Congress

Is Daylight Saving Time Bad for Your Health?

by Matt Gontarchick

Spring ahead, fall back.  Twice a year, we adjust our clocks to accommodate the shift between Standard Time and Daylight Saving Time (DST).  While the change on your wristwatch or phone may seem innocuous, the change for your internal clock may have bad implications for your health.

A Brief History of Daylight Saving Time

Daylight saving dates back to the ancient world, when the Romans adjusted the length of hours to account for the amount of daylight.  In 1784, Benjamin Franklin suggested the concept of daylight saving in a satirical essay where he recommended that people get out of bed earlier to save on candles by taking advantage of more daylight hours.  The US briefly adopted DST during the First and Second World War, and the post-war period saw a patchwork of DST policies that varied between different states and jurisdictions.   Confusion in the transportation industry led to enactment of the Uniform Time Act of 1966, which was the first step in establishing a federal DST standard.  Currently, DST starts on the second Sunday in March and ends on the first Sunday in November, with the time changes taking place at 2:00 a.m. local time.

What’s Wrong with DST?

A major consequence of the annual loss of an hour’s sleep in March is forced sleep deprivation.  While the change in clocks only takes place in the early hours of Sunday, people can experience a 30-minute reduction in sleep time each night for the remainder of that week.  Sleep deprivation has many negative implications, including higher risk of stroke or heart attack, and performance deficits on reflex and attention.

Health practitioners, take note: A study found sleep deprivation in health care workers caused by the springtime change led to a 18.7% increase in patient-safety related incidents in health care settings.

It’s not just the spring.  Gaining an hour’s sleep with the fall shift to Standard Time can disrupt the circadian rhythm, desynchronizing the body’s internal hormonal balance and causing symptoms similar to jet lag.  Additionally, the number of patient safety-related incidents in health care settings increased by 5% after the fall clock adjustment. 

There are implications for health care technology, too.  Not all electronic health records software systems can handle shifts between DST and Standard Time, requiring health care facilities to implement burdensome workarounds or requiring clinicians to switch to paper charts for one hour.  Unfortunately, these inconveniences can result in longer wait times in emergency departments or records to be inadvertently deleted.  There are also examples of DST affecting medical devices like pacemakers, defibrillators, and glucose monitors.

What’s Being Done to Fix DST?

In recent years, momentum has been growing at the state-level to do away with the biannual time shift by making DST permanent year-round.  Since 2018, nearly a dozen states including South Carolina, Arkansas, Delaware, Maine, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington and Utah have approved or enacted legislation on permanent DST, while several other states including Alabama and Maryland have considered similar legislation.   However, congressional approval is required for states to implement permanent DST legislation, and to date, Congress has yet to sign off.  (While Hawaii and most of Arizona do not observe DST, they were able to opt out or get an exemption from the Uniform Time Act shortly after the bill’s enactment.)

However, Congress is paying attention.  On November 4, 2021, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) introduced the Sunshine Protection Act, which would allow states to make DST permanent.  In an op-ed coauthored with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Murray cited the negative health effects of resetting clocks twice a year, and she pledged in a floor speech to press the Biden administration for executive action to grant states the authority to move to permanent DST. 

The Sunshine Protection Act has 14 cosponsors in the Senate, but given the busy agenda facing Congress this fall, the bill is unlikely to see any movement in the 117th Congress.  However, as more and more states pick up on the idea that ditching biannual time changes could lead to better health outcomes, a growing number of federal lawmakers could one day take proposals to make DST permanent more seriously. 

Congress

What Will Congress Do about Pending PAYGO Cuts?

by Matt Gontarchick

The debt ceiling, appropriations, infrastructure, reconciliation – Congress has a lot on its plate right now.  On top of that, Congress has another item to address that health care stakeholders have been watching closely: an automatic 4% cut to Medicare starting on January 1, 2022.

What’s going on?  In March, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act passed and raised the deficit. This triggered automatic PAYGO cuts to Medicare and other programs because of a law signed in 2010, the Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Act, which prohibited new legislation from increasing the federal budget deficit. 

What’s Congress doing?  Congress has always acted to waive PAYGO cuts, but not in March of 2021 when lawmakers failed to reach an agreement. At the time, the House overwhelmingly voted to waive PAYGO, but a similar proposal in the Senate failed to garner enough votes to override a filibuster.  So far, there has been little word from lawmakers about the plans to address PAYGO as the end of the year approaches.

Why does it matter?  The American Hospital Association (AHA) estimates that a 4% reduction in Medicare spending, or about $36 billion, would result in $9.4 billion in cuts to hospitals provider for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare reimbursement in calendar year 2022.  These losses would come at a time when hospitals and other providers are still grappling with revenue losses related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

It’s not just PAYGO: Health care providers are facing other cuts at the year’s end that, combined with PAYGO, could prove devastating.  These include:

  • Medicare sequestration.  Congress passed legislation back in April to extend the moratorium on 2% cuts to Medicare payments, known as sequestration, through the end of 2021.  The 2% cuts were initially postponed by Congress as a part of the CARES Act in 2020 to help providers struggling with the financial burden of the pandemic.
  • 2021 Physician Fee Schedule.  Finalized in July, the 2021 Physician Fee Schedule will cut payments to physicians next year by 3.75%.  The cut was initially set to go into effect in 2021, but Congress provided an extra $3 billion in funding in late 2020 to hold on the cuts until the beginning of 2022.

The bottom line: The combination of PAYGO, Medicare sequestration, and the Physician Fee Schedule could mean a 9% reduction in Medicare physician payments next year.

What’s being done?  Leading stakeholder organizations including the AHA and the American Medical Association (AMA) have sent letters to congressional leadership urging action to waive pending PAYGO cuts, as well as the coming Medicare sequester and Physician Fee Schedule cut.  Furthermore, on October 14, 245 bipartisan House members sent a letter to congressional leaders on the aforementioned Medicare cuts.  Congress has provided much assistance to health care providers over the course of the pandemic, and providers are urging Congress to take action once again to help the industry make it through what is hopefully the final stage of the pandemic.   

Congress

Where Members of Congress Live These Days

by Matt Gontarchick

A group of West Virginians had something to say to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) about the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill, so they took their message directly to the Senator’s Washington, DC residence – by kayaking up to his houseboat on the Potomac River.  When legislators are conducting their business in our nation’s capital, just like anyone else, they need a place to stay.  And where members of Congress choose to stay has changed over the years, with potential consequences for how lawmakers do their job.

A Brief History

For much of the 19th century, members of Congress lived in boarding homes in the Capitol Hill neighborhood.  Senators and Representatives usually chose which house they lived in based on their political affiliation or state.  Known as “messes,” these groupings often included one or two members from a different state or party, allowing lawmakers the chance to build relationships across state or party lines.

As the US entered the 20th century, a growing federal government required members of Congress to be present more regularly in Washington.  Soon, it became the norm for legislators to have their homes and their families in the Washington, DC area.  By living in the same metropolitan area for most of the year, Representatives and Senators hailing from different political affiliations naturally found ways to form connections outside of legislative business through activities and institutions like schools, playgrounds, sporting events, and places of worship. 

1995 marked a major turning point, when then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) reduced the workweek in the House from five to three days in order to allow more days for members of his caucus to engage in fundraising.  As Congress entered the new millennium, it became increasingly rare for members to spend their time outside of the halls of Congress in DC.   Instead, many lawmakers now head right to the airport or hit the road once the workweek ends or recess begins to make the journey back to their home states or districts, where they meet with constituents and fend off potential challengers.

With so many legislators going back and forth, what kind of places do they call home when they’re in Washington?

  • Congressional offices.  In recent years, dozens of members including former Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) have opted to live rent-free in their offices, opting to sleep on sofas or foldable mattresses.  While supporters say office living allows them to focus on their work and ignore the distractions of Washington, DC, detractors say the practice unfairly uses taxpayer-funded housekeeping services.  Members who live in their offices are most likely to travel frequently between Washington and their state/district.
  • Group homes or apartments.  Renting a room in a DC rowhouse or apartment isn’t only popular with staffers – members of Congress do it, too.  Similar to congressional offices, apartments are popular with members who travel routinely to and from Washington.  Echoing back to the days where lawmakers lived in boarding homes, some members opt for a group-home style set-up.  A notable example of this is Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), and former Rep. George Miller (D-CA), who shared a Capitol Hill rowhome until 2014.
  • Property ownership in the DC area.  A smaller portion of Senators and Representatives reside on property they own in the Washington, DC area.  This can range from condominiums or rowhomes in the District to single family homes in the suburban communities of Maryland and northern Virginia.  Members in this category generally do not travel as frequently to their home district or state as their fellow legislators, and some even raise their families in the DC area.  Examples of current lawmakers who relocated their families to the DC area following their election to Congress include Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX).  A notable exception within this group is lawmakers from Maryland, Virginia, and other jurisdictions in the Mid-Atlantic who already reside withing commuting distance of Washington.

There are several factors that determine where members of Congress choose to live – and how often they travel to and from Washington.

  • Cost of living.  Real estate costs have soared in the Washington, DC area over the past decade, with the median price of a rowhouse in the District climbing from $420,000 in 2009 to $760,000 in 2020. 
  • Competitiveness of seat.  Members who expect to face serious primary or general challenges from an opponent  are incentivized  to return more frequently to their home district or state to campaign or fundraise.  Due to frequent travel, they are more likely to keep their housing footprint in the District limited.  In contrast, members who hold a “safe” seat might opt to spend more time and put down roots in the District.
  • Personal preference.  Some members, regardless of their geographic proximity to Washington, choose to bring their families to the Washington, DC area to “keep them grounded” and maintain relationships with children and spouses.  These members more likely own property and spend more time in the National Capitol Region.

Why does a member’s housing situation matter?  The growing polarization in Congress over the last 20-plus years has coincided with the trend of members not putting down roots in the Washington, DC area.  When Representatives and Senators are constantly jetting out of DC, it limits the chances for them to bond, socialize, and see one another as peers.  If more members spent more time living in the DC area, could this shift the current political climate and contribute more to bipartisanship?

Congress

The Senate Parliamentarian, Explained

by Matt Gontarchick

On September 19, Democrats’ plans to offer undocumented immigrants a legal pathway to permanent residency was torpedoed when the Senate Parliamentarian ruled against including immigration reform in their $3.5 trillion human infrastructure package.   As Democrats attempt to advance key priorities via budget reconciliation, the role of the Senate Parliamentarian has garnered much attention. 

Background: Democrats have long been seeking a way to offer permanent residency to Dreamers, who are undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US at a young age and have lived most of their lives in America. Currently, many Dreamers do not have a clear path to gain legal permanent residence status, which would then allow them to pursue citizenship.   

The role: The Senate parliamentarian interprets the Senate’s often complicated rules.  The position of the Senate Parliamentarian is strictly non-partisan, and individuals are traditionally appointed to the role from senior staff in the Parliamentarian office. There have only been six Senate Parliamentarians since the position was created in 1935.  Senate Parliamentarians have no defined term length and serve at the pleasure of the Majority Leader.  The current Parliamentarian is Elizabeth MacDonough, who was appointed by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) as the first woman to hold the position in 2012. 

Did you know?  The Senate Parliamentarian’s salary is $171,315 per year, as of 2019.

Some of the things the Senate Parliamentarian might do include:

  • Advising the Senate’s presiding officer, or Majority Leader, on the appropriate procedure, statements, and responses of the Senate.
  • Offering written guidance on procedural questions.
  • Recommending the referral of measures to relevant committees.
  • Maintaining and publishing procedural rules.

It’s not just the Senate: The House of Representatives has its own Parliamentarian, too, with a similar salary and responsibilities.  The current House Parliamentarian is Jason Smith (not to be confused with the Missouri Congressman), who was appointed in 2010.

Why the Senate parliamentarian is getting so much attention this year:  The Democratic majority is using the budget reconciliation process to accomplish their policy goals and bypass the need for Republican support. Therefore, enter the Parliamentarian, who decides what can and can’t be included in legislation passed under this process. The Parliamentarian uses the Byrd Rule to analyze legislation and makes a determination on whether a provision produces a change in spending or revenues and does not increase the deficit within a set period. 

This isn’t the first time where the Parliamentarian says no to a Democrat policy: Back in March, top Senate Democrats were upset by the Parliamentarian’s decision to not include a minimum wage increase in the American Rescue Plan due to an “incidental” impact on the federal budget. 

What Could Senate Democrats Do? The Senate Majority Leader does have the authority to fire the Senate Parliamentarian.  This last happened in 2001, when then-Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) fired then-Parliamentarian Robert Dover after he interpreted Senate rules in way that would have made it difficult to pass then-President George W. Bush’s tax cut proposal through budget reconciliation. 

However, MacDonough’s job seems safe for now.  While Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has expressed disappointment with her recent rulings, he has yet to call for the Parliamentarian to be replaced.  Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) has similarly indicated he doesn’t think MacDonough should be dismissed.  Instead, Senate Democrats have expressed a willingness to advance immigration reform and other priorities that can’t be included in budget reconciliation through regular order, even if the chances of doing so are slim to none. 

Senate Democrats could also overrule MacDonough’s ruling with the support of all 50 Senate Democrats and Vice President Harris, but this won’t be happening, either.  Both Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema  (D-AZ) have previously stated they won’t overrule the parliamentarian, while Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) have thrown cold water on the idea.

Congress

Previewing Congress’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad September

by Matt Gontarchick

Lawmakers are facing a September like no other.  With only a dozen or days scheduled to be in person in DC, Members of Congress must address a $3.5 trillion “human infrastructure” package, a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, last month’s expiration of the debt ceiling, and appropriations for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022.  Each of these major bills carries several steps of their own, including committee hearings, markups, and behind-the-scenes negotiation.  How will lawmakers on Capitol Hill make it through such a complicated month?

Calendar At-A-Glance

Here’s how the calendar sets up.

Okay, Let’s Break it Down

Reconciliation

So, the House committees are meeting to mark-up the $3.5 trillion human infrastructure bill, also known as the reconciliation bill.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has expressed a desire to pass the entire reconciliation bill by October 1, punting her version over to the Senate.

But what about the Senate?  The Senate is out till September 13. Even though their version of the reconciliation bill is due September 15, the Senate has yet to schedule any committee hearings.  Remember too that the Senate committees are a 50:50 split, meaning it’s harder to pass partisan legislation like this out of committee.  This all leads us to believe that the Senate may only release concepts or principles around what will be included in the legislation to meet the deadline.

We expect that when the House passes their bill, the Senate substitute the bill with their own changes. The Senate floor process includes debate and likely another all-night vote-a-rama session.  With any changes the Senate makes to the bill, the House will have to vote again, meaning the reconciliation bill has a way to go before it reaches President Biden’s desk.

Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

Speaker Pelosi issued a September 27 deadline for the House to vote on the bill as the Senate approved it by a 69-30 vote on August 10.  If the bill doesn’t get passed in time, the House will have to vote to extend the Highway Trust Fund, which is estimated to become insolvent by October 1.

Debt Ceiling

Oh yeah, and Congress will need to raise or suspend the debt ceiling to avoid the US from defaulting on its loans. Usually, lawmakers generally agree in a bipartisan manner to increase the debt limit, but Republicans have publicly stated they will not support raising the debt limit and could force Democrats to raise the debt limit in a partisan way and without any Republican support.  

Appropriations

Even though the House has passed 9 out of 12 appropriations bills, the work has just begun in the Senate.  This signals the likelihood that Congress will need to pass a continuing resolution before September 30th to keep the government funded past September. 

How Will Things Play Out?

Between a packed schedule, partisan differences in key legislation, and divisions among some Democrats, September is shaping up to be an unpredictable month for Congress.  Below are some key items to watch for.

Will the House pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill by September 27?

Speaker Pelosi announced the September 27 deadline per an agreement with a group of moderate House Democrats who didn’t want to vote on the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill without voting on the bipartisan infrastructure bill first.  Many moderate Democrats are holding firm on this agreement to pass this bill, even if the Senate is not finished with their reconciliation bill. Therefore, the divide between moderates and progressives on how to move forward with the legislation could create more problems for the Speaker. 

Will Sinema and Manchin demand a lower dollar amount for reconciliation?

However, the main question that is still on everyone’s mind is will the Democrats unanimously support $3.5 trillion in new spending as moderates in both chambers have concerns around this high price tag.

Even though Senate Democrats unanimously approved the budget resolution, two key moderate Democrats have signaled an unwillingness to approve $3.5 trillion in new spending, thus raising doubts about the bill’s future.  In a statement issued after the budget resolution’s passage, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) expressed “serious concerns about the grave consequences” facing Americans if Congress decides to spend an additional $3.5 trillion.  On August 23, a spokesperson for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) said the Senator would simply not back a $3.5 trillion bill. As the next couple of weeks unfold, all eyes will be on both Senators as the negotiations are ongoing around the reconciliation bill.

September Is Only the Beginning

With September as thorny as it is, Q4 is shaping up to be the biggest legislative fall in a number of years.  And just when they figure out these massive domestic policy issues, 2022 will be just around the corner, and with it a quick transition to campaign season for the midterm elections.

Congress

What’s the Point of Congressional Caucuses?

by Matt Gontarchick

The Congressional Bourbon Caucus.  The Congressional Peanut Caucus.  The Congressional Rodeo Caucus.  It seems like there’s a congressional caucus for every type of issue or policy.  What exactly are congressional caucuses, and do they have any impact on the policymaking process?

All About Congressional Caucuses

Officially known as congressional member organizations, congressional caucuses are voluntary associations consisting of Representatives and Senators who share specific policy goals or interests.  These groups run the gamut of more serious and powerful organizations, such as the Congressional Black Caucus and the Republican Study Group, to ones with a more offbeat or narrow focus, such as the Congressional Bowhunting and Archery Caucus, and the Congressional Candy Caucus.  Importantly, these congressional member organizations are not to be confused with party caucuses and conferences, which are the House Democratic Caucus, House Republican Conference, Senate Democratic Caucus and Senate Republican Conference.

Congressional caucuses date back to the early 1800s and have grown in number in recent years.  There are currently 460 caucuses in the 117th Congress, compared to only 100 member organizations in 1993.   Any caucus that includes House members must register with the House Committee on House Administration and follow certain rules, which include the following:

  • Caucuses cannot use franking privileges (free mail privileges), although individual members may use official resources for communication related to a caucus.
  • At least one officer or chair of a congressional member organization must be a House member.
  • Members can use personal funds to support a caucus but are not allowed to accept goods or services from private organizations to support a caucus.

The Senate does not have any separate guidelines or regulations for Senators who participate in caucuses and are just subject to follow the Rules of the Senate and the Senate Code of Official Conduct,

Types of Caucuses

Congressional caucuses can fall into one of three categories depending on their constituency and interests. 

  • Ideological Caucuses.  Caucuses based around an ideology can represent certain ideological views within a particular party.  In America’s two-party system, each party tends to have a wide ideological spectrum or a “big tent,” meaning there is room within a party for members with more specific ideologies to gather.  All ideological caucuses are in the House, and current examples on the Democratic side include the Blue Dog Coalition, the New Democrat Coalition, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.  Republican examples of ideological caucuses include the Tuesday Group, the Republican Study Committee, and the Freedom Caucus.  One group, the Problem Solvers Caucus, contains House members of both parties that seek bipartisan collaboration on key issues.
  • National Constituency Caucuses.  Some caucuses advocate the interests of specific groups of constituents, such as women, racial or ethnic groups, and veterans.   Examples include the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Conference, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and the Servicewomen and Women Veterans Caucus.
  • Interest Group Caucuses.  The most common caucuses consist of members with a shared policy or interest.  Examples of these generally bipartisan caucuses include the Congressional Bike Caucus, the Congressional Coal Caucus, the Congressional Dairy Farmer Caucus,  Congressional Fire Services Caucus, and the Congressional Cyber Security Caucus.  A number of interest group caucuses focus on medical issues or diseases, such as the Congressional Cystic Fibrosis Caucus, the Congressional Telehealth Caucus, the Congressional Lupus Caucus, and the Rare Disease Caucus.

Do Caucuses Matter?

On paper, caucuses have no real authority.  Unlike committees, caucuses lack the ability to markup bills or hire their own staff, for instance.  However, they do serve a function by providing a way for like-minded Representatives and Senators with mutual interests and goals to get to know one another.  Through these relationships and associations, caucuses members often work together to develop specific ideas that can become legislation.  During the 115th Congress and 116th Congress, members of the Problems Solvers Caucus periodically released proposals and legislation on important issues where caucus members believed Democrats and Republicans could find common ground.  For example, some of the Problem Solvers Caucus’s ideas eventually became law, including a proposal to repeal the medical device tax. At the moment, the Problem Solvers Caucus has been active during the 117th Congress around the bipartisan infrastructure framework.

Additionally, caucuses formed around diseases and medical issues are particularly active on creating health care legislation.  For instance, Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Tom Reed (R-NY), who co-chair the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, have introduced legislation to address high insulin prices and expand diabetes prevention programs.  Additionally, members of the Congressional Telehealth Caucus have introduced legislation to ensure some telehealth services temporarily expanded under the COVID-19 public health emergency are made permanent. 

Congress

What Is the Debt Ceiling, and Why Does It Matter?

by Matt Gontarchick

On July 31, the federal government is scheduled to hit the debt ceiling, meaning it will no longer be able to borrow money.  Fights over the debt ceiling have been become increasingly common in recent years, and once again, lawmakers find themselves squabbling over what to do so the federal government is able to pay its bills.  If there’s anything Congress can’t do, it’s to take no action at all, as it would mean disastrous implications for both the US and global economy.

A Brief History of the Debt Ceiling

The debt ceiling, or debt limit, is a cap on the total amount of money the Department of the Treasury can borrow and is set by Congress.  The ceiling applies to nearly all debt accrued by the federal government, including over $21 trillion in debt held by the US public, and $6 trillion in debt the federal government owes itself for programs like Medicare and Social Security. 

It should be noted that debt and deficit have different meanings.  The deficit refers to the difference between revenue the federal government takes in from taxes and other sources across each fiscal year, while the debt refers to deficits accrued across multiple years. 

The debt ceiling wasn’t always around.  Originally, Congress signed off on all debt by authorizing individual bonds through legislation.  However, the cost of financing America’s involvement in World War I led Congress to establish a debt limit though the Second Liberty Act as a way to simplify the borrowing process and allow the Treasury Department to issue as many bonds as needed instead of waiting for Congress to approve every single bond. 

In recent years, rising national debt and an increasingly polarized Congress have made the process of raising the debt ceiling much more contentious.   Parties have occasionally sought policy concessions from one another in exchange for agreeing to raise the debt limit, leading to a few occasions where political brinkmanship has actually caused the federal government to hit the debt limit and trigger debt ceiling crises in 1995-1996, 2011, and 2013, when the government becomes uncomfortably close on defaulting on its debt. 

Enacted in August 2019, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 suspended the debt ceiling to its current level of $28.5 trillion to July 31, 2021.

What Happens If the Debt Ceiling Isn’t Raised?

During a June 23 appearance before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said a failure to raise the debt ceiling would have “catastrophic consequences” and could potentially lead to a financial crisis.  Indeed, hitting the debt ceiling would mean the federal government would eventually be unable to make its debt payments after a certain period of time.  This would result in the government defaulting on its debt obligations, something that have never happened in US history.   

With the government unable to pay its debts, millions of daily obligations including Social Security payments, salaries for federal civilian employees and military servicemembers, veterans’ benefits, utility bills, and others would be have to be at least temporarily defaulted.  Next, global financial markets would enter a state of turbulence, as both international and domestic markets rely on the stability of US financial instruments and the economy.  Additionally, interest rates would rise and the demand for Treasury securities would fall as investors begin to reconsider the safety of Treasuries and either pull back or stop investing entirely.  Higher interest rates would in turn have strong reverberations across the economy, impacting credit cards, mortgages, car loans, and other forms of borrowing and investment.

Even if the government doesn’t actually default on its debt obligations, the mere threat of default could result some negative economic consequences.  During the debt ceiling crisis of 2011, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the US credit rating from AAA to AA+ with the rationale that the debt limit fight was a sign of “America’s governance becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable.”  During the 2013 debt ceiling crisis, credit agency Fitch warned it may cut the US credit rating due to political gridlock, and Chinese rating agency Dagong downgraded the US from A- to A.  In 2014, Fitch did however restore the US credit rating to AAA.

“Extraordinary Measures” to Stave Off Default

If the federal government does hit the debt ceiling on July 31, it won’t immediately default on its debt.  That’s because the Treasury Department can take so-called “extraordinary measures” that were previously deployed during the debt ceiling crises in 2011 and 2013.  Extraordinary measures are accounting maneuvers that allow the federal government to continue to borrow money and pay bills without exceeding the debt ceiling.  These measures usually involve not fully investing federal employees’ Thrift Savings Plan and civil service retirement plan funds in special Treasury securities.  For example, if federal employees have invested $100 billion in the Thrift Savings Fund, the Treasury could opt to issue only $90 billion to the fund, creating $10 billion that could be used to auction more debt to the public and raise more money for the Treasury.  After the debt ceiling is raised or suspended, investments in those funds would resume and lost interest is credited back to the accounts, leaving the savings and pensions plans unaffected.

But extraordinary measures only provide a temporary means for the government to pay its bills after the debt ceiling is reached, and it’s not clear how long the Treasury Department can exercise extraordinary measures after July 31.  According to a July 21 statement from the Treasury Department, the higher spending and revenues associated with the COVID-19 pandemic is driving uncertainty over how long extraordinary measures could allow the government to continue to meet its debt obligations.  For example, a July 21 report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that extraordinary measures would probably run out sometime during the first quarter of the next fiscal year, which begins on October 1.  However, in a July 23 letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Yellen said there are scenarios where “extraordinary measures could be exhausted” soon after Congress returns from recess in early September.

What Will Congress Do?

As in the lead-up to previous debt crises, lawmakers in both parties generally agree on the need to increase the debt limit but have yet to settle on any specific proposals, such as raising the debt limit in a stand-alone bill or attaching a debt-ceiling increase to an annual spending bill. The most gridlock lies in the evenly split Senate, where Democrats have no path forward on attracting at least 10 Republican votes to overcome a filibuster on a measure to increase the debt ceiling.  In an interview with Punchbowl News on July 20, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) threw cold water on any prospect of GOP support, saying “I can’t imagine there will be a single Republican voting to raise the debt ceiling.”  Just a day later, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suggested Senate Republicans may seek policy concessions from Democrats on raising the debt limit when he pointed out that “about half the time the debt ceiling has been increased has been accompanied by something.”  Sen. John Thune (R-SD) later echoed Graham’s comments by expressing support for limits in discretionary spending, similar to approach used to resolved the debt ceiling crisis in 2011.

While Senate Democrats do have the option of bypassing the filibuster and adding a debt limit increase to the budget reconciliation process, doing so is fraught with challenges.  To use the reconciliation process, Democrats would have to add the debt ceiling increase to their $3.5 trillion infrastructure package, which is still under negotiation and would require unanimous support from all members of the Senate Democratic Caucus.  Additionally, the debt ceiling measure would require approval from the Senate parliamentarian, who decides what does and does not qualify for the reconciliation process.  Both the negotiation process and review by the parliamentarian would take up precious time, and the parliamentarian is not expected to rule on what can be included in the reconciliation process until after the Democrats pass their budget resolution next month. 

Regardless, lawmakers know that something must be done about the debt ceiling.  However, if recent history shows us anything, it’s that the federal government can at times get a little too close to defaulting on its debt, creating tangible consequences like lower credit ratings.  Over the next few weeks, the public will be watching closely as lawmakers attempt to walk a fine line between averting an avoidable economic crisis and addressing the nation’s growing debt.

Congress

The “Committees of Jurisdiction” That Shape Health Care Policy in Congress

by Matt Gontarchick

Congressional committees help Congress with the important work of reviewing, debating, and passing legislation.  As Congress considers legislative action on drug pricing, paid leave, and other key health care policies, it’s important to understand a committee’s “jurisdiction,” or its area of responsibility.  The jurisdiction of each Senate committee is specified in Senate Rule XXV, while each House committee draws from House Rule X.  The following list contains each congressional committee that has  jurisdiction over health policy, along with a brief description of each committee’s role, issues that each committee covers, and the recent activities of each committee.  

Senate Finance Committee

This committee, in addition to various issues related to taxation and trade, oversees health programs under the Social Security Act, such as Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and other programs financed by a certain tax or trust fund.  The committee also shares or has sole jurisdiction over numerous departments and agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Administration for Children and Families, and the Social Security Administration.  The committee is additionally tasked with reviewing nominations for the HHS Secretary, the CMS Administrator, and other high-ranking appointed positions with HHS and other departments under its jurisdiction.  Furthermore, the committee oversees employer-sponsored insurance per the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. 

Recent Activity: Separately, leaders of the Senate Finance Committee are working on legislation to address drug prices.  In June, Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) released a set of principles on legislation to lower drug prices that includes allowing for government negotiation of drug prices and changes to the Medicare drug benefit design.  Additionally, Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) recently reintroduced the Lower Costs, More Cures Act, which does not provide for government negotiation of  drug prices but also include benefit design.

Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee

Commonly abbreviated as “HELP,” this committee has wide jurisdiction over health care, education, labor and retirement policies, and public welfare.  Broadly speaking, the issues it deals with entail biomedical research and development, public health, and occupational health.  The HELP Committee also has jurisdiction over matters within the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs is subject to the committee’s nomination process.

Recent Activity: The HELP Committee has spent much of this year focusing on the response to the COVID-19 pandemic with regards to vaccinations, behavioral health, and preparing for the next public health crisis.   Its next hearing on the COVID-19 response is currently scheduled for July 20. 

Senate and House Judiciary Committees

Broadly, these committees consider legislation related to the judicial system and play a critical role in providing oversight of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the agencies under the Department’s jurisdiction, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  In particular, the Senate Judiciary Committee considers executive nominations for positions in the DOJ, FBI, and DHS.  The Senate committee also reviews all judiciary nominations, including Supreme Court, appellate court, and district court nominees.  Specific to health care, both committees review matters relating to antitrust law, such as the merger and acquisition of health providers.  The committees also review patent law issues as they apply to drug and medical device manufacturers. 

Recent Activity: The Senate Judiciary Committee has focused much of its work in July on reviewing and voting on the Administration’s judicial nominees.  Other issues of note have focused on anti-competitive behavior among health care providers, particularly as it relates to drug pricing and hospital consolidation.  Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee recently advanced several antitrust bills and has held similar hearings on anti-competitive behavior in health care as well as voting rights and immigration.

Senate and House Appropriations Committees

These committees are responsible for the appropriation of revenue for the support of the government.  Appropriations is divided into 12 accounts, with two having the most influence on health care: Labor, Health and Human Service, Education, and Related Agencies (LHHS); and Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies (Ag-FDA).  LHHS dictates funding for all major components of HHS except for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is covered under Ag-FDA. 

Recent Activity: The House Appropriation subcommittees have kicked off the process of reviewing and marking up spending bills for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, whereas the Senate Appropriation subcommittees have not started.  The full House Appropriations is scheduled to vote this week on spending bills for several accounts, which includes LHHS and Ag-FDA..  As government funding runs out in 78 days, lawmakers may have to pass a stopgap measure, known as a Continuing Resolution (CR) to keep the government running if both chambers cannot agree on top line numbers and pass a long-term spending bill for FY 2022. 

Senate and House Budget Committees

These committees focus on the details of the federal budget, drafting of the budget resolution, and compiling and reconciling legislation for all areas including health care. These committees also oversee the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which “scores” bills according to how much they would cost once enacted.  The Senate Budget Committee specifically reviews the nominee for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Recent Activity: The Senate Budget Committee is working to finalize a budget resolution, which will include reconciliation instructions, to allow Democrats to advance a multitrillion-dollar package later this year.  Meanwhile, both the Senate and House Budget committees have held hearings to review the Administration’s FY 2022 budget request.

House Ways and Means Committee

This committee’s jurisdiction is very similar to that of the Senate Finance Committee in that it also oversees health programs under the Social Security Act, such as Medicare, Social Security, and TANF.  However, the committee does not have jurisdiction over Medicaid.  The committee is considered particularly impactful among congressional members because of its authority on tax issues. 

Recent Activity: The Ways and Means Committee has recently conducted oversight hearings on improving access to housing and expanding access to education.

House Energy and Commerce Committee

In addition to being the oldest standing committee in the House of Representatives, this committee has the broadest jurisdiction of any House committee.  On health care, it oversees a variety of issues, including Medicare (except Medicare Part A), Medicaid, health insurance (except for employer-sponsored plans), biomedical research and development, drug and device safety, and public health issues.  The health-related departments and agencies it oversees are HHS, FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health.

Recent Activity: The House Energy and Commerce Committee has been working on a number of areas within its health care jurisdiction to advance legislation on expanding access to health care coverage, improving maternal health, enhancing behavioral health, addressing social determinants of health, lowering drug costs, and addressing health equity.

House Education and Labor Committee

This committee has jurisdiction over education and labor issues.   This includes all employment-related health and retirement security issues, including employer-sponsored health plans.  The committee is also interested in health care workforce issues. 

Recent Activity: Two subcommittees on the House Education and Labor Committee are set to review issues affecting the direct care workforce in a hearing on July 20.

Congress

Will August Recess Be Canceled This Year?

by Matt Gontarchick

Summer has arrived, and once again, some members of Congress are calling for August recess to be scrapped.  Does this mean lawmakers will be working through the summer on infrastructure and other high-priority legislative items, or are calls to keep members of Congress in Washington throughout August nothing but noise? 

The History of August Recess 

The practice of lawmakers leaving town in August goes back to 1970, when Congress enacted the Legislative Restoration Act.  The law created a mandatory five-week break for lawmakers beginning in the first week of August and concluding after Labor Day, partly in response to the growing length of legislative sessions.  From the late 19th Century to the 1930s, Congress convened only five or six months out of the year.  By the 1950s, however, Senators and Representatives found themselves in Washington most of the year, prompting calls to “modernize Congress” and give lawmakers a break.  At the time the Legislative Restoration Act was passed, Congress had many younger members with children who sought a more predictable legislative schedule with time set aside to spend with family.

August Recess Isn’t Really Recess

Just because Representatives and Senators aren’t in Washington to convene hearings or cast votes doesn’t meaning August is essentially a month-long vacation.  What’s commonly referred to as “recess” is really a “district work period” according to the House and a “state work period” in the Senate.  It should be noted that state and district work periods are not limited to August and occur throughout the year, although in shorter durations and scheduled closer to federal holidays.  While members are Congress do take advantage of August for some R&R, most of their month is spent engaged in the following activities:

  • Meeting with constituents.  Members of Congress consider connecting with voters to be the most important way to spend their time when outside of Washington.  Specific activities include having meetings in in their local offices; visiting schools, hospitals, and businesses; hosting townhalls; and taking interviews with local media.  Representatives and Senators also use work periods to reconnect with state and district staff who facilitate valuable constituent services.
  • CODELs.  Shorthand for “Congressional Delegation,” CODELs are privately funded trips that members take in their official capacities as lawmakers, often overseas. 
  • Campaigning and fundraising.  The month of August is often used by members to connect face-to-face with donors and supporters.  But these activities are conducted on their own time since political activities are not allowed under congressional rules.  

The Push for Canceling the August State/District Work Period in 2021

This year, some Senate Democrats including Sens. Chris Van Hollen (MD), Jeff Merkley (OR), Ed Markey (MA), and Richard Blumenthal (CT) are leading the charge for continuing legislative business through at least part of August.  Their justification for shortening or eliminating this year’s August state/district work period is to provide more time for Democratic lawmakers to advance their legislative goals.  With August less than a month away, congressional Democrats are already behind on several priorities, including passing a bipartisan infrastructure bill, a reconciliation package, police reform, immigration reform, and gun violence legislation.  Regardless, prospects for even cutting back the month-long break from Washington appear dim at this point.  Some members of the Senate Democratic leadership don’t seem keen on the idea, with Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) publicly throwing cold water on the idea.  However, Durbin did acknowledge that Senate Democrats have a lot of unfinished legislative business to attend to.   

Pros and Cons

Canceling or at least reducing recess has some legislative benefits for Democrats, as it would give members more time to work on bills, offer amendments, and debate.  Outside of legislative goals, working through August in Washington would provide Senate Democrats more time to confirm the Biden Administration’s executive and judicial nominees.  But there are plenty of reasons to keep the month-long state and district work period in 2021, too. 

As discussed, this period provides valuable opportunities for members to connect in-person with constituents through meetings, town halls, and other events.  This is especially valuable for members who live far away from Washington, DC and are limited in how they can utilize their weekends due to travel times.  And given that midterm elections tend to be unfavorable to the party that won the White House two years prior, Democrats would be wise to use August 2021 to connect with voters.

August Recess Has Been Canceled Before…

If Senate Democratic leadership opt to cancel August’s state work period this year, it wouldn’t be the first time Congress eschewed its month-long summer break from Washington. 

…But It’s Still Rare for Recess to Be Canceled

However, instances of lawmakers actually canceling or drawing back on August state/district work periods appear to be the exception, not the rule.  Nearly every year, at least one lawmaker appears to make the case for Representatives and/or Senators to continue working through the eighth month of the year in Washington.

When Congress does cut short its month-long summer break, it’s generally to deal with a major crisis, such as a global pandemic or a natural disaster.  In most cases, calls to waive August recess are mostly forgotten, mainly because a one-month stretch to connect with voters is simply too valuable for Representatives and Senators to forgo.  While Senate Democrats might find themselves under pressure to make progress on various legislative goals this summer, they’re most likely to find themselves outside of Washington come next month.

Congress

What You Need to Know about Medicare Insolvency

by Matt Gontarchick

Medicare is in trouble.  The Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund, which finances Medicare Part A, already spends more than it brings in, and without help from Congress, the trust fund is projected to become insolvent in just a few years.  Unfortunately, the HI trust fund has been down this road before, requiring Congress to take action to stave off insolvency and extend the lifespan of the trust fund at several points in the past.  What exactly does insolvency mean for Medicare, and how can lawmakers put the program on solid financial footing?

The State of the Trust Fund

Concerns over Medicare insolvency aren’t exactly new.  Since the program’s creation in 1965, Medicare has faced insolvency on a fairly regular basis.  Even before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the HI Trust Fund was projected to hit insolvency by 2030.  However, the pandemic has exacerbated the trust fund’s financial outlook considerably.  Since payroll taxes are the chief source of revenue for the trust fund, job losses from COVID-19 have resulted in less incoming revenue for Part A.  Another factor which hastened the fund’s depletion is the fact that $60 billion of funding provided to the Provider Relief Fund under the CARES Act came from the HI trust fund.

What Does Insolvency Actually Mean?

Contrary to what many believe, insolvency wouldn’t mean the HI trust fund had completely run out of money or would be unable to pay out claims.  Rather, it would mean the trust fund would no longer have any assets.  Once the trust fund depletes, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects annual program revenues from payroll taxes will only cover about 92% of annual program outlays.  Absent any congressional action, insolvency would mean Medicare payments to providers would be reduced to levels that could only be covered by incoming tax revenues.  This could affect providers through one of two scenarios.  In the first scenario, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) would reimburse claims as revenue comes into the trust fund, but as tax revenues come in at a slower rate than provider claims, the amount of time between the filling of claims and reimbursement would grow, resulting in delayed payments for providers.  Under the second scenario, CMS would pay a decreased rate for all Part A care.  According to a CBO report from September 2020, Part A would only have enough tax revenue to pay 83 cents for each dollar billed upon the trust fund reaching insolvency.  This means that for every $100 owed to providers for Part A-covered services, CMS would only be able to reimburse $83. 

It should also be noted that the HI trust fund’s exact date of insolvency is unknown.  In September 2020, CBO initially projected the trust fund would become insolvent by 2024.  However, improved estimates for job growth and the employment rate in a February 2021 report from CBO prompted many analysts to push the anticipated date on insolvency back two years.  

Déjà Vu All Over Again

Lawmakers have come to Medicare’s rescue in the past when the program faced similar financial problems, only to take back or delay some of the financial pain the laws inflicted on providers.  When Medicare approached insolvency in the 1990s, Congress ushered in major changes to the program via the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997, which increased cost sharing for beneficiaries, reduced the growth of payments to providers, and expanded prospective payments to post-acute care facilities.  In 2002, Congress began a 13-year run of delaying the resulting cuts to physicians and other Part B providers through legislative efforts commonly known as the “doc fix.”  Congress once again took action in 2009 to shore up the trust fund via the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Under the landmark health law, a growth in payroll taxes for high-income Americans and a Medicare net investment income tax increased the program’s solvency to a total of 19 years.  However, Congress ended up repealing many of the ACA’s revenue-generating policies like the “Cadillac Tax” and medical device tax, as well as the hugely unpopular Independent Payment Advisory Board, meaning the trust fund was once again facing hard times.  The Budget Control Act of 2011 ushered in an era of automatic Medicare payment cuts, which Congress continues to suspend, doing so through December 31, 2021 in the most recent COVID-19 relief law. 

How to Address Medicare’s Finances

There is no shortage of proposals to delay Part A’s insolvency, most of which revolve around either reducing spending or increasing revenue.  Many of these ideas would require statutory changes.  Below are some key proposals summarized.

  • Raise Medicare Taxes.  Congress could consider raising payroll taxes by 0.38% each on employees and employers to stave off insolvency.  However, such a move would be politically unpopular and inopportune as the economy continues to recover from the pandemic.  As an alternative, Congress could consider using the proceeds of the net investment income tax to finance the HI Trust Fund.  Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), high-income Americans have a 3.8% net investment income tax, and bumping this up to 4% would provide the trust fund $490 billion in additional revenue over 10 years.
  • Build an Integrated Benefit and Trust Fund Structure.  Instead of having two separate insurance plans for Medicare – one for inpatient services (Part A) and one for ambulatory care (Part B) – Congress could integrate benefits covering inpatient and outpatient care with a simplified cost-sharing structure for patients.  Revenue sources would remain the same, although general fund payments to cover Medicare’s costs would be indexed in future years to a measure of economic growth or another measure not tied to Medicare’s costs.
  • Turn Medicare into a Premium Support Program. Beneficiaries would choose a plan each year, with the federal contribution determined by the second-lowest bid for all plans.  Instead of defining benchmarks by spending growth in the fee-for-service program, benchmarks would be defined by the second-lowest bid.  Competition among plans to be the second-lowest bidder would incentivize plans to keep premiums low.
  • Advance Health Equity.  Health inequities cost the US $83 billion each year and contribute to poor health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries, subsequently driving greater spending.  Medicare could utilize telehealth, implicit bias training, regular screening for social and nonmedical needs, and enhanced data on beneficiaries to reduce chronic conditions and improve beneficiaries’ health.
  • Expand Promising Alternative Payment Models.  Alternative payment models create incentives for providers to collaborate to provide high-value care.  Since most alternative payment models have failed to produce noticeable savings, CMS could double down on the most promising models and encourage long-term investment in them. 

Medicare is very popular among beneficiaries, and lawmakers have repeatedly vowed to ensure the program has a future.  With potentially only a few years until the program faces a financial reckoning, Congress may yet take up the mantle to make changes to Medicare to ensure its long-term sustainability.  What those changes may be – and whether Congress can stick to its plan – are far from certain.

Congress

Should Hill Staffers Be Paid More?

by Matt Gontarchick

On June 29, House appropriators signed off on a report to look into whether Members of Congress deserve a pay raise.   Does that mean their staff should get a pay raise, too? 

In Washington, DC, the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $1,630.  That’s a tough pill to swallow if you’re a young congressional staffer barely making over $30,000 a year.  The cost of living in the Washington, DC metropolitan area has soared in recent years while salaries for Hill staffers have barely budged, contributing to what some have observed as high turnover and low diversity among congressional staff. 

How Staff Are Paid

Each Member of the House of Representatives receives a Members’ Representational Allowance (MRA), which supports Representatives in their official duties.  The MRA is funded through the House “Salaries and Expenses” account in the annual Legislative Branch appropriations bill.  It is calculated into three components: personnel, official office expenses, and official (franked) mail.  Each component is combined into a single MRA reauthorization that can be used to pay for any type of expense, such as staff or travel.  While the personnel amount is the same for each member, official office and franked mail expenses vary depending on the distance between the Representative’s district and Washington, DC.  Each Representative may use the MRA to employ no more than 18 permanent employees, an amount that been unchanged since 1975.   Members are permitted to distribute staff salaries as they see fit and usually  interns and entry-level staff receive the lowest compensation, while senior staff receive higher salaries.  For many House staffers, maximum salaries have been unchanged since 2009.

Similar to their counterparts in the House, Members of the Senate receive a Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA) to assist in official duties that is funded through the “Contingent Expenses of the Senate” account in the annual Legislative Branch appropriations bill.  The SOPOEA also consists of three categories (administrative and clerical assistance, legislative assistance, and official office expense) that are combined and may be used for any official expense, including staff salaries.  Typically, salaries for Senate staffers are higher than those for House staffers.  The SOPOEA saw a decrease in funding from FY 2010 to FY 2014 and remained the same from FY 2014 to FY 2017 before seeing a small increase in FY 2018.

Below is a chart listing average salaries for key House and Senate staff positions.

PositionHouseSenate
Chief of Staff$153,302$170,278
Press Secretary$62,515$75,842
Scheduler$56,270$78,420
Legislative Director$89,589$141,886
Legislative Counsel$70,871$95,611
Legislative Assistant$56,741$80,594
Legislative Correspondent$45,457$49,221
Staff Assistant$41,961$42,814

Again, these figures are averages, and actual salaries can vary widely between congressional offices.  In the House, for example, staff assistants surveyed made between $29,000 and $67,333 per year as of 2019.  Additionally, not all House and Senate staffers receive their salaries from MRAs and SOPOEAs respectively, as the Legislative Branch appropriations bill provides separate funding accounts for both leadership and committee staff.  In the House and Senate, leadership offices are funded as individual line items, such as the Office of the Speaker and the Offices of the [Senate] Majority and Minority Leaders.  Additionally, House committees are funded under a “Committee Employees” account, while the Senate has separate accounts for the Appropriations Committee, Conference Committees, and Policy Committees. 

The Impact on Staffers

While salaries for congressional staff have barely changed over the past decade, financial pressures on Hill staffers have grown considerably.  In addition to the National Capital Region’s skyrocketing housing costs, many staffers are seeing more and more of their hard-earned dollars go towards paying off student loan debt to cover rising college tuition.  High childcare costs in the Washington, DC area are an additional financial burden on staffers who are parents of young children.

All these pressures have implications for the congressional workforce, including:

  • High turnover.  Many staffers find salaries on Capitol Hill to be unsustainably low, leaving them to seek out better paying positions in the private sector, especially with lobbying firms, law firms, consulting firms, and trade associations.  Many staffers also seek higher paying positions in the executive branch.  High turnover also limits the ability of congressional offices to retain institutional knowledge, as staffers who gain expertise in a particular policy take what they’ve learned off the Hill.
  • Lack of diversity.  Staffers from more affluent backgrounds are better able to afford the Washington, DC area’s high cost of living, while staffers from lower-income backgrounds may eschew continued service on Capitol Hill out of economic necessity.   

Despite salary concerns, staff may find that there are certain benefits to working on the Hill. For instance, staff may have access to a student loan repayment program that provides up to $10,000 in assistance per year, similar to a program for executive branch employees.  The loan repayment program comes with a number of caveats, however,  only federal student loans are applicable, and staffers participating in the program must stay in their offices for at least a year.  Additionally, individual offices may have their own policies on loan repayment, like giving all staff members a set amount of money or using a sliding scale based on tenure or income.  Furthermore, the more staff an office has, the fewer dollars it is able individually offer for loan repayment.

Staff also have access to childcare centers affiliated with the House, Senate, Library of Congress, and Government Accountability Office.  However, these childcare centers have very long waitlists.

It should be noted that people do not pursue jobs on Capitol Hill only because of the pay.  Being a congressional staffer is highly desirable due to the unique experience the position offers, and it’s not uncommon for vacancies for entry- and junior-level positions in the House or Senate to attract dozens or hundreds of qualified applicants.  Working on the Hill can be seen as a steppingstone to a more lucrative positions in the private sector or the Executive Branch.  Despite the strong desirability of congressional jobs, low salaries are still likely to contribute to high turnover, as the average tenure for a Capitol Hill staffer is just over three years.

What’s Being Done?

Fortunately, concerns over staff salaries have yielded some changes.  By 2019, paid internships once again became a reality for many House and Senate offices after cuts to MRAs and SOPOEAs in 2011 forced offices to make many internships unpaid  as a cost-cutting measure.  Thanks to the  FY 2019 Legislative Branch appropriations bill, each individual House office has a pool of $20,000 it can spend on intern compensation annually, while the amount offered to Senate offices depends on state size.  The reintroduction of paid internships to Capitol Hill was part of a multi-year effort to allow individuals from a more diverse range of socioeconomic backgrounds to be introduced to a career in public service.   However, workforce diversity issues remain a concern.  According to a report issued in May 2021, most interns on Capitol Hill were white and had attended private universities. 

Some Members have taken it upon themselves to pay staff more.  In 2019, then-freshman Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) announced that all of her staff would be a paid a minimum of $52,000 to handle high living expenses in the Washington, DC area.  To make this high minimum salary possible, Ocasio-Cortez capped salaries for senior positions in her office at $80,000.  Other House offices have yet to adopt Ocasio-Cortez’s compensation model, possibly out of concern that lower salaries for senior positions could make it more challenging to attract top talent.  However, the New York Congresswoman may be in a better position to attract high-quality senior staff due to her status has a high-profile Representative.

Recently, House Democratic leaders have been making a more substantive push to boost staff salaries.  In April 2021, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) sent a letter to top Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee requesting a 20% increase in the MRA.  In their letter, Hoyer and Jeffries say higher salaries would allow House offices to compete with better-paying private sector employers for top talent and allow current staff a better shot at achieving economic security in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. 

Additionally, in May 2021, Hoyer and Jeffries teamed up with House Administration Committee Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) to study whether expanded benefits should be included in the FY 2022 Legislative Branch appropriations bill to further boost staff recruitment and retention efforts. Some of the benefits under consideration include reimbursement for adoption or fertility treatment, first-time homebuyer assistance, and a 529 college savings plan.

What Will Happen Next?

It seems that calls to increase staffer pay are finally being heard, at least in the House.  On June 29, the House Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee favorably report its  FY 2022 appropriations bill, which contains a 21% increase to the MRA, as well as a boost to the paid internship program.  This might prove to be the first step in ushering in higher pay for Hill staffers.  On the Senate side, there doesn’t appear to be much momentum to increase staff salaries, which are still somewhat higher than they are in the House.  Some members may be concerned about the optics of raising the MRA, as it could lead to criticism that congressional staffers are getting a pay boost at the expense of taxpayers.  Still, if a desire to address the high cost-of-living in the DC area and increase diversity was enough to provide funding for interns, it might be enough to provide a much-needed pay raise for Hill staffers.

Congress

Can Democrats Scrap the Filibuster?

by Matt Gontarchick

The filibuster is a time-honored tradition in the Senate that allows any Senator to prolong debate and delay or prevent a vote on a bill.  Currently, 60 votes are needed in the Senate to end debate and pass most pieces of legislation, a threshold that requires Democrats to have the support of at least 10 Republicans to advance bills through the 50-50 Senate.  It has been difficult thus far for Senate Democrats to win over enough Republicans which is severely limiting what Democrats can accomplish legislatively.  This begs the question: why don’t Democrats simply scrap the filibuster?

Changing the Rules

Rules are made to broken, right?  Well, it’s not that simple.

There are 2 options to end the filibuster rule.  One option is to move forward to change Senate Rule 22, the rule that requires 60 votes to end debate.  BUT, Senate Democrats need a super-majority – 67 votes – to change the rule.  The other option is to create a new precedent in the Senate.  Changing the precedent, also known as the “nuclear option,” would require only a simple majority.

Not Enough Democratic Support

While Senate Democrats only need 50 votes to create a new precedent on the filibuster, the biggest hurdle is that not all 50 Senate Democrats are on board.  The most vocal supporters of the filibuster are Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), who have repeatedly voiced their opposition to removing the filibuster since Democrats narrowly regained control of the Senate in January 2021. 

Manchin most recently affirmed his filibuster support on June 6 when he wrote, “I will not vote to weaken or eliminate the filibuster” in an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail.  In his op-ed, Manchin pointed out that Senate Democrats were quick to defend the filibuster when then-President Donald Trump called for the tactic to be thrown out in 2017 when the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House.  Similarly, Sinema declared on June 2 that the filibuster “protects the democracy of our nation rather than allowing our country to ricochet wildly every two to four years.”  More so, Sinema has expressed support for restoring the 60-vote threshold to advance nominations. 

Other Senate Democrats have conveyed some hesitancy to remove the filibuster.  When asked in January 2021 if he supported keeping the filibuster, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) declined to answer specifically and instead stated that he supports bipartisanship.  Additionally, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) also said in January that “it would take an awful, awful lot for me to end the filibuster.”

What About Reforming the Filibuster?

Between keeping or throwing away the filibuster, reforming the filibuster as we know it could be a third option and a compromise for Manchin and Sinema to consider.  On March 7, Manchin did state that he supports making the filibuster more “painful” if senators want to use it.  The scenario Manchin referred to is the “talking filibuster,” whereby members of the minority party can filibuster only as long as they are on the floor.  Once a senator relents, there would be a simple majority threshold.  The talking filibuster used to be the norm in the Senate until it was scrapped in 1975 because senators thought it was too time-consuming.

There is more recent precedent for reforming the filibuster.  In 2013, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) led the way to allow all nominees except for Supreme Court justices to advance in the Senate with a simple majority.  It should be noted that Reid accomplished this following a strong 2012 midterm election that saw the number of Democratic Senators grow from 53 to 55, while then-President Barack Obama publicly admonished Senate Republicans for consistently blocking his agenda.  In 2017, Republicans expanded on this when then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) permitted Supreme Court nominees to also be approved with a simple majority.  McConnell proceeded to strike the filibuster in this scenario after Senate Democrats blocked the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch.

However, it’s unclear to what extent Manchin and Sinema would be open to even reforming the filibuster.  Manchin’s June 6 op-ed clearly states an opposition to “weakening” the filibuster, while Sinema’s comments on restoring the 60-vote requirement to advance all nominees suggests an unwillingness to change.

What Does Biden Say?

Over the course of his long career in Washington, President Joe Biden has evolved from being a staunch supporter of the filibuster to embracing calls for reform.  In the wake of the Sandy Hook mass shooting, then-Vice President Biden referred to the filibuster as a “perverted” rule after the Senate failed to advance gun violence legislation in 2013.  More recently, Biden expressed support for restoring the talking filibuster in an April 2021 interview.    

On June 2, Biden took a rare move to say “two members of the Senate who voted more with my Republican friends” when asked why progress on a voting rights bill has stalled.  Biden was of course referring to Manchin and Sinema, who still technically vote with Democrats more often than not.  Biden’s move to publicly call out the two suggests a willingness to use the power of the bully pulpit to condemn Democrats opposed to changing the filibuster, especially if his agenda continues to face staunch GOP opposition.

What Happens Next?

So far, the filibuster hasn’t totally derailed the Biden Administration’s agenda.  The Administration and congressional Democrats have already scored a policy victory by advancing the American Rescue Plan Act, and most of the Senate’s business has focused on nominations.  However, if Senate Republicans continue to oppose key Democratic proposals on voting rights, infrastructure, and other issues, Biden and other top Democrats could turn up the pressure on Manchin, Sinema, and other Senate Democrats to support changes to the filibuster.  Whether the President or Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are willing to do that remains to be seen.