Insights^

Hill staffers say they’ve had enough.  Long hours, low pay, and cases of emotional and physical abuse are driving more and more congressional staffers to form the Congressional Workers Union with the hope of delivering better working conditions and higher pay.  But forming a union on the Hill is easier said than done, and staffers hoping for better working conditions in their current roles might have to wait for some time.

Why unionize?  The cost of living in the Washington, DC area is notoriously high, with the average rent for a studio apartment in the District going for $1,891.  Finding the money to cover high rent can be hard – 13% of Washington-based staff (about 1,200) make less than $42,610 each, which is the average salary needed to cover basic essentials like rent and groceries in DC.   On top of that, staffers face sub-par working conditions that have been regularly documented in the Instagram account @dear_white_staffers, which details stories anonymously of poor treatment by members and staff, harassment, burnout, and more.  Given all these pain points, it’s no surprise that turnover among House staff is at its highest level in 20 years.

High turnover among Hill staffers has negative implications outside of Congress.  For one, it’s bad news for advocates because it gives them fewer opportunities to develop meaningful relationships that help them advance their cause.  Additionally, an ever-changing staff makeup deprives Congress of the institutional knowledge and policy expertise it needs to pass legislation that impacts the American people.  By boosting pay and improving working conditions, congressional staff might be compelled to stick around the Hill longer – allowing them to forge deeper bonds with advocates, and more strongly familiarize themselves on the issues important to them and develop legislation that works better for most Americans.

Unfortunately for staffers, there are a lot of challenges to forming a union on the Hill.  These include:

• Legal issues.  Congress is exempt from federal labor laws that protect most US employees’ labor-organizing activities.  Absent any legal protections, staff are reluctant to publicly push for a union because it could lead to them being fired or blacklisted.
• Partisan problems.  In general, Democrats have supported staff efforts to unionize, while Republicans do not.  During a March 2 congressional hearing on a bill to allow staff to collectively bargain, GOP members said unionization efforts were “impractical,” would add to “even more dysfunction in Washington,” and amounted to a “solution in search of a problem.”  Outside of the hearing, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) has referred to unionization as a “terrible idea,” and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) said giving staff the ability to organize is “nuts.” But it’s not just Republicans who stand in the way – Democrats who are generally pro-worker and pro-union could be at risk for allegations of hypocrisy if they fail to support their own staff’s organizing efforts.
• Operational considerations.  Congressional offices aren’t like normal businesses that can raise salaries and boost benefits based on market conditions.  Instead, each office is provided a yearly allowance that covers a range of expenses, like staff pay, travel funds, and mail.  Unfortunately, these allowances don’t provide much flexibility on staffers’ salaries.  While the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 omnibus appropriations bill did boost the yearly allowance for House offices by 21%, this doesn’t guarantee House staffers will see higher pay as a result.  More so, each congressional offices operates independently, which means a unionized congressional staff would essentially involve hundreds of individual unions throughout the Hill.  Additionally, there’s a chance majority and minority staffers on each committee could try to organize separately, adding to the number of potential unions.

What’s next?  Rep. Andy Levin (D-MI) introduced a resolution that would remove the exemption barring staffers working for individual members, committees and leadership offices to form a union.  To date, Levin’s resolution has garnered 165 cosponsors, all Democrats.  While this resolution would only apply to the House, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has signaled interested in introducing a resolution for the Senate side.

Beyond this, next steps are unclear.  Levin’s resolution will require approval from both the House Committee on Administration and House Committee on Education and Labor, and even then, the measure needs the support of 61 additional Democrats before it can secure the 217 votes needed to pass the House.  On top of this, the resolution has some technical issues that will take a few weeks to address.  And while Levin’s resolution would face at least attainable odds of passing in the Democratically controlled House, any Senate resolution on collective bargaining would have little chance of garnering the 60 votes needed to override a filibuster.  No Republican senators have endorsed efforts to unionize, and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has voiced some skepticism about staffers forming unions.

However, Hill staffers are undeterred in their efforts to advocate for the ability to form unions.  As long as low pay and poor working conditions continue to be a fact of life for employees of congressional offices, staffers will continue to voice for changes to allow them to organize – even if the realization of those changes may be a long way off.

Medicare cuts are coming.  Automatic spending cuts like Medicare sequestration and PAYGO were initially put in place with the goal of reigning in federal spending, but time after time, Congress has delayed them to shield the popular health care program from payment cuts.  These cuts are nothing new – in fact, they’re part of a long-standing tradition that began with the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR).

PAYGO and Sequestration: A Brief History

Two laws currently trigger mandatory cuts to Medicare if lawmakers pass legislation that adds to the deficit.  The first, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Act of 2010, requires the president to implement spending cuts to mandatory programs like Medicare and farm support if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determines there is a deficit on six- or 11-year PAYGO scorecards.

The second law is the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011, which sets off across-the-board cuts to both mandatory and discretionary spending if spending exceeds explicitly set limits, or “caps.”  These cuts included a maximum 2% reduction in payments to Medicare providers known as Medicare sequestration.

However, Medicare is an incredibly popular program, with over 61 million beneficiaries.  Lawmakers are certainly sensitive to the political consequences of cutting funding to the popular federal health care program, which is why they’ve taken action to avoid automatic cuts as much as possible.  To date, neither the Medicare sequester nor the PAYGO cuts have ever gone into effect.

The SGR’s Precedent for Delaying Medicare Cuts

Congress’s strong tradition of delaying cuts to Medicare goes back to the SGR, which was implemented as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.  The SGR created a formula that was intended to prevent Medicare spending growth for the Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) from exceeding GDP growth.  However, health care spending was continually outpacing GDP growth, making it clear that cuts to the PFS were inevitable.  To avoid the reimbursement cuts for physician services, Congress passed legislation to prevent the cuts from going into effect 17 times between 2003 and 2015.

The need for Congress to keep kicking the can down the road to prevent PFS cuts came to an end in 2015, when lawmakers enacted the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA).  It replaced the SGR formula with the Merit-Based Incentive Payments System (MIPS), which measures Medicare providers based on performance.  While MIPS hasn’t been without its faults, the new law means Congress no longer has to take action every year to address the SGR.

It’s worth noting the SGR is not the same as PAYGO and sequestration – while the former only impacted physician payment, the latter affects reimbursement to Medicare providers more broadly. However, both have negative implications for providers and patients if they’re carried out, which is why Congress has regularly prevented such cuts from going into effect.

Fortunately, Congress no longer has to deal with the SGR on an annual basis because after 15 years, lawmakers finally stepped up to pass legislation to make structural changes to the way physicians are paid.  Does that mean lawmakers will one day step up to make the structural necessary to stop kicking the can down the road every year with Medicare sequestration and PAYGO cuts?

Congress last took action to address the Medicare sequester and PAYGO when it enacted the Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act in December 2021.  The law waives a 4% PAYGO cut until 2023, and it imposes a moratorium on the Medicare sequester until April 1, when a 1% cut goes into effect.  In July, the Medicare sequester then increases to 2%.

While structural changes to address Medicare sequestration and PAYGO are possible, Congress is more polarized now than it was when passed MACRA seven years ago, leaving little room to pass comprehensive legislation to reform the budgeting process.  Additionally, the BCA and the PAYGO Act are far more complex than the legislation that eventually replaced SGR and would require significantly more effort for lawmakers to advance.  Therefore, until there’s widespread agreement among both parties on how to reform Medicare’s payment system, the near-annual ritual of delaying Medicare cuts is likely to continue to for some time.

Washington, DC is coming back.  Since the Omicron wave has receded, the Smithsonian is expanding hours at its museums, foot traffic is picking up along K Street, and downtown bars are feeling a little more crowded during happy hour.  But one major exception to DC’s reopening is the US Capitol Complex, which is still largely closed to visitors.  As the rest of the nation continues to transition to a new normal, lawmakers and advocates are wondering when the Capitol will follow suit.

The Evolving Situation for Visitors

Since the Capitol was closed to the public in March 2020, congressional leaders have yet to publicly outline a reopening timeline.  While guests can currently visit members’ offices in the House and Senate office buildings, not just anyone can walk through the door.  All visitors to members’ offices must register in advance and require a member or staff escort upon arrival.  Additionally, both the House and Senate limits the number of visitors per group.

The reopening process has been off to a gradual start in the Senate.  In December 2021, the Senate reinstated tours for visitors, albeit with strict limitations in place.   Individual Senate offices are only allowed two 30-minute tours per week.  All tours must be staff-led, and only tours of up to six visitors each are permitted every half-hour between 9am and 3pm.  Additionally, tours are limited to the Crypt, the Rotunda, and the Brumidi Corridors.

The Senate took another step towards normalcy on March 1, 2022 when it passed by unanimous consent a resolution to reopen the Senate office buildings to the public.  Since then, lobbyists and other visitors have been able to meet in Senate offices on official business.

Calls to Fully Reopen Capitol Complex Grow

As jurisdictions across the country have loosened COVID-19 restrictions over the past few weeks, a growing number of lawmakers say it’s time for the Capitol to fully reopen to the public.  Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI)  is supportive of more broadly restarting Capitol tours, while Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) called for the Capitol complex to reopen to visitors on March 8 to aid Washington, DC’s tourist economy.  Allowing more visitors on the Hill would align with work habits of congressional staff, who have been increasingly showing up to work in-person after nearly two years of working remotely.

External stakeholders are weighing in, too.  On March 9, the National Institute for Lobbying and Ethics sent a letter to congressional leaders to start  a dialogue with them on how to reopen the Capitol to the public without appointments.

Why reopen? Congress is an institution that serves the people.  Great strides have been made in advocating virtually, but it’s no replacement for developing relationships through in-person interactions.  By keeping lawmakers and their staff physically separated from the public, advocates are justifiably concerned that they’re limited in how they can communicate their message.

What Reopening Could Look Like

Fortunately for advocates, it appears that congressional leaders are at least thinking about allowing visitors to House offices and tour the Capitol more freely.  According to news reports, the Capitol will kick off its reopening on March 28 with a three-phase process lasting several months.

• Starting on March 28, Phase 1 will see the limit on groups of visitors increase from nine to 15, along with the resumption of staff-led tours.  Additionally, school groups will once again be permitted to tour the Capitol, although these tours will be limited to 50 students.
• Phase 2 begins on May 30, which will see a “limited reopening” of the Capitol Visitor Center.”
• Phase 3 will bring a full reopening by Labor Day, although details are still being worked out.

It should be noted that reopening plans thus far are highly tentative, and the US Capitol Police and the House and Senate sergeants at arms offices are still hashing out the specifics.  A major reason why the reopening is being drawn out over the spring and summer is staffing problems with the Capitol Police, which is currently short hundreds of officers – the department’s training academy was closed during the pandemic, and hundreds of officers resigned following the January 6^th riot.

Democrats and Republicans haven’t always been seeing eye to eye in discussions over how to reopen for the past few weeks.   On March 3, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) outlined  some of his concerns during a somewhat tense colloquy with House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA).  During the colloquy, Hoyer said the Office of the Attending Physician and the Sergeant at Arms are looking into reopening “from a health and security standpoint.”  Hoyer didn’t offer a specific reopening timeline, simply stating, “as soon as we can do that responsibly, we ought to do that.”  Addressing security, Hoyer expressed a desire to have a “gun-free” and “weapon-free” Capitol once it reopens, and he implied the Republicans weren’t taking ramifications of the January 6^th riot seriously enough.

Indeed, the security apparatus at the US Capitol Complex haven’t changed much since the deadly riots over a year ago.  The Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 omnibus appropriations bill contains additional funds to update security measures on the Hill and provide for more Capitol Police officers, but this measure was only signed into law days ago, and it will take time for the additional funds to translate into tangible security improvements at the Capitol.  Without new security measures in place, some Democratic lawmakers are still worried that the Capitol is vulnerable to another attack.

The decision to reopen the Capitol is a major step towards normal for lawmakers, advocates, and the general public.   Nonetheless, congressional leaders and the Capitol Police face a difficult job over the next few months as they try to balance the importance of allowing lawmakers to connect in-person with their constituents while addressing security concerns for all parties involved.

Biden Poised to $1.5 Trillion Appropriations Omnibus into Law

Late last night, the Senate voted 68-31 to pass a $1.5 trillion omnibus appropriations bill, which is now headed to President Biden’s desk to be signed into law.  The spending bill contains wins for both parties, with Democrats cheering a 7% increase in non-defense spending and Republicans touting a 6% increase in defense appropriations.  Additionally, the omnibus bill marks the return of earmarks to the appropriations process for the first time in over a decade.  However, getting the bill across the finish line was marked with challenges, including a contentious move to cut $15 billion in COVID-19 funding from the bill after a number of Democrats revolted against using pandemic relief funds already directed to states as a pay-for.

FY22 Omnibus Provides $1 Billion for ARPA-H

A notable highlight of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 omnibus appropriations bill is $1 billion in funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), a new agency that would be charged with accelerating biomedical breakthroughs.  The omnibus text stipulates that ARPA-H be within the Department of Health and Human Services but gives the HHS secretary 30 days to make the decision to house ARPA-H within another agency, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  However, the $1 billion in funding falls far short of the President’s initial request for $6.5 billion. Next week, the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on the House Energy and Commerce will hold a hearing titled “The Future of Medicine: Legislation to Encourage Innovation and Improve Oversight”, which includes  legislation that authorizes ARPA-H.

Voters Signal Support for Administration’s New COVID-19 Plan

According to a new Morning Consult/Politico survey, American voters largely approve of the Biden administration’s roadmap to address the COVID-19 pandemic.  For instance, 71% said they support giving people antiviral pills at pharmacies to people who test positive for COVID-19 and making improvements to ventilation systems in public buildings.  The positive feedback contrasts with the views of some public health experts and former Biden administration officials who say the administration’s latest plan doesn’t go far enough to address the threats posed by the virus.  While poll respondents from both parties agreed on most aspects of the administration’s COVID-19 roadmap, Democrats were more likely to support giving vaccines to other countries and strengthening data surveillance to protect the population against new variants.

Lawmakers Say It’s Time to Make Daylight Saving Time Permanent

Members of both parties signaled an interest in changing daylight saving policy during the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection hearing on Wednesday.  Most parts of the country will set their clocks ahead one hour this Sunday, and a growing number of experts have been pointing out the negative health effects of shifting clocks biennially, such as accidents caused by the upset of circadian rhythms.  However, there was some disagreement among members of the witness panel over what specific action to take.  One law professor on the panel said there should be a permanent shift to daylight saving time to allow for as much light as possible in the early evening, while a neurologist said standard time should instead be permanent because it’s more in line with the body’s natural responses to light.

ICYMI: Smithsonian Shifts Away from COVID-19 Policies

Visits to the Smithsonian museums have been different for the last two years, with all kinds of requirements from indoor masking, online reservations, and to time limits spent at a museum.  Starting today, things will begin to feel a bit more normal as the Smithsonian museums and National Zoo drops their indoor masking requirement for visitors.  Additionally, the National Zoo and the National Museum of National History – two of the most popular Smithsonian institutions – will be open the public seven days a week for the first time since March 2020.  The Smithsonian is expected to expand its schedules at other museums in the coming weeks.

It’s time to reopen the US Capitol to visitors, say a growing number of lawmakers.  Last month, 26 Republicans senators cosponsored a resolution to reopen the US Capitol and Senate Office buildings to the public, and Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) said he’s supportive of restarting tours in the Capitol building.  Even external stakeholder are joining the call – the National Institute for Lobbying and Ethics sent a letter to congressional leaders today urging leadership to start a dialogue with them on how to reopen the Capitol to the public without appointments .

But Congress can’t reopen to the American people without staff members to take meetings and give tours.  Like a lot of Americans, congressional staff have spent most of the past two years working remotely while wearing casual, everyday attire.  What does this mean for the dress code once staffers return to in-person work in Washington?

Before the pandemic, congressional staff wore professional, business attire on days Congress was in session, while casual attire was permitted when Congress was in recess.

Since May 2021, staff have been gradually returning to in-person work in Congress, although the actual number of people in offices have shifted based on the surges of the pandemic ( for instance, in early January 2022the Office of Attending Physician urged staff to return to “maximal telework” due to a surge of the Omicron variant ).  Since then, DC-based staff have been dressing more casually in congressional offices, although some exceptions remain.  For example, professional attire is still the norm when appearing on the House or Senate floor or in a committee hearing.  Additionally, staff for congressional leadership like Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader also tends to lean professional. (Zolpidem)

It’s no surprise that most congressional staff reporting to work in-person can get away with more casual attire when they aren’t taking in-person meetings as congressional offices and the Capitol are still effectively closed to visitors.  Therefore, what does this mean for when the US Capitol Complex reopens to the public?

While the pandemic has shaken up many aspects of office life, dress codes on Capitol Hill aren’t likely to change significantly, at least for when Congress is in session.  Even though office workers throughout the US have been drifting towards casual clothing more and more in the years leading up to the pandemic, attire in the halls (and offices) of Congress have been slow to change.   Even amid the brutally hot summers of DC, congressional staff still make their way to Capitol Hill in suits.  Once visitors return to the Hill, staffers are likely to greet them in the kind of professional attire they would have seen pre-pandemic – albeit with some slightly casual tones.