Intelligence Oversight and the Fight Over the Speaker

1_WAIxvDWs4kxMfNgqYeqNkg — Credit: Clerk of the House of Representatives

It isn’t sexy, but you have to commend House Republicans for their focus on congressional process, particularly in the negotiations surrounding the selection of a new Speaker of the House of Representatives. Unlike House Democrats and both parties in the Senate, House Republicans publish their internal rules. And, unlike House Democrats, whose leadership, unfortunately, appears unlikely to consider changes to their rules — there is a serious conversation about “regular order” taking place on the majority side of the aisle.

Rules matter. A lot. As Rep. John Dingell famously said,

I’ll let you write the substance. You let me write the procedure, and I‘ll screw you every time.

He’s great on Twitter, too.

I’m a rules nerd. For the last six years, I have published suggestions on how the House and Senate should change their rules. Today I’m going to focus on how a small change to the Republican Conference Rules would effect congressional oversight, national security, and civil liberties. (The “Republican Conference” is the official grouping of congressional Republicans.)

Republican Conference rules govern which Republicans may serve on a particular committee. Personnel choices are policy choices, as who you put on a committee determines what it does. The process for choosing members and leadership is different for standing committees and select committees.

Standing committee members are nominated by a special committee, known as the Steering Committee; select committee members are nominated by the Speaker alone. In both instances, the members of the Republican Conference could decline to approve the nominations, but that is unlikely. Almost every committee is a standing committee, except for the Intelligence Committee and the Benghazi Committee, which are select committees.

In practice, what this means is the Speaker picks who serves on — and leads — the Intelligence Committee. By comparison, members of the Republican Conference have some influence over the composition of other committees, through the Steering Committee, although even in those circumstances the Speaker has outsized influence.

Consequently, the Intelligence Committee most closely reflects the views of the Speaker when compared to other committees. There is no compelling reason for the Speaker to play this role and many reasons why the Speaker should not. Many committees deal with secrets, including the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees. Select committees usually are temporary, but the House Intelligence Committee has existed since the 1970s. And the House Intelligence Committee is not functioning as it should.

While it would not solve all the problems with intelligence oversight, nomination of members of the House Intelligence Committee should be handled in the same way as members of other committees, to better reflect the diverse perspectives and competencies of the whole House. To do this, House Republican Conference rule 12(a) could be amended to read as follows:

The Republican Steering Committee shall recommend to the Republican Conference the Republican Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the standing committees of the House of Representatives, except as otherwise provided in this rule.

The Rules of the House of Representatives place a few limitations on the pool of candidates. (See page 14, subsection x.) But there’s no reason why this cannot be handled by the Steering Committee or through some other process.

The House of Representatives cannot afford to fail in its responsibilities to oversee the intelligence community. Members of the House of Representatives should take responsibility for oversight into their own hands by making sure the House Intelligence Committee reflects their priorities and the will of the House.

— Written by Daniel Schuman

Did the House Intelligence Committee Break Congressional Transparency Rules?

A meeting of the House Intelligence Committee (also known as HPSCI, pronounced Hip-see) may have broken congressional rules when it neither webcast its proceedings nor provided appropriate notice. At its January 28th meeting, HPSCI should have debated and adopted rules for its operation, its oversight plans for the next two years, and more. The Intelligence Committee often keeps the the public in the dark, but still has an obligation to inform the public.

VIDEO

House of Representatives Rule 11(e)(5)(a) requires:

“to the maximum extent practicable, each committee shall…
(A) provide audio of video coverage of each hearing or meeting for the transaction of business in a manner that allows the public to easily listen to and view the proceedings; and
(B) maintain the recordings of such coverage in a manner that is easily accessible to the public.”

And yet:

The committee’s webpage for the January 28th meeting does not contain a link to video of the proceedings. I could not find one on the committee’s webpage.
The congressional video repository maintained by the Library of Congress does not contain a video of the January 28th proceedings. The most recent video for HPSCI is from September of 2014.

There is reason to believe business was transacted, as new rules for the committee were posted on the committee’s webpage. However, there still is not a record of any business being conducted on the committee’s “business meetings” webpage.

The Committee could argue that it’s not “practical” to webcast its hearing, but considering everyone else does it and the House provides free cameras when requested, it’s a very weak argument.

MEETING NOTICE

Nowadays, committees provide notice of upcoming meetings at the congressional website docs.house.gov. A review of meeting notices for the week of January 28th, however, indicates there was no posting for HPSCI.

The Committee likely did provide notice of the hearing on its webpage, although there is no way to know when it was posted. However, that likely is insufficient. House Rules 11(g)(3)(C) require “an announcement made under this subparagraph [by the committee chair concerning meetings and hearings] shall be published promptly in the Daily Digest and made publicly available in electronic form.”

Under the Electronic Posting standards, promulgated by the Committee on House Administration, all committees must post documents, including public notices, on a central website… which is docs.house.gov.

WHY THIS MATTERS

Of all the congressional committees, the House Intelligence Committee is the most secretive — even more so than the Rules Committee, which governs how the House itself works. And yet because of the nature of HPSCI’s work, it’s important that it be as open as possible so the public can have confidence in the work it does. That confidence must be earned starting on day one when the committee establishes the rules under which it operates.

A coalition of organizations from across the political spectrum released recommendations on how HPSCI could be more open while still meeting its mandate. Those recommendation (letter, white paper), were they to be put into effect, would have been voted on that first day. The Committee needs a do-over.

NB: I have not asked the committee for comment, but I’m sure they’d be happy to hear from you.

— Written by Daniel Schuman

When It Comes to Pay, All Feds Aren’t Created Equal

It comes as little surprise to hill watchers that House staff are underpaid compared to their Senate equivalents, let alone executive branch and private sector staff, but we decided to dig a bit deeper. Just in time for the holidays (and those non-existent public sector bonuses) here’s a comparison of key positions in the House, Senate, and executive branch. We admit that the data is a bit old, like the Ghost of the War on Christmas Past, but it’s the best we can do with what’s available.

0_CxHehfpemsqzEF0u

The shaded areas in the bars for the executive branch staff show a range of potential pay.

To rub it in, chiefs of staff might earn some $141,000 in the House, but they could rake in $164,000 in the same position in the Senate. In an equivalent position in the executive branch, people with experience as a chief of staff could make anywhere from $119,000 — $198,000. (We had to use a range, but with enough time in government, those step increases add up quickly.) They could make even more in the private sector, depending on their experience, education, and connections. And as lobbyists? Well, connections do count for more than expertise. Continue reading “When It Comes to Pay, All Feds Aren’t Created Equal” →

Keeping Congress Competent: Staff Pay, Turnover, And What It Means for Democracy

Incoming Speaker Boehner recently vowed to tighten the House of Representative’s collective belt through a 5 percent budget reduction. Congressional staff are the most likely target. An in-depth look at Congressional staff employment trends raises questions about whether Congress has the support necessary to do its job. After reviewing a quarter century of staff salary and retention data, we found:

A pay gap between Washington-based House personal office staff earnings and people doing equivalent work in the DC metropolitan area.
A decrease in the total number of hill staff over the last two decades.
Fewer staff engaged in policy-making roles.
Average salaries for most Washington-based House personal staff have not increased in two decades, and may have decreased for many.

Who is picking up the slack? One clue could lie in the nearly 12,500 federally registered lobbyists, and countless others, who provide information and exert influence in the halls of Congress; by contrast there’s around 7–8,000 House personal office, leadership, and committee staff. Put a different way, $2.6 billion was spent on lobbying in Washington in 2010, versus $1.37 billion for the House of Representatives in FY 2010. Have we privatized Congress? Continue reading “Keeping Congress Competent: Staff Pay, Turnover, And What It Means for Democracy” →

House Passes the Best Leg Branch Approps Bill in 8 Years

On Friday, the House of Representatives passed the best legislative branch appropriations bill since Republicans took power in 2010. Unlike many prior appropriations bills, which often undermined the House’s capacity to govern through deep budget cuts, this legislation contained provisions to strengthen the House and set the stage for further improvements. In addition, it was created in a bipartisan manner, drawing on the hard work of Reps. Kevin Yoder and Tim Ryan and their staff. Continue reading “House Passes the Best Leg Branch Approps Bill in 8 Years” →