We recently ran an opinion piece by Robert Palmer arguing that the rules changes in the House of Representatives for the 118th Congress, which came about due to a change in party control and a tumultuous speaker election, would help Congress become more productive and accountable. To keep our content informative, interesting, and engaging, I’ve penned a good faith rebuttal (or, in Hamiltonian fashion… a series of rebuttals) to that opinion piece, arguing that the way the House of Representatives operated until this Congress is both practical and pragmatic, and that the further proposed changes would go against the best interests of both the chamber and the public. 

Don’t Credit McCarthy With the New House Rules | The Illusion of the “Empty” Congress | Members of Congress Have a Hard Job, Their Work Ethic is Just Fine

If I’m going to be dinged for one thing in this series, it’s probably this piece. So I’ll get out the controversial stuff up front: members of Congress are not paid enough, they work far more than headlines (and “recess” days) indicate, their work/life balance is brutal, and they probably work harder and longer than you do.1A reminder, as always, you can reach out to our lovely editorial team at editor@thepostrider.com!

Let’s start with the most misunderstood aspect of congressional life: “recess” doesn’t really mean recess.

Even When on Recess, Members of Congress are Constantly Working

As a matter of historical average, the House of Representatives is typically “in session” and doing business in Washington about 273 days per Congress or 136 days per year. As a matter of trend, Congress has – over time, and on average – spent more days in session as the nation has grown and matured. This makes sense. Although the 1st Congress was an outlier (they did have to start from scratch making all the laws though, so give them a break), the scope of the federal government changed pretty dramatically over the last 200 years. What used to be a part time job where members of the House would travel to the capital and legislate for a few months (like many state houses still do)2Some geographically large western states, most notably Texas (as well as Montana, Nevada, and North Dakota) meet only once every two years, a system which originated because it was too cumbersome to ask the various legislators to travel vast distances across undeveloped landscapes to the state capital more often than once every couple of years. and then be off most of the year, is now a full time gig. Members are constantly flitting back and forth between their states, districts, and DC, and going on factfinding missions, and attending various national events. 

But what are members doing  when they’re “on recess?” Well, they’re usually back home working in their districts, campaigning, or traveling. This is no elementary school recess – instead, it just provides time for them to leave DC and hear from constituents at home, not to stop working. 

Let’s start with travel: members of Congress have an unenviable grind. Many of them go back to their home districts on weekends (one reason congressional “weekends” are longer and why the “five day work week” idea Palmer’s opinion piece advocates for is well-intended but ill-advised). That’s easy – if still annoying – for the members of Congress commuting in from Maryland or Virginia every day.3I see you and recognize you “Amtrak Joe,” but you are a dedicated outlier. But it’s a pain for members who choose to fly home on weekends, exhausting for members who opt to fly all the way out West and back every couple of weeks, and downright insane for members from Alaska and Hawaii. One study estimated around 80% of members went home around 40 weekends each year. 

Then consider that members of Congress often hail from small towns in massive states that may not exactly have easy access to an airport. Montana Senator Jon Tester – from Big Sandy, population 605 – has a bleak commute involving one, maybe two, connecting flights from DC to Great Falls International Airport or Havre City-County Airport, and then a long drive home. Just throw in DC to Big Sandy on Google Flights – some of these itineraries are 20 hours long.4Don’t forget that it snows in Montana! A lot can go wrong between when Senator Tester boards his flight at Dulles (already a bad start) and his first (or second) connecting flight to his closest airport in Montana. Many members fly home every weekend and fly back on Monday. That’s a lot of time in airports and on a plane (and members of Congress aren’t wont to fly first class for fear of looking like an elitist, so that’s a lot of time in coach, mind you).

Back home, members of Congress are working in their district office, and some of them have several district offices scattered throughout the district if it’s geographically large. They’re engaging with local interests, constituents, businesses, and politicians – the people who they’re supposed to be representing in DC. Dinging them for being in the district and outside of Washington where they should be “doing their job” is one of those things you hear from the right, who then turn around and criticize how much time a given member spends in Washington, lambasting members as DC elites who have all but forgotten about their voters back home. So, I don’t know how to make anyone happy here. When at home, members of Congress report spending about 32% of their time working on constituent services. When in DC they report spending 35% of their time legislating and working on policy, so… pick whichever you want them to do more of and be happy they’re doing it whenever they’re on or off recess. Then cut them some slack for a commute that you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy. 

Of course, members of Congress get time off to campaign when there’s an election coming up. The “October recess” is infamous in DC during election years as an opportunity for members to head back home for an extended hiatus to… embark on a grueling campaign schedule. There’s a fair complaint that this shouldn’t be built into their schedule when it often isn’t built into their challenger’s schedule, but to call it “time off” isn’t quite right either. And don’t forget members of Congress are constantly raising money throughout the working week too, expected to spend hours fundraising for their own reelection and for the party. With constituent services, legislating, press, administrative work (they also have to be in charge of their staff), and more, House members report spending about 70 hours per week working while in session and around 59 hours per week working while out of session.

Is Congress Productive Anyway?

But calendar days alone don’t mean much anyway. The last three Congresses before this one were among the most packed by calendar days, with mixed legislative records. The 116th Congress was not considered particularly effective, while the 117th was. There’s kind of a false equivalency here though, as the 116th faced the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic – which spawned legislative activity in its wake, but limited Congress’ availability to move forward on other legislation – and a presidential election. There was also a divided government during the 116th Congress but not during the 117th. This is why it’s difficult to objectively compare one Congress to another: the role of the chamber changes every Congress with the balance of power and the national focus.

And what makes a Congress productive is subjective. Do you count the number of bills passed? The number of votes? The total pages of bills passed? Depending on your metric, productivity varies wildly. Is a Congress “better” if it does less or if it does more? Republicans and Democrats probably have different feelings about what makes a given Congress productive, especially when the Congress is serving as a vehicle for obstruction and oversight over an opposing administration. 

Congresses now enact fewer bills than they did four decades ago – but the bills they enact are longer. There’s more packed into omnibus legislation. In part, this is a result of the fact that the federal budget and appropriations has grown with the size of the federal government over time, but it’s also a result of the fact there’s limited time and national crises tend to demand massive legislation. Tacking on policies to large must-pass bills proves an effective way to get a lot done with minimal obstruction. So, you can argue Congress is less effective – sure, they pass fewer bills – but someone else could argue Congress is more effective and be just as right or wrong as you are. And since “effective” is a political consideration anyway, it’s kind of pointless to argue over. So let’s move on to a more controversial subject… 

Our Politicians are Underpaid!

A rank and file member of the House of Representatives makes $174,000 per year. Not bad! But then adjust it to an average of around 65 hours of work per week, that’s about $107,000 a year for a 40 hour per week job. Still pretty good! Okay, but remember that commute I mentioned earlier… oh, and the cost of living in DC… oh, and not getting a pay raise since 2009… oh, and making your mortgage payments back home (it’s not like you can just give up your state residence and move to DC permanently, now that’d look bad)… and this starts to look like a pretty crappy bargain. 

Some members of Congress struggle to afford housing, while others live in fraternity-style houses with other members. Given the average age of a member of the House is about 58 years, that’s a pretty undesirable living situation. It limits your family visits, your comfort level, and you might be sharing a shower with other members of Congress…

“So what? These rich kleptocrats shouldn’t make a penny, it’s public service!” you insist. To which I counter: you’re thinking about this backwards! If you want Congress not to be full of millionaires, the congressional salary needs to be much higher. Because average Americans simply cannot afford it. When the salary is kept too low, it discourages everyone except the wealthy from seeking office. Only those who can afford to work for free will work for free. 

So, give your member of Congress – and their colleagues – a break. They probably work longer hours than you do, they don’t make a lot from it, and they definitely have a worse commute.