Is there any hope for Congress? 

The central question Congress should be asking itself is, “What can be done to reconnect with the people and earn their respect by addressing some of our nation’s most pressing problems?”

Anyone who has read my columns over the last several years knows that I have been critical of the downward spiral in Congress’s performance and the public’s assessment of it. My first two books, “Congress and the People” and “Changing Cultures in Congress,” explored the evolution of Congress over time and revealed growing problems ahead. My third book, “To Restore Trust in Congress,” lies aborning for lack of an answer as to how. As I explain to friends and colleagues, “I have yet to crack the code.”  

My bookshelves are filled with books by respected political scientists, journalists and former members and staff analyzing the problem from all angles, with depressingly similar titles: “Storming the Gates”; “Congress Under Fire”; “The Broken Branch”; “Congress as Public Enemy”; “The Decline of Comity in Congress”; and “Fight Club Politics.” Their echoes bounce mockingly off the walls in a mournful wail of negativism: Congress is dysfunctional, broken, politically paralyzed, polarized, toxic and gridlocked.  

In the midst of all those bleak assessments, one hopes to glimpse some encouraging signs of change on the horizon that will lift us out of this topical depression and dissipate those clouds of despair. 

The central question Congress should be asking itself is, “What can be done to reconnect with the people and earn their respect by addressing some of our nation’s most pressing problems?” But, are members even asking such questions of themselves or simply shrugging them off out of total frustration?

Interviews with members who have announced their retirement (some leaving even before their term expires) reveal a particular disgust with colleagues who aren’t even trying to act as responsible legislators and instead are more interested in making a big splash in the media. Their charges, demands and “take no prisoners” attitudes are directed not only at their partisan opponents, but at their own party leaders. They are the so-called “show horses,” not “work horses.”

What caught my eye recently were two reports that hold out some hope that improvements are happening, or are at least on the way. The most recent report, released last month by the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, is titled: “The State of Congress 2024: An Assessment of the Civility, Functionality and Capacity of the 118th Congress by Senior Congressional Staff.” It is based on a survey of 138 senior House and Senate staffers conducted last year. It is measured against results of a similar survey in 2022 to discern any shifts in staff perceptions of institutional performance and change. The report is still negative overall: its introduction opens with, “Congress is Broken.”

The most startling findings are that many senior staffers are seriously considering leaving the Hill, first, out of concerns for their own and their bosses’ safety; and second, because the heated rhetoric among members makes it almost impossible to build cross-partisan staff relationships to get anything done. Nor, the report adds, is there much incentive to do so.

However, there are some signs of improvement which staff uniformly agree have made their jobs somewhat easier. They have greater access to high quality, nonpartisan policy expertise within the legislative branch. The technological and human resource infrastructure and support have been upgraded significantly. And, finally, accessibility and accountability to the public have increased.

The CMF credits the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress with being largely responsible for most of these positive developments. The completely bipartisan select committee of six members from each party was created in the 116th Congress (2019-20), and extended into the 117th Congress (2021-22). The implementation and monitoring of its recommendation are now being overseen by a House Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Modernization, again completely bipartisan, with two Republicans and two Democrats. The second report, which I referenced above, was the final report of the select committee in 2022, listing all of its recommendations over the four years of its existence.

The areas of exploration and recommendations by the select committee include (but are not limited to): member orientation and education; technology; staffing; civility and bipartisanship; accessibility; transparency; lawmaking and oversight; budgeting; and constituent service and communication.

In its first two years, the select committee generated 97 recommendations, and, in the subsequent Congress another 105 recommendations. The rules of the committee required a two-thirds vote of approval (nine of the 12 members) in order to move forward to implementation. In its final report in December 2022 the Select Committee listed all the recommendations and how many had already been totally or partially fulfilled — a staggering 82 percent of the 97 from the 116th Congress, and 50 percent of the additional 105 proposals by the end of the 117th Congress.

It is especially encouraging, given the change in party control of the House in 2023, that the follow-up, bipartisan standing Subcommittee on Modernization was even created — a significant recognition of the need for ongoing institutional change, even in the heat of a critical and volatile partisan campaign season.

Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of “Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial” (2000), and “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays” (2018).  The views expressed are solely his own.