or a wisconsin. And so that is politics interfering with at least part of the distribution decisions over federal funds. Now, if we take for granted that politics is going to be part of it, i think most americans would far prefer that their member of congress be engaged in those politics than a president or a bureaucrat whos directing money in a variety of different places. But certainly, not back to the 45yearold bridges in missouri that that need repair. Thank you. Mrs. Brooks. And thank you for your flexibility in letting us do that there. Mr. Chair, the time is yours. So whatever whatever is is so important. Thank you all so much for being here. I dont have the history that my good friend from across the aisle has. But its interesting that he reminds us that only three people that it was three people who essentially, you know, caused congress and the American Public to shift dramatically in how they thought about earmarks. I im afraid that many of us come here, and while im in my eighth year here, we come here and are often told at the beginning that we are 435 kind of independent offices and small businesses. And we dont view it as the institution. Now, i got placed in my first term by speaker boehner. But the house Ethics Committee is all about institution. It is a partisan committee. It is evenly divided and it focuses on the house rules in protecting the institution, not individual members. But yet, often in campaigns, congress, as an institution, gets bashed. All the time. We are constantly, as Political Parties and as members, bashing even the office were trying to run for. And so im curious and ill start with you, dr. Kosar how do we sell Capacity Building to the American Public about us investing in our offices and in ourselves, not ourselves personally, but in our staffs and so forth . When they truly believe we have far more than we need. No one believes we need more staff. That i know of, no one most of my constituents my constituents dont say i need a nicer office or i need staff who are paid more. And they really dont care how much it cost to live in washington, d. C. How much it cost members, how much it cost anybody. So how do we sell capacity when, you know, as to the investments you all believe we need to be making in our institution . Start with you. Sure. No, it is a wickedhard problem. And the polling data are pretty clear that, yeah, members of the public tend to think congress is overstaffed, which is it is what it is. Id say the first thing would be to consider couching capacity investments in terms of better customer service. You know, you got tons of constituent outreach coming to you. Youre constantly harassed for being out of touched. Thats the accusation. Youre not paying enough attention. Youre not responsive enough. Well, we can be more responsive if we have better systems and we have more people who are able to deal with this crush of communications. So theres theres that aspect. The second thing is to, perhaps, let them know that financial savings can actually occur when you have better oversight. Gao, frequently, likes to tout the fact that it can save the government a lot of money by identifying waste, fraud, abuse, et cetera, and bringing them to light. If gaos not doing that, you guys cant act and zero something out. So there is also that part of it. Candidly, though, i think a lot of capacity in investments are going to have to be done in a way thats just not politically salient. If you say that, yes, members of congress are going to be able to shift the cost of, say, student loan reimbursement from out of their personal pot of money into kind of a collective money in the house, no ones going to Pay Attention to that. Its not salient. But the practical effect of that means that you have more dollars to spend on the staff that you have and you might be able to increase retention. Thank you. Or any other ideas . I just want to mention i think you pointed out one of the basic problems that members of Congress Bash congress. If you had the airlines talking about how dangerous they are and all of the problems with them, people wouldnt want to fly. And you wouldnt be able to get the investments that you need for safe aviation. So part of the problem is with congress itself to say that we actually do an important function here. Oversight i think is part of it. Waste, fraud, and abuse, in my subcommittee, we actually kept track for a while of how much money we saved and it was well over a billion dollars. And we were like if we could only have 1 of the money that weve saved, it would be worth it. But right now, congress does not value itself enough to make the investments needed to make it effective. And when you have ratings as low as they are with the public, whats going on now isnt working. We need to do something else. We need to talk about congress in a respectful way. It its constitutional obligations. And make the investments that we need for congress to operate in a better way. Thank you. I yield back. Thanks. Let me recognize myself. Let me start with dr. Kosar. So the data you provided about Congressional Staffing levels, just i want to pull in this thread mrs. Brooks had. How is it the staff remain relatively steady in contrast to what seems like a pretty big drop in the house . Well, it was a deliberate choice in the early 1990s. When you look at the look at the senate in the 1980s and you look at the house in the 1980s, the senate had a pretty good reputation. The house. It was a little bit wild. There was a whole bunch of bad things happening. The house banking scandal. There was a lot of stuff going wrong. Its also the case that the staff that were there at the time were not always well used. Congress kind of went on a hiring binge and the had this cresting and a lot of staff running around and you did end up with members in the house, particularly, saying staff are getting in the way. Some of these guys are getting big heads. You know, it was the sort of thing you would predict would happen when there was this massive influx of new employees and no system to manage them particularly well. And so it provoked a reaction. N they rolled out a banner that said under new management. It was addressing the popular concern that, you know, the house had turned into animal house. The senate didnt have that sort of salient scandal situations. I mean, there was pages, i mean, there was all sorts of bad things happening in the house that invited this. I also want to i i want to get at this issue, you know, clearly, selfflagulation is more popular than investment in the institution. And im just trying to think through methods through which this committee could look at Capacity Building. Im wondering if you have any thoughts as to you know, so its one thing to just we could direct the ledge Branch Appropriation subcommittee to, you know, try to get the institution more in line with the senate. Or with the executive branch, we could get it to a thirdparty entity. Say, you know, form a Blueribbon Panel on Institutional Capacity. And within five years, try to get to their mark. You know, im just you understand. Im throwing out ideas there. If you were on this committee, what would you recommend . Acknowledging the the tricky dynamic that mrs. Brooks asked about. Well, i think i would, first, consider i mean, yeah, you want to increase capacity. And, particularly, i think there is a value in doing it, increasing capacity in the form of staff. But where do you put those staff . I think it does not look great if you just say were going to put a whole bunch more in my personal office. But if you start saying, well, were going to update upload increase the quantity of ftes who are at crs or cbo, nobody outside this town is going to get particularly upset about that. In fact, that sort of stuff has been happening. There have been increases in the appropriations to these agencies and nobody, as far as i could tell, is getting clobbered in the polls because of it. So that would be, you know, one way to look at doing it. And committees, also. Again, its very hard to be accused if you are, you know, hiring a new limo driver because youre putting staff on. If you are talking these in committee and hitting the notes of oversight, oversight, oversight. I think you will be largely insulated from the sort of backlash you might face. Id like to agree with that, on the committees, virtually every committee is required, by law, to do oversight within the jurisdiction they have been given. And people want their government to work better. They worry about waste, fraud, and abuse. You cannot get your government to work better unless you have good overnight. You cant do good oversight unless there is more staff and more resources to focus on the executive branch and all the things that are going on there. And the other real problems that are facing us. The other thing ill say is that if you want to do the stuff in a bipartisan way, bipartisan investigations take longer. They are harder. Because you you challenge each other. You have to work through the issues. You cant have 12 hearings a year. My subcommittee had two to three hearings a year. But we spent an entire year on it. We got to agreement. And then we were able to tackle some problems. So id have fewer hearings. Id have less partisan topics. And i would justify that additional money as in terms of trying to address the problems that we all know our government has. Even in a good government, theres always problems. And if congress doesnt do the oversight, theyre not going to get fixed. Mr. Chairman, if i could, very quickly. I think part of the responsibility here also rests with leadership. I think for the speaker, the minority leader, and the heads of the Campaign Committees to effe effectively call a truce about, what you said, attacking the institution. And saying we are going to hold our members to account that if there is a valid critique about what is happening, let that valid critique be aired out. But if there was a proposal from members or votes from members to increase the capacity of this institution, that needs to be politically off limits. Now, that might be fantastical. The idea that a truce like that could hold. But if it keeps 75 of the members in line, around that, its going to be part of a discipline system that would need to be enacted from a political perspective. In in concert with trying to change the internal policies of the congress. Let me recognize mr. Graves for five minutes and then well do a second round if time permits and if you all arent sweated out of this room. Its for those watching on cspan, its 9,000 degrees in here. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And and for the benefit of the millions of viewers, let me let me say what they cant see is that for better an hour 15 minutes, hour and a half, this room was packed with with participants wanting to learn about in fact, standing room only at one point. All Committee Members in attendance. Which is rare in this place, unless there is something more highprofile going on. So it is a compliment to this panel for sure and the subject matter. So, mr. Chairman, thanks for doing this Committee Hearing in this way. I wanted just to, dr. Hudach, talk to what you were speaking of. You use the term earmarks, which is an older term. I think if we are ever to transition back to as what you refer to as not a practice but our constitutional duty. You know, it probably has to be modified in a way thats much more responsible and accepting. Politically, there are certain challenges. But youve heard broad support amongst this committee, and i think even Committee Members have expressed broad support from other groups within the various parties. But there is a political aspect to it. And i would be interested in each of the panels perspectives on his commends and this restoration of this power. And and but what you did emphasize that was obvious to me, but yet i hadnt noticed it, is that it doesnt change the amount of spending that occurs in this place. It just redirects how you might spend it. And, in fact, its a little bit sharper of a pencil, so to speak, as to how we might operate. But to get a unique perspective, i just happened to notice the tie on dr. Kosar here. An adam smith tie, if i might. Which would lead me to think, no stereotypes, you might be more centerright fiscal centerright, fiscally thinking. What are your perspective on the proposal as it was mentioned earlier in the restoration of this duty . It makes perfect sense to me. In terms of accountability, you know, if youre a member and you direct a bunch of spending on something that turns out to be a bo boondogle, youre going to hear about it. If it happens somewhere in the department of transportation, no accountability whatsoever. Also, i think the you know, for sure, nobody wants to go back to the days of casino jack and that sort of stuff. And thats very easy to prevent from happening. But the whole conversation around earmarks is very anchored, as representative cleaver noted, on the few bad things that happened. And mr. Davis mentioned that the positive is not often talked about. I mean, those are just not interesting stories. Media frequently dont pick them up. You might release a press release saying we did something good that helped back here. You might get a little bit of local coverage but that is about all you get. But its absolutely appropriate. And i would like to see some sort of and, honest, congressionally directed spending happens all the time. Every time you draw up a formula in law, even if its collectively bargained across two different chambers, somebody is going to get more than others. But we dont call that earmarking. Well, why . You know. So lets yeah. Thanks for your perspective because i think youre right. I mean and i dont think anyone on this panel would agree that we need to go back to the way it was. I think there is a genuine intent to try to understand how do you how do you restore a an article i action and remove power from the executive branch and restore it back in the legislative branch . In a way that is noted as and known as, and will be seen as, responsible and guarded, protected, transparent. And youve shared a few good concepts with us today that might help with that. You know, i know this is my last term but i suspect that someday in the future, mr. Chairman, whether we address this, some other congress will. And and i dont know how they might address that. But i hope that the spirit of this committee and what we have learned and what weve seen will really lean into this to try to find a responsible solution as we move forward. But would you have any thoughts on this . Is this something youve put any thoughts towards . Or have any recommendations to us to how we might repurpose, rebrand, and provide a Better Process for the American People . So i cant say that i have recommendations but i wanted to make two points. One is returning to dr. Hudachs excellent book. He has a longtime series in that book. And he shows us that president ially directed spending happens. An important part about that is that his time series starts way before the earmark ban that were talking about, right . So this president iallydirected spending has been around and its probably going to stay around. Its its not something that is going to be easy to change. So thats one thing. Is that thats kind of something that theres only earmarks act for congressionally directed spending account for about 1 of spending when they were in place. So its a very small portion. So that so the executive branch is probably still going to retain some authority here. For better or worse. And i think that in thinking about this, you might think about how to bring earmarks back in a moretargeted way, right . So not just saying congressionally directed spending, yes or no . But can we put it in places where it makes sense . Where you can bring members expertise about their district to bear. Maybe large infrastructure projects, as weve already talked about, might be a really good place. And there might be other types of programs where congressionally directed spending is less appropriate, perhaps. Ms. Bean, any thoughts . I also support bringing back congressionally directed spending, not only because its a constitutional obligation but also, because it actually promotes bipartisanship. When you have to be transparent about your earmarks, there has to be a meeting of the minds of the people on the Appropriations Committee. Its all out there in the public. And you are going to make some decisions and, you know, if this ones going to let you do it, you know, theres going to be some trading back and forth. And say if i want my bridge in my district, and theres all this, you know, support for it. And Research Behind it. And theres something similar in your district, lets both go forward. So i think it it actually promotes bipartisanship, as well. And i was here when we had that whole process and it moved a lot of bills forward. Transportation, as mr. Cleaver said, used to be a very happy time instead of a very painful time now. And dr. Hudach, just to sort of close here, i know youve given a great explanation and you have great knowledge of the past of earmarks, the president ial earmarks. Do you have any experience on as it relates to grants . You know, when i think about earmark term or congressionally directed spending, i wonder why we dont have the same conflict when we talk about tiger grants or Community Block grants or other grants that Congress Funds and provides and and moves forward. There doesnt seem to be that same, you know, negativity about it. Why is that . I think dr. Kosar is right. These are perfect examples of pork in a different packaged in a different format. Block grants. Formula grants. Et cetera. I think because the benefits are widespread, by nature of a formula or a block grant, it is harder for an individual member to attack. And it is easier than for an individual constituent to understand the benefits to the district. But at the same time, because earmarks around typically, around federal grants, are very specific. Theyre projectoriented funding streams. It is easy for one person not necessarily to recognize the benefit to the district of that individually. Now, as a whole, as a sum of their parts, a lot of constituents are going to benefit from this type of spending. Part of the challenge, too, im typically not one for splitting hairs around naming things. But i think youre right. Earmarking has just been blacklisted, essentially, as a term. I also think congressionally directed spending is not something thats terribly palatable because the onus is on you. And if congress, as an institution, as mrs. Brooks said, is in the gutter, in the basement, congressionally directed spending isnt going to be that helpful either. What it is, is constituentfocused spending. The beneficiaries are not you. The beneficiaries are your constituents. And i think framing things in a more individual, public, constituentoriented conversation, is much easier. As one of my panelists said before about building capacity, frame it as customer service. Thats what your district offices do. Thats what some of your staff here does. Thats easier for an individual constituent to understand the benefits of that. Rather than this being on the focus being on the member or the focus even on the institution. I and i think its true for project grants as well. Thanks. We have a few members who have some followup questions if youre not sweating too bad. Mrs. Brooks. I wanted to ask ms. Bean about your idea of an office of Legal Counsel. I am a former United States attorney, so relied on those olc opinions from the justice department. Justice department being, you know, an institution within the executive branch. How would you see and i when i came here, i was amazed when i heard that a Republican Party was hiring lawyers and filing lawsuits. And the how would you see an office of Legal Counsel functioning . And what type of work would you see them actually doing . And i know we, certainly, have nonpartisan staff. Thats what we hire in the Ethics Committee. I assume the parliamentarian, thats nonpartisan staff. The sergeant arms are nonpartisan staff. I dont know about house admin. I think theyre still partisan staff. But there arent many offices within congress that are nonpartisan staff. And so im just curious, thats the first time i had ever thought of that. It certainly makes some sense. But what kind of issues or problems would you see an olc for congress . Would it be the primary reason of debating olc at justice . Or how what i just had not thought about that. And thank you for all of the focus on bipartisanship. I, obviously, come from indiana. Home state of senator lugar and love the work of bipartisan senator and we miss him dearly. But can you just share with me a little bit more about what you think . Or what has been proposed on olctype of office . I think it is very important that any legal opinions have bipartisan support. Thats number one. If they dont have bipartisan support and its not on behalf of congress, its going to open up a new can of worms. There are different ideas about how to get to bipartisan, thoughtful, wellsupported legal opinion. Some people say the office of the general counsel is the place to do it because their whole reason for being is to defend congress as an institution. So theyre really and they have to go to court. And theyre the ones in all of these court cases going on right now. Defending the right of congress to get information. And thats how im looking at it in terms of oversight. That the legal opinions we need, the ones im thinking about, are enabling congress to get information. So thats one possibility. Some people say, well, you should use crs. That they have a tradition of being not partisan at all and they would be the right place to do this. Other people respond, well, crs is an academic institution. Theyre not in the courts. They dont know what you need to really win the cases in courts. So, you know, theres pluses and minuses for those two options. Im sure there could be other options, as well. But what one of the things the levin center is doing right now, with the help of other institutions like the lugar center, is we are actually launching a Website Next Week gathering all the information about a dozen cases that are going through the courts that have to do with congress trying to get information. And usually, the administration but sometimes privatesector parties fighting those information requests. And trying to create a onestopshopping place where you can find out the information about whats going on in the courts. And there is a lot going on in the courts. And it is overwhelmingly favorable to congress as opposed to the administration. But not many people know about that. They dont know theres more than a dozen judges from all different perspectives that support congress and its ability to get information. But in all of those court cases, im reading all those pleadings. Olc comes up all the time with their opinions. With the justice saying, well, weve had this opinion for 50 years that white House Counsel shouldnt have to respond to congressional subpoenas. Congress says, well, we have two judges that have said they should. But they dont have that sort of bipartisan, legal opinion. So i i think your instinct is right that it needs to be bipartisan. I think the office of general counsel is one possibility. Crs is another. How would you staff that . Well, the same way the office of general counsel is staffed now. They have lawyers there. Theyre actually filing briefs in these dozen cases. Lower court. Appellate court. Supreme court. They do amazing, fantastic work. I dont know how theyre cranking out all this work. But, as everybody in congress does, they just get the job done. Despite the difficulty. Mr. Woodall. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I had two two questions. One is where the inflexion point is on reclaiming some of this power as as as the chair and Ranking Member explained. This hasnt been a talkaboutit committee. This has been a do something about it committee. So i want to know when you think the time to do something about it is. In 2010, i campaigned in favor of congressionally directed spending because i said who do you trust more . Barack obama or me . That was my time to win. I go home with that same answer today, my answer is we trust donald trump more than we trust you. We got to find the right season to make this work. Can you give me advice on when you believe the season is for reclaiming article i power . Ill pause it, provided that the time. But other ideas . I think its a little bit easier at the start of a new presidency. I think there can be a conversation to be frank, ive actually been floored by the lack of conversation within democratic president ial debates. That have not focused on what to do about the office of the president. There is a lot of complaints in the democratic primary about what donald trump is doing. There are things that the president , courts, have said crossed the line. But there is a lot of what the president is doing that stretches dell graegation from congress in ways that we just havent seen before. That problem, to be myopic and to think that is a donald trump problem, is really dismissive of congress as an institution. The problem is not the president. The problem is the presidency. And i think a broader conversation about the powers of the office that need to happen in both parties is important. Right now, in the partisan heap that we have, particularly involving the president and the institution, now is probably not the greatest time to have sort of a heaveho moment. But certainly, as the campaign moves on and whether the president is elected this year or in four years, that is going to be an important moment to think about this. At the same time and i should say thats for issues that would require overcoming a president ial veto. A republican president and democratic president are probably going to equally try to veto these types of efforts. But there is a lot that can be done in congressional rules, in informal norms, and through a variety of processes within the institution that you dont need donald trump or barack obama or some other president to sign on to. And for those issues, now is the moment for that. Not to wait for the next congress to do it. Any other counsel on that line . My dr. Kosar . All i was going to say is one one challenge that i have been wrestling with is how do we make the purse powerful again . I mean, its a peculiar situation to be looking and hearing folks saying that we have an outofcontrol presidency. Its grown crazily big. The president cant reach in the treasury and grab out the money once. It has to be appropriated by congress. Yet, somehow in the last 20, 30 years, the ability to use the purse to control action. Whether its simply saying, well, you did this. Were going to zero this out. Like, seems like that sort of thing is not happening. And i dont understand why that leverage has disappeared. Maybe its the fear that if you try to place that sort of hold on things, youll cock up the omnibus going through. Im not sure. But i think getting the power of the purse back so its effectual and can curb misuse. One of the problems we have right now, even where its not clear congress delegated power away, executive branch is doing stuff anyway. And how do you make them pay for it . And purse seems to be the only option to me. If i can stipulate that everyone supports reclaiming article i authority. Strengthening legislative branch. To to ms. Beans point about the Intelligence Committee hearing, that was a that was a more cogent hearing than many that weve had. I would argue rank and file members were disadvantaged. Committee leadership, house leadership, advantaged. If our shared goal is increasing or restoring article i responsibility, does that happen in your mind by increasing rank and file influence in the in the house . Or does that happen by increasing leadership influence in the house . I know exactly how to make the speaker more powerful. I know exactly how to make Ranking Members more powerful. Im not sure which one helps me to balance my influence with article 2 and 3. Well, i would say in the case of hearings, those are controlled by the committees. Leadership is not running that committee as the Committee Chair and the vice chair. And if they can have a more cogent hearing, more power to them because you have millions of people watching. You dont want them to turn a way and say that was just painful to watch. You want to them say, well, i may agree or disagree but those people are prepared. Theyre serious. They made their points. And shrimp havi and simply having a little bit more time to do it is helpful. Does it em powpower the committ chairs . Yes. But the rank and file have to be willing to sit through that and stay longer. His record was 11 hours. We started at 9 00 in the morning and we finished at 11 00 at night because he wanted to give every member as much time as they wanted to ask whatever questions they wanted. Now, thats not easy. Its its can be very difficult with your schedules and all the other demands on you. But thats one answer is to have a cogent hearing. 45 minutes, i hd never actuall seen that long before. Ive seen 15, 20 minutes per side but i thought it worked well. Yes, and stronger committees, too. Which i think is important. The committees have lost a lot of power and having better hearings makes the committee stronger. The rest of you see that with clarity, dr. Kosar . Oh, yeah. Certainly. I think the model that weve evolved towards, which is leadershipdriven model has become a trap. I mean, basically, your job as a member is to line up behind the leadership or your job is to stand in opposition. And the notion that keeps getting put out there is if we just do this, well be able to retain the majority forever. Weve seen the data since 1994, pinballing back and forth. So when rs and ds are clobbering each other year after year and turning around and people coming in and people coming out, executive branch just keeps on chugging. I also like to point out that all these suggestions that we had for better oversight by partisan factbased oversight, none of them require statutes. None of them require the president to sign on. Its really under the control of congress itself. Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, mr. Chairman. So a real easy question, just to end things. Dr. Kosar, you just touched on it so thank you for the good segue. Im trying to sit here and think, okay, whats different . Or whats similar between the house and the senate . Or the house and the executive branch . Why have they been able to, arguably, be more successful at at either maintaining or even growing their strength and power when the house hasnt . I dont know if i have the answer or not. Im i want to throw that out to you. But when you talk about this conversation over the last few minutes or back to the staff issues of continuity and career paths and effectiveness and all that. You know, we literally stir everything up every two years. Is it is it a a as simple as a not a simple solution. But would it be a twoyear term . Does that lend itself to the house being as effective and efficient and allow all those other good things to happen when you have to, essentially, change everything every two years . Or, you know, im not suggesting a constitutional change but executive branch has four years. Senate has six years. Or or can we do it otherwise . I dont know the whole history. I know 100 years ago, we didnt have much staff. I mean, we didnt even have office buildings. A Members Office was on the floor at their desk. There is an old adage that government will grow into the space provided. You build an office building, guess what . Staff all of a sudden will appear. Then another office building. Then a third office building. So im not sure that thats the answer. But any any opinions on can we do this . Is it just a matter of different choices were made in the house versus the senate on why theyve been able to be more successful . Well, yeah, the twoyear election cycle is brutal. It sets very strong inceptivnti to politic and do much more things that are salient. For the longest time, 1900 through early 1980s, democrats were always the miernd. Republicans were always the minority. So people kind of got along in a very conceptual way. That changed. And you know how it works. You get here and very quickly, you are being told how to win the next election. How you are either going to take back the majority or send the others into the minority type thing. And the incentive structure is very strong that way. In part, it goes back to the leadershipdriven model. The idea is that, you know, all party is at the top of the chamber so whoevers at the top of the chamber gets to do everything. And if we win that, we can just ram our agenda down the other sides throat. It doesnt work. You got the senate. Senate, meanwhile, has a much more consensual model. Its a lot less majoritarian. Of course, it means they often dont get things as often as possible. Look at the appropriations process. You guys hustle them through. And they go over there, and there they sit. There are costs with that. But yeah. Its at some point, the numbers are going to have to decide whether or not they want to keep the leadershipdriven model. Otherwise, this is going to perpetuate itself. Theres just no way its not going to. The logic of the situation is if all authority rests with leadership, then of course theres going to be a vicious scrum to grab that authority. I would also mention this whole thing about we now have, for the foreseeable fwuuture, vy narrow majorities. And for majority to get twothirds of the funding and minority to get onethird just leads to backlash. You have staff fired and brought back and people put in, you know, Committee Offices with no windows. You know, it just you just see these things sort of spin out. In the senate, you know, that Committee Funding reflects the majority. So if you have 5149, you get 51 of the funding. And if it flips the next year so its 4951, you lose a little bit, as you should. But its not these sort of dramatic, partisan, punitive sort of actions. So it does mean that the Majority Party gives up some money. But, on the other hand, when they go when things flip, you know and the other thing is, what happened in the senate when we actually made the transition from the onethird, twothirds two the more you know, reflecting the actual majority, what happened is everybody kept the funding that they had so nobody lost money. And they just added whatever was necessary to bring those amounts of money into parody. So thats how theyve done it in the senate. And it has led to a much less partisan situation. And also, you dont lose institutional staff. The way used to. If i could bring some politicalscience research to bear on this question. What we know about term limits, right, is that when states enact term limits, what we see is a reduce a reduction in expertise in the legislature. And also, a greater influence for lobbyists, right . So if we take that and apply that to thinking about longer term limits for members of the house, we might see wed probably expect to see an increase in capacity in expertise in the house, certainly. But i think we have to return to this the principle of why we have two twoyear terms. And thats really this is the peoples chamber. And keeping that in mind, right, can we build capacity in other ways . Right . While still keeping this important principle that was from our founding. Thank you. And by the way, i counted five mentions of the book. So yeah. This committee is killing it on amazon. Before we wrap, dr. Hudak, i wanted to just ask one final question of you. Obviously, a lot of the conversation has been around appropriations. I think we all know the role that appropriations has in funding decisions. But appropriations isnt the only committee thats engaged in earmarking. To mr. Cleavers point, historically transportation authorizing bill came out. People would all look at that as opportunity. Authorizing committees have had a role, as well. I just want to get your sense of that. Is do you think that good thing that authorizing committees were engaged in that as well . Bad thing . Did it make it more bipartisan . What should this committee take away from those other committees aside from just having appropriations . I think authorizing committees involved in that process. Transportation is one. Homeland security. Et cetera. That spreads around to the congress. The ability to engage in that action to deliver for your constituents. And it doesnt then put up the several dozen appropriators on to a pedestal, to whom everyone else in the Congress Needs to go to in order for their constituents to be served. And so when you start to have, or you return to having, authorization committees, authorizing committee rather, engaged in this process. It requires both more members to be involved. More members to have access to that system. But then, also, for even greater cooperation than already exists between the authorizing committees and the relevant subcommittees and the authorizing committees and the broader Appropriations Committee. All of that is cooperation and action. All of that requires members to get together, think together, and Work Together. And i think any way that you can increase that within this institution is a way to improve the institution as a whole. Mr. Graves as a followup on that. Followup on that point. So a large part of the federal government is being funded but not authorized. Has not been reauthorized. Is it your your thought, then, that no congressionally directed spending, whatever you want to call it, earmarks, were to take place without authorization . And just because something is authorized, does that mean the funds would be released . Its certainly an interesting sort of hostagetaking approach. And i dont mean that pejoratively. But i do think when you look out at some of the most contentious fights around reauthorizations over the past decade, especially faa, you really understand how the failures of Public Policy can present really serious safety challenges for americans. Create industry disruptions. Where government shouldnt be disrupting industry. And putting those two together as part of the process. And making one dependent on the other, i think facilitating policymaking in this country. And as you pointed out, when you have huge numbers of agencies on temporary reauthorizations, including the department of agriculture, you have to worry where does that end, right . What agencies that or departments that seem protected from this are only protected for so long . And what kind of havoc does that cret create, as i said in business, in policy, and for everyday americans. And so i think thats a really creative way to think about forcing the hand of individual members and committees, in general, by using by bringing congressionally directed spending back. And using it in fairly innovative ways. In a way in which i think what im hearing you suggest is that and were both appropriators here. We have a few appropriators on this panel, actually. But appropriators shouldnt have that sole power. That that maybe a congressionally directed spending should not be appropriated without an appropriate authorization alongside of it. Is that what youre suggesting . Or i certainly think thats an approach. I think its going to be a really hard sell on the Appropriations Committee. But i do think that that is one additional means to check. I talked earlier about having Different Institutions within the congress ensure greater accountability. Thats certainly one way to have greater accountability. The one thing that you know about an appropriator on, say, the defense subcommittee is that they do not sit, also, on the authorizing committee. And so it is an automatic check on an on an earmark if youre requiring that to happen. Again, politically, probably a difficult sell. Institutionally and functionally, i think probably something that would be helpful in at least restoring Americans Trust or additional trust in that process. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This was really meaty. Thank you. I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. I want to thank the ways and Means Committee for letting us squat in their room. Thank you to the cspan cameraman. Thank you for sweating with us in here. And to the person doing the transcription, thank you. And to our Committee Staff for putting together such a a thoughtful panel. Without objection, all members will have five 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. With without objection, all members will have five legislative ways within which to submit extraneous materials to the chair for inclusion in their record. And with that, this hearing is adjourned. Thanks, everybody. President wilson goes before a joint session of congress on 2 april, and in that sevenpage speech. We all remember that 9, 10, 11word phrase where we must fight to make the world safe for democracy. And so when africanamericans hear that, they believe because they are citizens, they are third, fourth, and fifthgeneration americans. And the leading scholar, and many of them will support the war. However, there is a third conversation going on. A phillip randolph, when you walk into the exhibition, you see his quote. We would rather make georgia safe for the negro. And each one of those has an image. And an image under him is a three individuals and a kkk regalia. You can hear more stories of africanamerican soldiers in world war ii tonight at 8 00 eastern. From a temporary exhibit at the smithsonians africanAmerican History and Culture Museum in washington, d. C. Its part of our museum week series, featuring American History tv programs you will find here on cspan3. Enj enjoy your visit to the africanamerican museum tonight at 8 eastern. Students from across the country told us the most important issues for the president ial candidates to address are climate change, gun violence, teen vaping, college affordability, mental health, and immigration. Were awarding 100,000 in total cash prizes. The winners for this years student cam competition will be announced on march 11th. Up next, a discussion on election security. This panel looks at preventing Voting Machines from being hacked. And talks about some of the benefits of paper ballots. Georgetown Laws Institute for Technology Law and policy hosted this series. Hi. Welcome. So im matt blaze. Im a professor here at georgetown in both the law school and Computer Science department. I want to welcome you to our afterlunch panel. Thank you for sticking around. On Digital Technologies and voting. We have, on our panel, who i will introduce very briefly, four very distinguished experts at various parts of the digital elections landscape. And and the technology and the risks of some of the Underlying Technology that is inherent there. And well be talking about this subject for from a very wide range of different perspectives. But all with a very technological bias. So im going to very briefly introduce these people. And im going to apologize now for being extremely incomplete in my introductions because they would take up the entire panel. Andrew apel is the higgins professor of science at princeton where he served since 1986. And, in fact, he was one of the members of my doctoral coit