ABOUT R STREET€¦ · And yet, committees in Congress are often discussed as a singular...
Transcript of ABOUT R STREET€¦ · And yet, committees in Congress are often discussed as a singular...
ABOUT R STREET
The R Street Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public-policy research organization (“think tank”). Our mission is to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government. In addition to our D.C. headquarters, we have offices in Georgia, Texas, Ohio, Massachusetts and California, covering the Southeast, Central, Midwest, Northeast and Western regions, respectively. We work extensively on both state and national policy, focusing on issues that other groups tend to neglect. Our specialty is tackling issues that are complex, but do not necessarily grab major headlines. These are the areas where we think we can have a real impact. We believe free markets work better than the alternatives. At the same time, we recognize the legislative process calls out for practical responses to current problems. Toward that end, our motto is “Free markets. Real solutions.”
INDEPENDENCE STATEMENT
The R Street Institute is committed to producing high-quality research and educating federal, state and local policymakers. Facts, data and staff expertise drive our research. We do not and will not permit the interests of politicians, donors or any other third party to dictate R Street’s research or policy positions. While R Street may solicit input from any number of interested stakeholders, we are solely responsible for our research and related activities. Even where we agree with stakeholders and donors, R Street staff does not and will not represent, lobby or advocate on behalf of any third party.
R STREET INSTITUTE 1212 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005(202) 525-5717 [email protected] www.rstreet.org
© 2018 by the R Street Institute, Washington, D.C.
2
In 1885, future President Woodrow Wilson characterized congressional committees as “little legislatures,” responsible for dividing the vast workload of each chamber along specified, relatively autonomous, jurisdictions.1 As Wilson alludes, each congressional committee is a world unto itself.
Over 130 years later, this characterization of committees is even more true. Each of the 45 House and Senate permanent, select and joint committees is wildly different from the others, not just in jurisdiction, history and impact but in capacity. Committees receive vastly different appropriations to carry out their work, have starkly different staffing levels to support members’ goals and vary enormously in how well they pay their staffs and consequently, how long those aides stay.
And yet, committees in Congress are often discussed as a singular institutional resource, particularly at the staff level. Committee staffs are nearly universally regarded as issue experts, and are assumed to earn higher salaries and serve longer tenures relative to personal office staffers. But, these assumptions are not always true. In fact, they rarely hold.
In an effort to better explain the often opaque worlds of congressional committees and their staffing capacity—and to corroborate and challenge their assumed
F O R E W O R D
Committee staffs are nearly universally regarded as issue experts, and are
assumed to earn higher salaries and serve longer tenures relative to
personal office staffers. But, these assumptions are not always true.
In fact, they rarely hold.
features—the R Street Institute created the “Committee Sheet Project.” During 2017 and 2018, we released one committee sheet each week that broke down each congressional committee’s jurisdiction; authorization; staffing levels; tenures: average salaries: and other important committee facts and features.
Along with the employment database used in their creation, these sheets provide the first comprehensive committee-by-committee look at the tenure, pay and the gender balance of their staffs.
But the individual committee sheets only tell part of the story. As we worked through the data, we quickly realized that committees differ in far more than jurisdiction and institutional clout. Their capacities vary greatly, as well. Some have expectedly large staffs; others predictably small. But, their staffing levels also experience large swings year over year. Some committees have a multitude of long-serving aides and pay very well; others are prone to shorter stints, as staffers quickly depart for employment elsewhere. Some have gender parity among their aides; some aren’t even close.
The point is that no two committees are alike. In fact, no two years within a single committee’s history look exactly the same. As a result, those of us who study, follow
and love Congress should resist the urge to paint
congressional committees—and particularly their
aides—with too wide a brush.
It is our hope that the committee sheets and this accompanying report provide valuable insight into each of the individual House and Senate committees and their many varying capacity dynamics. We should also note that we haven’t yet answered every question asked of committee capacity but believe our efforts are an important first step toward a better understanding of congressional committees, their ability to execute the job expected of them and Congress as an institution.
Casey Burgat
Senior Governance Fellow, R Street Institute Ryan Dukeman
Research Assistant, R Street Institute
1 Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government (Houghton Mifflin, 1885)
3
Did you know the House Committee on Homeland Security oversees border and port security but is not responsible for the nation’s immigration policy (the Judiciary Committee is) or the borders between the United States and its neighbors (that’s the Foreign Affairs Committee)? And based on the precise type of border security needed, the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services are likely to play major roles, too.
Yet, despite their hazy and overlapping jurisdictions, the congressional committee system is vital for effective congressional operations. By assigning its members into smaller work units with itemized issue areas, congressional committees afford members opportunities to simultaneously work through a daunting amount of legislative proposals and oversight demands.
Members of Congress also individually benefit from committee divisions of labor. Committee membership allows lawmakers to directly represent the needs of their district and constituents, as well as to develop proficiency and influence on committee matters.
Because of their targeted jurisdictions, committees are often viewed as sources of issue are expertise. Members are able to zero in on the gritty details of committee issues and ingratiate themselves with the legislative histories of their respective jurisdictions. This division of labor ultimately grants members outsized knowledge and influence when committee issues become factors before the full body.
For example, consider questions related to farm subsidies. In theory, at least, legislators who do not serve on the Agriculture Committee will be inclined to defer to members who do, knowing that committee members have been immersed in the topic while non-members are unlikely to have spent much time at all on the subject. The same dynamic occurs within each House and Senate committee.
I N T R O D U C T I O N
For those most familiar with Capitol Hill, any issue-area expertise in committee offices largely stems from the staffers who support each committees’ operations. After all, committee work is only one component of a member’s job description; for committee aides, their panel’s jurisdiction constitutes the bulk of their duties.
Because of this, conventional wisdom suggests that committee aides are generally the most substantively knowledgeable, most tenured and best compensated on the Hill.
These conventional wisdoms are largely true. But, are they true across committees, across time, across gender and across chambers? The short answer is: it depends.
To help answer these questions, we developed a database of each of the congressional aides who have
served on any of the House and Senate committees
since 2001. Using a mix of authoritative data sources, including raw compensation data from LegiStorm.com, we have preliminary answers to many pressing
congressional committee capacity questions, such as:
» Which committees receive the most money to do their work? How do individual committee
authorizations vary over time? » Which committees’ aides have the longest
congressional tenures? What about the shortest? » Which committees retain their staffs the longest? » Which committees have the best gender parity,
particularly with more senior, higher-paying positions?
» What are the average salaries across committees? Does a professional staff member, for example, make more, on average, on certain committees or within a certain chamber?
» What are the pay gaps between men and women on each congressional committee?
» On which committees do the highest number of lobbyists serve?
4
Data for this report come from an original dataset compiled between February and June 2018, and aggregated and analyzed in October and November. To create the dataset, we relied on LegiStorm’s “Committee Staff Directory” for each committee as of the date accessed. Basic information such as name, gender, title and office were pulled directly from LegiStorm. To create measures of tenure and pay, we analyzed LegiStorm’s payment records for congressional staff salaries in order to determine the start, end and restart dates of individuals’ employment in Congress (data which began in 2001), as well as their Fiscal Year 2017 congressional salary.
Aides who receive compensation from both a member’s personal office and from a congressional committee (e.g., interns, detailees, fellows, shared staff) and other temporary staff were excluded from the scope of the report, as their tenures are not typical of traditional Hill staff.
To classify staffers by position type (e.g., policy, communications, administrative, senior staff), the authors developed a classification scheme based on the job titles associated with each individual’s payment records.
Starting with each of the House committees and then moving to the Senate’s, each of these datasets was analyzed and published as a Legislative Branch Capacity Working Group Committee Fact Sheet. These are publicly available, and the authors welcome refinements and questions regarding data sources and analytical methodology.
D A T A A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y
5
C O M M I T T E E S O V E R T I M E
103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116
Congress1
House
Senate
$0M
$100M
$200M
$300M
$400M
Tota
l Com
mitt
ee A
utho
riza
tions
$0M
$100M
$200M
$300M
$400M
Tota
l Com
mitt
ee A
utho
riza
tions
$396M
$261M
$282M
$305M
$166M
$223M
Figure 1: Figure 1: How Has Each Chamber's Committee Funding Changed Over Time?House
Senate
The trend of sum of Authorization for Congress1 broken down by Chamber1. Color shows details about Chamber1.
Figure 1: Committee Authorizations by Chamber since 2001
How Has Each Chamber’s Committee Funding Changed Over Time?
In the early 2000s, intense policy and governmental change meant that committee staff authorizations in the House and Senate followed a similar pattern.2 In the House, total committee authorizations amounted to $282 million in the 104th Congress (1995-96). That number steadily rose to a peak of $396 million in the 111th Congress (2009-10), then decreased to a modern low of $261 million in the 115th (2017-18). Since its peak funding levels in the 111th Congress, the House cut its own committee authorization by a staggering 34 percent in just eight years.
The Senate followed a very similar pattern. Total committee authorizations amounted to a low of $166 million in the 106th Congress (1999-2000), rose to a modern high of $305 million in the 111th under unified Democratic control of government during the first two years of the Obama administration and have since fallen to $223 million for the 115th Congress. Although they have not fallen below initial levels like those of the House, in the four congresses since peak funding levels, the Senate has cut 27 percent of its committee authorizations.
The main implication of these patterns is that as the size and complexity of the federal government has continued to grow, Congress has deprioritized spending within the offices most responsible for legislating and conducting Executive Branch oversight.
2 Data were readily available for the 104th through 115th Congresses for the House and the 106th through 115th Congresses for the Senate. To account for inflation, all authorizations are calculated using constant January 2017 dollars.
As a direct result of these cuts, committees have a diminished ability to hire and retain top-tier policy
and investigative staff. More broadly, they reduce
Congress’s ability to serve as a rigorous, independent
check on the power of the Executive Branch.
The 116th Congress features a divided government and a Democratic House intent on reasserting congressional checks and balances on the Trump administration. Because of Democratic pledges to investigate all matters of the Trump administration, many observers will pay close attention to the authorization levels of committees with subpoena power and jurisdictional authority over pertinent federal agencies. Increased levels—particularly for the Intelligence and Judiciary committees—will be a great indication of committee priorities to staff key positions in order to carry out effective investigations and oversight.
As the size and complexity of the federal government has
continued to grow, Congress has deprioritized spending within
the offices most responsible for legislating and conducting
Executive Branch oversight.
Hou
seSe
nate
6
Cham.. Committee
2005 2010 2015
Year of Year
House House Administration
HouseAgriculture
House Appropriations
House ArmedServices
House Budget
HouseEducation
House Energy
House Ethics
HouseFinancialServices
House ForeignAffairs
HouseHomelandSecurity
HouseIntelligence
HouseJudiciary
House NaturalResources
HouseOversight
House Rules
House Science
House SmallBusiness
House Transportation
HouseVeteransAffairs
House Waysand Means
Senate SenateAgriculture
Senate Appropriations
Senate ArmedServices
SenateBanking
Senate Budget
SenateCommerce
Senate Energy
SenateEnvironment
SenateFinance
Senate ForeignAffairs
Senate HELP
SenateHomelandSecurity
Senate IndianAffairs
SenateIntelligence
SenateJudiciary
Senate Rules
SenateVeteransAffairs
020
40
204060
0
1..
2..
20
40
60
020
40
204060
0
50
1..
010
20
204060
20406080
204060
102030
20406080
20
40
60
0
50
1..
102030
20
40
60
20
40
60
20406080
10
20
30
10
20
30
0
20
40
0
50
1..
020
40
20
4060
020
40
20
40
60
0
20
40
020
40
0
40
80
0
50
0
50
1..
0
50
1..
0
10
20
0
20
40
0
50
1..
0
10
20
10
20
30
Committee Staff Levels, 2001-2016
The trend of sum of # Staff for Year Year broken down by Chamber andCommittee.
Cham.. Committee
2005 2010 2015
Year of Year
House House Administration
HouseAgriculture
House Appropriations
House ArmedServices
House Budget
HouseEducation
House Energy
House Ethics
HouseFinancialServices
House ForeignAffairs
HouseHomelandSecurity
HouseIntelligence
HouseJudiciary
House NaturalResources
HouseOversight
House Rules
House Science
House SmallBusiness
House Transportation
HouseVeteransAffairs
House Waysand Means
Senate SenateAgriculture
Senate Appropriations
Senate ArmedServices
SenateBanking
Senate Budget
SenateCommerce
Senate Energy
SenateEnvironment
SenateFinance
Senate ForeignAffairs
Senate HELP
SenateHomelandSecurity
Senate IndianAffairs
SenateIntelligence
SenateJudiciary
Senate Rules
SenateVeteransAffairs
020
40
204060
0
1..
2..
20
40
60
020
40
204060
0
50
1..
010
20
204060
20406080
204060
102030
20406080
20
40
60
0
50
1..
102030
20
40
60
20
40
60
20406080
10
20
30
10
20
30
0
20
40
0
50
1..
020
40
20
4060
020
40
20
40
60
0
20
40
020
40
0
40
80
0
50
0
50
1..
0
50
1..
0
10
20
0
20
40
0
50
1..
0
10
20
10
20
30
Committee Staff Levels, 2001-2016
The trend of sum of # Staff for Year Year broken down by Chamber andCommittee.
Figure 2:
Total Committee Staffing Levels by Chamber Since 2001
Committee Staff Levels, 2001-2016
2005 2010
Year of Year
20152005 2010
Year of Year
2015
7
Understanding fluctuations in aggregate committee authorizations gives us indications of each chamber’s commitment to strengthening or weakening committees but it does little to explain variation in the committees most affected by budget increases and cuts. In other words, not all committees’ staffing levels were equally affected by total committee funding levels. In fact, despite chamber-wide cuts to committee authorizations, some actually increased their staffing levels.
Before turning attention to important questions such as committee aide tenure, pay and demographic information for all congressional committees as of 2017, this report provides committee staffing levels for each committee from 2001 to 2016. As the series of sparklines in Figure 2 show, some committees have had essentially no change in staff in over 15 years of data covered, while others have seen major spikes or cuts to staffing levels. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the House Homeland Security Committee has seen the most dramatic change, rising from its creation in 2003 to over 80 staff members as of 2016. Over the course of the period studied, the most stable committees in terms of staffing changes have been the House Appropriations, House Science, Space and Technology and Senate Budget committees, each of which saw no real staff-level changes in 2016, as compared to 2001.
Of particular interest, some committees show a clear spike in staffing following the Democratic takeover of the House in 2006. For example, while the House Appropriations Committee increased its staff by roughly one-third under a Democratic majority (a time during which major changes to federal spending were underway including the Recovery Act, the TARP program and the Affordable Care Act), staff levels decreased back toward historical norms under the post-2010 Republican majority.
While this and other correlations do not necessarily imply causation, the data offer an interesting and highly plausible narrative that staffing levels can reflect the majority party’s legislative priorities. For example, while under the Republican majority, the House Financial Services Committee cut staffing levels from roughly 80 people to under 60 in just a few years, yet the House Small Business Committee staff was kept essentially the same.
-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130%
% Difference in Staff
House Ethics
House Energy
Senate Commerce
House Armed Services
Senate Intelligence
Senate Appropriations
House Intelligence
Senate Homeland Security
Senate Foreign Affairs
House Administration
Senate Finance
Senate Rules
Senate Energy
House Financial Services
House Appropriations
House Science
Senate Budget
House Foreign Affairs
House Veterans Affairs
House Ways and Means
Senate Armed Services
House Education
Senate Indian Affairs
House Natural Resources
House Small Business
House Budget
House Transportation
Senate HELP
Senate Veterans Affairs
Senate Agriculture
House Judiciary
House Rules
Senate Judiciary
House Agriculture
House Oversight
Senate Environment
Senate Banking
Figure 3: Figure 3: Staffing Changes by Committee, 2016 vs. 2001Note: House Homeland Security Committee is excluded from this analysis as it did not exist until 2003
% Difference in # Staff for each Committee broken down by Year Year. Color shows % Difference in # Staff. The view is filtered on Committee and Year Year. TheCommittee filter excludes House Homeland Security. The Year Year filter keeps 2001 and 2016.
Figure 3
Staffing Changes by Committee, 2016 vs. 2001Note: House Homeland Security
Committee is excluded from this
analysis as it did not exist until 2003
8
In addition to providing patterns in staffing changes over the entire period studied, the data also show net changes, comparing 2016 staffing levels to those of 2001. This view provides a different take, as it looks over a longer term and thus provides insight into broader
institutional trends and priorities as reflected in areas of policy where the Hill has increased its
human capital (at least in terms of staff counts) versus where it has stagnated or declined. The House Ethics Committee, for example, experienced the greatest increase of staffing levels of all committees studied with a 124 percent growth in the number of staff. At the other extreme is the Senate’s Banking Committee, the staff of which has shrunk by roughly 45 percent over the time studied.
Overall, 18 committees have increased staff counts, while 20 have decreased them. While such generalizations gloss over nuances in particular trends, committees that deal with national security and foreign affairs (e.g. House Armed Services, House/Senate Intelligence, Senate Homeland Security and Senate Foreign Affairs) as well as those that cover Budget and Administration Rules saw increases or essentially no change. On the other hand, the Senate Committees on Banking and the Environment experienced the greatest decrease in staff counts during the period.
-100% -50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% 400% 450% 500% 550% 600%
HouseAdministrationCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House AgricultureCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House AppropriationsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House ArmedServices Committee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House BudgetCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House Education andthe WorkforceCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House Energy andCommerceCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House EthicsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House FinancialServices Committee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House Foreign AffairsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House HomelandSecurity Committee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House JudiciaryCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House Oversight andGovernment ReformCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House PermanentSelect Committee onIntelligence
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House RulesCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House Science, Spaceand TechnologyCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House Small BusinessCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
HouseTransportation andInfrastructureCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House Veterans'Affairs Committee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House Ways andMeans Committee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate Agriculture,Nutrition andForestry Committee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
SenateAppropriationsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate ArmedServices Committee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate Banking,Housing and UrbanAffairs Committee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate Commerce,Science andTransportationCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate Energy andNatural ResourcesCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate Environmentand Public WorksCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate FinanceCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate ForeignRelations Committee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate Health,Education, Labor andPensions Committee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate HomelandSecurity andGovernmental AffairsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate Indian AffairsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate JudiciaryCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate Rules andAdministrationCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate SelectCommittee onIntelligence
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate SmallBusiness andEntrepreneurshipCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate Veterans'Affairs Committee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Change in Committee Staff Composition, 2017 vs. 2001
Bar re ects % increase or decrease in count of staff members of the speci ed type, comparing 2017 to 2001
NB: This view lters out the House Natural Resources and Senate Budget Committees due to differences in scale
Measure NamesAdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Administrative, Communications, Leadership Staff, Policy Staff and PSMs for each Committee broken down by Year. Color shows details about Administrative,Communications, Leadership Staff, Policy Staff and PSMs. The data is ltered on Year, which ranges from 2001 to 2017. The view is ltered on Committee, whichexcludes House Natural Resources Committee and Senate Budget Committee.
Figure 4: Breakdown of Types of Staffers by Chamber Since 2001*
Change in Committee Staff Composition, 2017 vs. 2001Bar reflects % increase or decrease in count of staff members of the specified type, comparing 2017 to 2001.
NB: This view filters out the House Natural Resources and Senate Budget Committees due to differences in scale.
*See Appendix for closer look.
9
Institutional and committee priorities are reflected not just in the number and experience of staff employed but the types of staffers hired, as well. Figure 4 details changes in the position types and shows the relative change in staffing compositions for each committee in 2017 versus 2001, across five staffer position types: administrative, communications, policy, professional staff members and senior staff. While personal offices in Congress have consistently shifted staffing balances away from DC or policy jobs and toward state/district or constituent service, in most committees in Congress
the opposite trend has occurred. Comparing 2017 to 2001, staffing levels (excluding the House Homeland Security Committee, which did not exist until 2003), only two committees in all of Congress had a higher percentage of administrative staff in 2017 than in 2001: House Ethics and Senate Small Business. In both chambers, the percentage of staff positions committed to administrative tasks have declined by more than 30 percent.
The relative portion of professional staff members (PSMs) also fell in both chambers during the period
studied. In the House, there are six percent fewer PSMs in 2017 than there were in 2001 and eight percent fewer in the Senate. Though unverified, we believe this trend has occurred because some committees have transitioned away from the catch-all “professional staff member” title in favor of more specified titles and responsibilities such as “counsel” and “legislative assistant.”
The expanded hiring of communications professionals signals that committees have
turned to messaging campaigns rather than policy development as a valued committee output.
During the period studied, both chambers’ committees experienced surges of over 30 percent
in the proportions of committee aides tasked
with communications titles and duties. Given the increased number of communications outlets and the rise of social media technology as an important avenue to communicate the committee’s activity, this is an unsurprising development. Increases in communications positions also coincide with a decrease in legislative activity. Further, the hiring of communications
professionals signals that committees have
turned to messaging campaigns rather than policy
development as a valued committee output.
Finally, the chambers differ dramatically in their relative portions of staff committed to legislative and policy titles. While the House saw no rise in committee staff devoted to policy work, Senate committees increased
their legislative capacity by about 17 percent during the period studied. On the House side, committee hiring away from policy positions mirror personal office trends, in that personal staff proportions favor constituent service and communications roles at the expense of legislative positions. Such divestments from legislative staff are likely consequences of important legislation increasingly being written by party leaders independent of rank-and-file members and committees.
One outlier in this data is the Senate Budget Committee, which saw a 70 percent decrease in the share of professional staff members and a nearly 60 percent increase in the share of policy staff. These are, by far, the two largest shifts in all of Congress and may possibly be the result simply of the committee reclassifying existing staff, rather than an actual shift of this magnitude. This seems particularly plausible, given the high potential for overlap in staffers considered “policy” oriented and “professional staff members,” a common confounding factor in the data.
10
C O M M I T T E E S N A P S H O T SFigure 5 shows the average committee tenure—the amount of time a staffer has spent in his or her current committee—for staffers currently serving each congressional committee as of February 2018. We use this indicator as a proxy of issue area expertise relating to a committee’s jurisdictional responsibilities.
In both the House and Senate, Appropriations committees lead the pack by a
substantial margin, with average committee tenures totaling over eight years for the House Appropriations Committee and over seven years for its Senate counterpart. These numbers align with the commonly held notion that the appropriations committees are among the most sought and influential posts on the Hill, as staffers in these roles tend to stay for longer than any other committee. In both chambers, the difference in average committee tenure between Appropriations and the next-highest-tenure committee is over a full year—by far the biggest marginal difference between any two places on each list.
Figure 5: Committee Tenure
Committee Tenure by Committee
Hou
seSe
nate
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0
Avg. Staffer Committee Tenure (years)
Ho.. House Appropriations
House Judiciary
House Budget
House Administration
House Armed Services
House Foreign Affairs
House Transportation
House Financial Services
House Rules
House Education
House Small Business
House Science
House Natural Resources
House Oversight
House Ethics
House Agriculture
House Veterans Affairs
House Intelligence
House Ways and Means
House Energy
House Homeland Security
Se.. Senate Appropriations
Senate Armed Services
Senate Finance
Senate Banking
Senate Small Business
Senate Intelligence
Senate Energy
Senate Commerce
Senate Agriculture
Senate HELP
Senate Foreign Relations
Senate Environment
Senate Judiciary
Senate Homeland Security
Senate Budget
Senate Indian Affairs
Senate Veterans Affairs
Senate Rules
Figure 5: Figure 5: Committee Tenure by Committee
Average of Staffer Committee Tenure for each Committee broken down by Master Chamber. Color shows average of Staffer Committee Tenure.11
Table 1
Committees with longest average committee tenureTable 2
Committees with shortest average committee tenure
Committee
House Appropriations 8.1 yrs
Senate Appropriations 7.1 yrs
House Judiciary 6.8 yrs
House Budget 6.4 yrs
Senate Armed Services 5.9 yrs
Committee
Senate Rules 1.4 yrs
Senate Veteran Affairs 3.1 yrs
Senate Indian Affairs 3.4 yrs
House Homeland Security 3.4 yrs
House Energy 3.6 yrs
Looking across both chambers simultaneously (Table 1), the top five committees in Congress by average staffer committee tenure are, in order: House Appropriations, Senate Appropriations, House Judiciary, House Budget and Senate Armed Services. These committees range in average committee tenure from 5.9 years to 8.1 and all reflect posts traditionally viewed as competitive and highly sought after.
At the other end of the spectrum (Table 2), the bottom five committees in Congress by average staffer committee tenure are, in order: House Energy, House Homeland Security, Senate Indian Affairs, Senate Veterans Affairs and Senate Rules, whose staff members have been with the committee an average of just 1.4 years. In the case of House Homeland Security, this low ranking is understandable, given that the committee did not exist until 2003. This limits the theoretical amount of time a staffer could have possibly spent on staff. More striking, however, is Senate Rules, which at an average of just 1.4 years, is the only committee in all of Congress where the average staffer has been with the committee for less than three years. This makes it the lowest-ranked committee by a factor of more than two.
12
Figure 6: Staffer Congressional TenureCongress Tenure by Committee
Looking beyond committee tenure and analyzing staffers’ full tenure in Congress—that is, the total number of years served in any congressional office—provides a look at the committees that tend to attract the most seasoned Capitol Hill veterans and those that are skewed toward newer staffers. Here too, as the only committees in Congress whose staffers’ average tenure on the Hill exceeds 10 years, the appropriations committees in both Houses lead Congress by a significant margin. Senate Rules and House Homeland Security again come out at or near the bottom in their respective chambers, with Senate Rules staffers averaging just over four years in Congress and those of House Homeland Security averaging nearly six. The Ethics Committee sits at the bottom on the House side and in Congress as a whole, as its staffers have worked on the Hill for just slightly over four years on average.
In terms of tenure differences and the perceived prestige of a committee assignment, the trend is less clear when one looks at congressional tenures rather than committee tenures. Perhaps surprisingly, following the two appropriations committees, the committees with the second- longest average congressional tenures are Transportation and Infrastructure in the House (over nine years) and the Small Business Committee in the Senate (just under nine years). These differences and a potentially weaker correlation between committee prestige and congressional tenure than between prestige and committee tenure may also be explained by working conditions, self-selection among individuals of relative ambition, and the breadth and availability of non-Hill jobs that are open to a staffer looking to leave a particular committee.
Appropriations committees in both houses lead Congress by a
significant margin … in attracting the most seasoned Capitol Hill
veterans.
Hou
seSe
nate
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Avg. Staffer Congress Tenure
Hou.. House Appropriations
House Transportation
House Administration
House Judiciary
House Budget
House Foreign Affairs
House Agriculture
House Natural Resources
House Armed Services
House Financial Services
House Small Business
House Rules
House Science
House Ways and Means
House Energy
House Education
House Oversight
House Veterans Affairs
House Intelligence
House Homeland Security
House Ethics
Sen.. Senate Appropriations
Senate Small Business
Senate Intelligence
Senate Banking
Senate Environment
Senate Finance
Senate Armed Services
Senate Energy
Senate Foreign Relations
Senate Commerce
Senate Budget
Senate Agriculture
Senate HELP
Senate Veterans Affairs
Senate Homeland Security
Senate Judiciary
Senate Indian Affairs
Senate Rules
Figure 6: Figure 6: Congress Tenure by Committee
Average of Staffer Congress Tenure for each Committee broken down by Master Chamber. Color shows average of Staffer Congress Tenure.
13
Figure 7: Committee Retention
Which Committees Retain Their Staff the Longest?Retention is defined as ratio of committee tenure, i.e. how much of one’s Hill career has been spent at their current committee
A last useful indicator of human capital and staff tenure included in this report is staff retention, here defined as the percentage of one’s Hill career spent employed by a staffer’s current committee (including any promotions or changes in role they have had while at the committee). For example, if a staffer served three years within their current committee and an additional two years within a member’s personal office, her retention rate is 60 percent. This indicator allows comparisons—across committees and chambers—as to which committees best retain their staffers and their associated issue-area expertise.
There are several potential and insightful ways to interpret retention data. The first concerns desirability of a committee and can be seen as a reflection of its working conditions. For example, one possible reason the House Administration Committee ranks among the highest in the House for retaining its employees (roughly 75 percent of their Hill careers), while the Senate Rules Committee (its counterpart in the upper chamber) ranks lowest in all of Congress, could be that working conditions in one committee are much more favorable, enjoyable or conducive to a long period of service. Taken together, these measures of tenure tell a story about institutional priorities, desirable committee assignments and where Congress’s staff expertise is allocated.
Interestingly, the House and Senate Rules Committees both rank lowest in their respective chambers on average staff retention, having employed their staffers for an average of roughly 54 percent of their Hill careers, compared to over 90 percent for the House Ethics Committee and nearly 85 percent for the Senate Armed Services Committee (which ranked highest in their respective chambers).
Hou
seSe
nate
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Avg. Retention
House House Ethics
House Appropriations
House Judiciary
House Intelligence
House Armed Services
House Administration
House Budget
House Science
House Oversight
House Veterans Affairs
House Foreign Affairs
House Education
House Transportation
House Financial Services
House Homeland Security
House Energy
House Ways and Means
House Agriculture
House Small Business
House Natural Resources
House Rules
Senate Senate Armed Services
Senate Judiciary
Senate Agriculture
Senate Finance
Senate Appropriations
Senate Energy
Senate Small Business
Senate Indian Affairs
Senate Homeland Security
Senate Intelligence
Senate Banking
Senate Commerce
Senate HELP
Senate Budget
Senate Foreign Relations
Senate Veterans Affairs
Senate Environment
Senate Rules
Figure 7: Figure 7: Which Committees Retain Their Staff the Longest?Retention is defined as ratio of committee tenure to congress tenure, i.e. how much of one's Hill career has been spent at their current committee
53% 90%
Average of Retention for each Committee broken down by Master Chamber. Color shows average of Retention.
14
Committees that can attract, train and retain top talent benefit from a deeper well of institutional knowledge and staffer-level expertise. By contrast, although they may benefit from the innovative ways of thinking that can accompany an outside or less institutionally conditioned perspective, committees that cannot keep top staff may simply not have the procedural, bureaucratic or substantive know-
how to craft legislation, conduct effective oversight and perform other key functions of the legislative
branch. This is particularly true at a time in which nearly one-quarter of House members are freshmen—in one of the largest freshmen classes in generations. Staff provide key institutional memory and know-how that members and senators may not have on their own, and this allows for smoother committee operations and more effective legislating that benefits members of both parties. Understanding how such talent is allocated across committees, then, provides key insight into where Congress’s institutional priorities and most effective committee leadership may be found.
Committees that cannot keep top staff may simply not have
the procedural, bureaucratic or substantive know-how to craft legislation, conduct oversight
and perform key functions of the legislative branch.
$0K $10K $20K $30K $40K $50K $60K $70K $80K $90K $100K $110K $120K $130K $140K
Avg. Salary 2017
House Financial Services
Senate Intelligence
House Appropriations
House Intelligence
House Foreign Affairs
Senate Appropriations
House Armed Services
House Agriculture
House Transportation
House Ways and Means
House Judiciary
Senate Small Business
Senate Armed Services
Senate Rules
Senate Banking
House Ethics
House Rules
Senate Foreign Relations
Senate Energy
Senate Agriculture
Senate Finance
House Budget
House Administration
Senate Environment
House Energy
House Veterans Affairs
Senate HELP
House Small Business
House Education
House Homeland Security
Senate Commerce
Senate Budget
Senate Judiciary
Senate Veterans Affairs
Senate Homeland Security
Senate Indian Affairs
House Natural Resources
House Science
House Oversight
Figure 8: Figure 8: Average Salary by Committee
$83K $136K
Average of Salary 2017 for each Committee. Color shows average of Salary 2017.
Figure 8: Average Salary by Committee
Committee Salaries
15
Perhaps surprising given that such information is publicly available, most people even on the Hill do not have a clear picture of average salaries across Hill offices or committees. This is because the data are released by payment, rather than by individual or committee. Our report therefore presents the first comprehensive look at the House and Senate committees that pay their
staff the best and worst on average. This is achieved by aggregating payment-level data into individual and committee-level averages. As with tenures, pay across committees varies considerably.
The best-paying committee in all of Congress is the House Financial Services Committee, with an average 2017 salary of $135,000. Rounding out the top-six best compensating committees are: the Appropriations and Intelligence committees of both chambers, as well as the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In the case of Financial Services, this may reflect the need for the committee to compete with substantially higher paying jobs in the private financial services industry. Or, in the case of Appropriations, it may reflect (in line with previous data discussed above) that some of the most-seasoned and experienced staff in all of Congress work in these committees and therefore can command the highest salaries.
At the other end, the lowest paying committee in Congress is the House Oversight Committee, which pays staffers an average of about $82,000 a year. Closely following House Oversight are the House Science Committee, House Natural Resources, Senate Indian Affairs, Senate Homeland Security (which also includes oversight responsibilities akin to those of the House Oversight and Senate Veterans Affairs). It is interesting to note that both chambers’ primary government oversight committees, tasked with the critical function of overseeing and investigating the conduct of the Executive Branch, offered the least financial incentive to attract top Hill talent in a year in which one party had full control of the political branches. In light of this, these pay differentials may reflect larger political incentives for one party’s congressional committees not to conduct rigorous oversight of its own party’s executive branch. It will be interesting, then, as more data becomes available, to see whether oversight salaries increase in periods of divided government
Figure 9: Average Salary by Position
LegislativeAssistant
Comms Admin Other Staff Other Policy PSM Counsel Senior Staff
$0K
$20K
$40K
$60K
$80K
$100K
$120K
$140K
$160K
Avg.
Sal
ary
2017
$151K180 ppl
$87K206 ppl
$89K421 ppl
$119K429 ppl
$103K241 ppl
$104K463 ppl
$64K72 ppl
$103K81 ppl
Figure 9: Figure 9: Average Salary by Position
$64K $151K
Average of Salary 2017 for each Position ID. Color shows average of Salary 2017. The marks are labeled byaverage of Salary 2017 and count of Committee. The view is filtered on Position ID, which excludes Null.
Aggregating the payment data also allows for a more comprehensive look at differentials in pay across positions. Unsurprisingly, senior committee staff command the highest salaries at an average of $151,000, while committee Legislative Assistants pulled in $64,000 in 2017. Communications staffers made slightly less than administrative staffers, at $87,000 vs. $89,000 on average.
16
Filtering the salary data by gender allows us to see the gender pay gap within each specific job. This helps to isolate the pay differential that is due to gender rather than title or experience more directly. Interestingly, senior staff had a gender pay gap of just $1,000 in average salary, which is in line with our findings on the appropriations committees published last year. Women serving in administrative roles out-earned their male counterparts by roughly $3,000 on average—the only category of committee job to do so. The biggest gender pay gap for any committee staff role was in communications, where, in 2017, male practitioners earned $95,000 on average and women just $81,000—a difference of $14,000 or nearly 15 percent less on average.
Figure 10: Average salary by Position by Gender
LegislativeAssistant Comms Admin Other Staff Other Policy PSM Counsel Senior Staff
F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M
$0K
$20K
$40K
$60K
$80K
$100K
$120K
$140K
$160K
Avg.
Sal
ary
2017
$60K33 ppl
$68K39 ppl
$81K105 ppl
$95K100 ppl $91K
233 ppl $88K184 ppl
$101K37 ppl
$104K38 ppl $101K
112 ppl
$104K128 ppl $98K
191 ppl
$108K269 ppl
$114K181 ppl
$124K247 ppl
$151K113 ppl
$150K65 ppl
Figure 10: Figure 10: Average Salary by Position and GenderGender
F
M
Average of Salary 2017 for each Gender broken down by Position ID. Color shows details about Gender. The marks are labeledby average of Salary 2017 and count of Committee. The view is filtered on average of Salary 2017, Gender and Position ID. Theaverage of Salary 2017 filter keeps non-Null values only. The Gender filter keeps F and M. The Position ID filter excludes Null.The only position category where
women out-earned their male counterparts was administration. In all other categories, the gender
pay gap benefitted men.
17
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of Total Staff
Senate Rules
House Small Business
House Education
Senate Small Business
House Appropriations
House Homeland Security
House Ways and Means
House Veterans Affairs
House Ethics
Senate HELP
Senate Indian Affairs
Senate Environment
House Oversight
House Agriculture
House Rules
House Science
Senate Agriculture
Senate Veterans Affairs
House Administration
Senate Appropriations
Senate Commerce
House Intelligence
Senate Judiciary
Senate Homeland Security
Senate Energy
House Transportation
House Judiciary
Senate Budget
House Foreign Affairs
House Energy
Senate Armed Services
House Financial Services
House Budget
Senate Foreign Relations
House Armed Services
Senate Finance
House Natural Resources
Senate Banking
Senate Intelligence
Figure 11: Figure 11: Gender Balance by CommitteeM
F
% of Total Count of Gender for each Committee. Color shows details about Gender.
Providing greater context to gender-based analyses of committee staff, Table 3 shows the overall distribution of staffers by gender in each chambers’ committees. In the House, men represented roughly 52 percent of staffers, compared to roughly 48 percent for women. Senate
committee staff were far less equally balanced across genders, with men holding nearly 56 percent
of committee staff roles and women under 44 percent.
Nearly 56 percent of Senate committee staffers are male.
Figure 11: Gender Balance by Committee
Table 3: Gender Balance by Chamber
Committee staff gender balance by chamber
Committee F M
House 47.93% 52.07%
Senate 44.11% 55.89%
18
The distribution of staffers across chambers, however, obscures significant differences in the gender composition of staff within each committee. While nearly 75 percent
of staffers on the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2017 were women, for example, the Senate Rules Committee was nearly the opposite, employing a staff that skewed nearly 75 percent male. In between these extremes range committees of varying gender balances, with only five of the 38 committees studied having a roughly 50/50 balance: House Agriculture, House Rules, House Science, Senate Agriculture and Senate Veterans Affairs. Of the most prestigious committees on the Hill, many skewed extremely male in both the House and Senate. For example, both chambers’ Banking/Financial
Services, Budget, Armed Services and Foreign Relations
committee staffs were over 60 percent male and, in many cases, over 70 percent. Many of the committees that skew female tend to deal with administrative matters, such as Senate Rules and House Ethics. One outlier to these very generalized trends is House Appropriations, perhaps the most prestigious committee assignment in that chamber, which skews in favor of women to the fourth-highest degree in all of Congress. Such skewed staff balances on committees affect both committee operations and the substance of policies considered and produced.
Therefore, more gender-diverse committees would not only create a more equitable institution from the perspective of employment and recruitment but also a more equitable policymaking process for Congress as a whole.
More gender-diverse committees would not only create a more
equitable institution from the perspective of employment and
recruitment but also a more equitable policymaking process for
Congress as a whole.
19
Committee Gender
$0K $10K $20K $30K $40K $50K $60K $70K $80K $90K $100K $110K $120K $130K $140K $150K
Avg. Salary 2017
House FinancialServices
M
F
Senate Intelligence M
F
HouseAppropriations
M
F
House Intelligence M
F
House ForeignAffairs
M
F
SenateAppropriations
M
F
House ArmedServices
M
F
House Agriculture M
F
HouseTransportation
M
F
House Ways andMeans
M
F
House Judiciary M
F
Senate SmallBusiness
M
F
Senate ArmedServices
M
F
Senate Rules M
F
Senate Banking M
F
House Ethics M
F
House Rules M
F
Senate ForeignRelations
M
F
Senate Energy M
F
Senate Agriculture M
F
Senate Finance M
F
House Budget M
F
HouseAdministration
M
F
Senate Environment M
F
House Energy M
F
House VeteransAffairs
M
F
Senate HELP M
F
House SmallBusiness
M
F
House Education M
F
House HomelandSecurity
M
F
Senate Commerce M
F
Senate Budget M
F
Senate Judiciary M
F
Senate VeteransAffairs
M
F
Senate HomelandSecurity
M
F
Senate IndianAffairs
M
F
House NaturalResources
M
F
House Science M
F
House Oversight M
F
$142K
$117K
$142K
$115K
$135K
$133K
$138K
$124K
$136K
$100K
$125K
$114K
$123K
$105K
$120K
$109K
$107K
$119K
$100K
$120K
$123K
$91K
$118K
$96K
$119K
$92K
$134K
$102K
$110K
$102K
$105K
$104K
$115K
$92K
$107K
$96K
$103K
$98K
$107K
$101K
$105K
$91K
$103K
$94K
$108K
$86K
$104K
$92K
$107K
$81K
$106K
$88K
$92K
$98K
$108K
$87K
$84K
$98K
$102K
$84K
$97K
$85K
$91K
$88K
$95K
$83K
$82K
$96K
$91K
$83K
$116K
$76K
$91K
$79K
$99K
$70K
$90K
$84K
Figure 12: Figure 12: Average Salary by Committee by GenderGender
M
F
Average of Salary 2017 for each Gender broken down by Committee. Color shows details about Gender. The marks are labeled by average of Salary2017.
Figure 12: Gender Pay Gap by Committee
Average Salary by Committee Gender
20
Our original dataset allows for a much more comprehensive look at pay disparities and in particular the gender pay gap than previous studies of Congress. Table 4 provides detailed figures that cover staff employed in 2017, average congressional salaries in that year for men and women, as well as the gender pay differential. Sorting the table by pay gap (as a percentage of average male salary), a picture quickly emerges of the vastly differing gender pay gaps that exist on the Hill in each committee. This creates substantially different experiences for women and men in different working environments.
Leading all of Congress is the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, where, in 2017, female staffers made an astonishing 35 percent less than their male counterparts. Thirty-one committees had a gender pay gap that favored men, with only eight committees paying female staffers more than their male counterparts. Of those eight committees, the largest gender pay gap was 24 percent on the Senate Small Business Committee, where women were paid an average of $118,351 compared to $95,725 for men.
Committee Avg. Salary 2017 (M) Avg. Salary 2017 (F) Gender Pay Gap Gender Pay Gap as %
Senate Indian Affairs
House Science
House Foreign Affairs
House Judiciary
House Energy
Senate Rules
Senate Armed Services
House Administration
House Rules
House Small Business
Senate Intelligence
House Financial Services
House Veterans Affairs
House Armed Services
Senate Finance
Senate Judiciary
House Natural Resources
Senate Commerce
Senate Foreign Relations
House Intelligence
House Budget
Senate Appropriations
House Agriculture
Senate Homeland Security
Senate Banking
House Oversight
Senate Agriculture
Senate Energy
Senate Budget
House Appropriations
House Ethics
Senate HELP
House Transportation
Senate Environment
House Education
Senate Veterans Affairs
House Ways and Means
House Homeland Security
Senate Small Business -23.64%
-20.61%
-20.36%
-16.85%
-16.44%
-12.35%
-11.39%
-7.24%
0.69%
1.53%
3.00%
5.66%
5.68%
7.01%
7.46%
8.55%
8.88%
8.90%
9.07%
10.56%
10.69%
12.01%
12.47%
13.23%
13.78%
14.86%
16.91%
17.59%
19.13%
20.01%
20.09%
21.01%
22.74%
23.83%
24.55%
26.15%
26.32%
29.54%
34.79%
($22,625)
($17,402)
($20,310)
($13,829)
($13,813)
($11,392)
($12,213)
($6,642)
$722
$2,072
$2,734
$5,855
$6,101
$6,332
$8,218
$7,791
$10,644
$11,164
$9,342
$14,589
$11,442
$11,632
$11,291
$12,584
$14,521
$18,353
$18,009
$25,021
$27,204
$21,664
$23,145
$22,750
$27,064
$31,837
$26,299
$32,165
$35,859
$29,325
$40,321
$118,351
$101,830
$120,043
$95,879
$97,851
$103,639
$119,452
$98,404
$103,816
$133,073
$88,493
$97,626
$101,303
$84,011
$101,900
$83,371
$109,186
$114,300
$93,704
$123,608
$95,605
$85,256
$79,243
$82,540
$90,879
$105,143
$88,479
$117,195
$115,031
$86,614
$92,053
$85,512
$91,975
$101,767
$80,824
$90,817
$100,375
$69,942
$75,584
$95,725
$84,428
$99,733
$82,050
$84,038
$92,247
$107,239
$91,762
$104,538
$135,145
$91,227
$103,482
$107,403
$90,343
$110,119
$91,162
$119,830
$125,464
$103,046
$138,197
$107,048
$96,888
$90,534
$95,123
$105,401
$123,496
$106,488
$142,216
$142,234
$108,278
$115,197
$108,262
$119,039
$133,604
$107,123
$122,982
$136,234
$99,266
$115,905
Table 4: Gender Pay Gap by CommitteePositive value indicates men have higher average salaries than women; negative value indicates women havehigher average salaries than menThat is to say, the gender pay gap as % can be read as "Women make X% less than men."
Avg. Salary 2017 (M), Avg. Salary 2017 (F), Gender Pay Gap and Gender Pay Gap as % broken down by Committee.
Table 4
Gender Pay Gap by CommitteePositive value indicates men have higher average salaries than women; negative value indicates women have higher average salaries than men
That is to say the gender pay gap as % can be read as “ Women make X% less than men.”
21
As Figure 13 shows, the most equal committees in Congress in terms of average pay were the House Ethics Committee and the House Appropriations Committee, which paid women 0.7 percent and 1.5 percent less than men on average, respectively. While it remains to be determined by future investigations what the causes of these disparities are, possible ones include the types of jobs for which men and women are hired, the experience and qualifications of men and women in various equivalent roles and/or outright pay discrimination. Nevertheless, this table and figure present the most comprehensive look to date at
gender pay gaps in congressional committees and we hope they will shed light on the causes and consequences of pay inequity in the ability of Congress to recruit, retain and fairly compensate highly talented individuals of all backgrounds.
Vastly differing gender pay gaps across congressional committees
create substantially different experiences for men and women
working in some of Congress’s most important institutions.
Figure 13: Gender Pay Gap by Committee
Positive value indicates men have higher salaries than women; negative value indicates women have higher average salaries than men.
That is to say, the gender pay gap as % can be read as “Women make X% less than men.”
Committee
-30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Gender Pay Gap 2017
Senate Indian Affairs
House Science
House Foreign Affairs
House Judiciary
House Energy
Senate Rules
Senate Armed Services
House Administration
House Rules
House Small Business
Senate Intelligence
House Financial Services
House Veterans Affairs
House Armed Services
Senate Finance
Senate Judiciary
House Natural Resources
Senate Commerce
Senate Foreign Relations
House Intelligence
House Budget
Senate Appropriations
House Agriculture
Senate Homeland Security
Senate Banking
House Oversight
Senate Agriculture
Senate Energy
Senate Budget
House Appropriations
House Ethics
Senate HELP
House Transportation
Senate Environment
House Education
Senate Veterans Affairs
House Ways and Means
House Homeland Security
Senate Small Business -23.6%
-16.4%
-16.9%
-20.4%
-20.6%
-11.4%
-12.3%
21.0%
20.1%
20.0%
19.1%
17.6%
22.7%
14.9%
13.8%
13.2%
12.5%
12.0%
10.7%
23.8%
10.6%
24.6%
26.2%
26.3%
29.5%
16.9%
34.8%
-7.2%
3.0%
1.5%
0.7%
5.7%
5.7%
7.0%
7.5%
8.5%
8.9%
8.9%
9.1%
Figure 13: Gender Pay Gap by CommitteePositive value indicates men have higher average salaries than women; negative value indicates women have higher average salaries than menThat is to say, the gender pay gap as % can be read as "Women make X% less than men."
-24% 35%
Gender Pay Gap as % of Avg. Male Salary 2017 for each Committee. Color shows Gender Pay Gap as % of Avg. Male Salary 2017. The marks are labeled by Gender Pay Gap as % ofAvg. Male Salary 2017.
22
SenateVeterans Affairs2
Senate Small Business2
SenateRules1
SenateJudiciary3
Senate Intelligence2
SenateIndian1
Senate Homeland Security5
Senate HELP7
Senate ForeignRelations4
Senate Finance9
Senate Environment8
Senate Energy4
Senate Commerce7
Senate Budget4
Senate Banking4
Senate Appropriations11
Senate Agriculture8
SASC1
House Ways and Means10
House VeteransAffairs3
House Transportation11
House Science6
House Rules2
House Oversight3
House NaturalResources2
House Judiciary5
HouseIntel1
HouseHmld Sec.2
House Foreign Affairs7
House Financial Services8
House Energy17
House Education7
House Budget3
House Appropriations15
House Agriculture6
HouseAdministration6
HASC1
Committee and sum of Lobbyist Count. Color shows details about Chamber. Size shows sum of Lobbyist Count. The marks are labeled by Committee and sum of Lobbyist Count.
Lastly, an additional dataset covers lobbying counts for presently serving committee staff, as of 2017. As Figure 14 shows, certain committees prove much more regular destinations for former lobbyists joining or re-joining the Hill. In both houses of Congress, committees dealing with appropriations, tax-writing and financial services have higher-than-average counts of lobbyists, perhaps confirming the “revolving door” notion that committees whose jurisdiction most directly touches business and other organized interests tend to produce and recruit lobbyists from those fields.
Leading Congress overall, the House Energy Committee currently employs 17 former lobbyists, followed by House Appropriations (15), House Transportation and Senate Appropriations (11 each), House Ways and Means (10) and Senate Finance (9). Both houses’ appropriations and tax-writing committees are in the top tier of destinations for lobbyists returning to a career on Capitol Hill.
Two House committees—Ethics and Small Business—did not employ any former lobbyists in 2017.
As the relative size of each colored group of blocks in the cartogram shows, the House employs 42 percent more former lobbyists than the Senate, at 115 versus 81 in the upper chamber.
Figure 14: LobbyistWhich Committees Employ the Most Former Lobbyists?Graph shows 2017 absolute lobbyist count for each committee (i.e. actual number of individuals, rather than as a % of that committee’s staff).
Note: House Ethics and House Small Business employed 0 former lobbyists in 2017 and are therefore not shown
Note: The box with no label represents the Senate Armed Service Committee, which employed 1 former lobbyist in 2017
23
1. Many of the most prestigious committees do, in fact, tend to attract staffers with the most congressional experience and retain them for longer periods, once recruited. Other committees seem to serve more as congressional pit-stops rather than places for staffers to stake out a career on the Hill.
2. For many congressional committees, recruiting
experienced staff has proven difficult, which leads to a void in experience that may negatively impact committee operations.
3. Congress’s priorities can be seen in the evolution
in the number and types of staffers employed by the committees over the last 15+ years. For example, the House Ethics Committee employed 120 percent more staffers in 2016 than in 2001, while the Senate Banking Committee staff level was cut by almost 45 percent in the same period.
4. In both chambers, committees decreased the
proportion of staff assigned to administrative roles and significantly increased the proportion of staff in communications positions.
5. In the House, more staffing resources have been spent on leadership or senior staffers, with no tangible increase in policy staffers. On the Senate side, committees have increased the number of
policy and legislative committee aides by nearly
20 percent.
6. Average salaries differed substantially across committees, from a low of just over $80,000 per year for House Oversight to a high of nearly $140,000 for House Financial Services (the lowest and highest-paying in Congress, respectively). Many committees seen as prestigious, or which compete most directly with more lucrative private-sector opportunities, pay staffers significantly more than committees that do not, which leads to a wide divergence in
compensation between staffers. Therefore, if the leadership of a committee wishes to recruit more qualified individuals to staff positions, it must
compete not only with outside opportunities but
also with other Hill positions that may offer a substantial bump and more prestige.
C O N C L U S I O N
7. Both houses’ committee staff skew in aggregate
toward men, the House at 52 percent and the Senate more imbalanced at 56 percent.
8. These chamber-level differences, however, obscure vast differences in the gender balance among staffers at the committee level. For example, while the Senate Intelligence Committee skewed nearly 75 percent in favor of women, on the Senate Rules Committee, the opposite was the case (the two were the most gender-imbalanced committees in Congress, in favor of women and men, respectively, in 2017). Of the 38 congressional committees studied, only five could be considered nearly balanced in 2017 (less than a five percentage point advantage for one gender or the other).
9. Gender imbalances on the Hill are not just limited to staff composition but also significantly impact pay. 31 of 38 committees studied paid male staffers more on average than female staffers in 2017, while just seven committees paid women more. In some cases these differences were extreme: the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, for example, paid men 35 percent more than women, while the House Homeland Security Committee paid women 21 percent more than men.
10. These differences are not just a result of men and women holding different positions on committee staff, as pay disparities are also observable at the
position level. Male communications staffers, for example, made nearly 15 percent more than women holding the same types of positions, while men and women in senior staff roles were paid almost exactly the same on average.
By leveraging the most comprehensive look to date at the demographics, human capital and compensation of Hill staffers across all of Congress’s committees, we hope this report helps shed an important light on aspects of congressional staffing previously driven largely by anecdotal evidence. We look forward to ongoing conversations about gender pay equity, human capital development, congressional capacity, staff retention and congressional salaries in the future.
Beyond the specific conclusions presented in each section above, several cross-cutting takeaways emerge with particularly relevant implications for public policy and congressional staff:
24
R STREET INSTITUTE 1212 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005(202) 525-5717 [email protected] www.rstreet.org
© 2018 by the R Street Institute, Washington, D.C.
Casey Burgat is Governance Project senior fellow with the R Street Institute, where he researches and writes about congressional capacity and ways to make the First Branch of government work better.
Ryan Dukeman is a research assistant at the R Street Institute, supporting research in the Governance program and Legislative Branch Capacity Working Group.
A P P E N D I X
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0
Avg. Staffer Committee Tenure (years)
House House AppropriationsHouse JudiciaryHouse BudgetHouse AdministrationHouse Armed ServicesHouse Foreign AffairsHouse TransportationHouse Financial ServicesHouse RulesHouse EducationHouse Small BusinessHouse ScienceHouse Natural ResourcesHouse OversightHouse EthicsHouse AgricultureHouse Veterans AffairsHouse IntelligenceHouse Ways and MeansHouse EnergyHouse Homeland Security
Senate Senate AppropriationsSenate Armed ServicesSenate FinanceSenate BankingSenate Small BusinessSenate IntelligenceSenate EnergySenate CommerceSenate AgricultureSenate HELPSenate Foreign RelationsSenate EnvironmentSenate JudiciarySenate Homeland SecuritySenate BudgetSenate Indian AffairsSenate Veterans AffairsSenate Rules
Committee Tenure by Committee
1.402 8.089
Average of Staffer Committee Tenure for each Committee broken down by Master Chamber. Color shows average of Staffer Committee Tenure.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5
Avg. Staffer Congress Tenure
House House AppropriationsHouse TransportationHouse AdministrationHouse JudiciaryHouse BudgetHouse Foreign AffairsHouse AgricultureHouse Natural ResourcesHouse Armed ServicesHouse Financial ServicesHouse Small BusinessHouse RulesHouse ScienceHouse Ways and MeansHouse EnergyHouse EducationHouse OversightHouse Veterans AffairsHouse IntelligenceHouse Homeland SecurityHouse Ethics
Senate Senate AppropriationsSenate Small BusinessSenate IntelligenceSenate BankingSenate EnvironmentSenate FinanceSenate Armed ServicesSenate EnergySenate Foreign RelationsSenate CommerceSenate BudgetSenate AgricultureSenate HELPSenate Veterans AffairsSenate Homeland SecuritySenate JudiciarySenate Indian AffairsSenate Rules
Congress Tenure by Committee
4.228 10.454
Average of Staffer Congress Tenure for each Committee broken down by Master Chamber. Color shows average of Staffer Congress Tenure.
CommitteeHouse AppropriationsSenate AppropriationsHouse JudiciaryHouse BudgetSenate Armed Services 5.9 yrs
6.4 yrs6.8 yrs7.1 yrs8.1 yrs
Committees withLongest AverageCommittee Tenure
Average of Staffer Committee Tenurebroken down by Committee. Theview is filtered on Committee, whichkeeps the Top 5 by Average ofStaffer Committee Tenure.
CommitteeSenate RulesSenate Veterans AffairsSenate Indian AffairsHouse Homeland SecurityHouse Energy 3.6 yrs
3.4 yrs3.4 yrs3.1 yrs1.4 yrs
Committees withShortest AverageCommittee Tenure
Average of Staffer Committee Tenurebroken down by Committee. The view isfiltered on Committee, which keeps theBottom 5 by Average of StafferCommittee Tenure.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90%
Avg. Retention
House House EthicsHouse AppropriationsHouse JudiciaryHouse IntelligenceHouse Armed ServicesHouse AdministrationHouse BudgetHouse ScienceHouse OversightHouse Veterans AffairsHouse Foreign AffairsHouse EducationHouse TransportationHouse Financial ServicesHouse Homeland SecurityHouse EnergyHouse Ways and MeansHouse AgricultureHouse Small BusinessHouse Natural ResourcesHouse Rules
Senate Senate Armed ServicesSenate JudiciarySenate AgricultureSenate FinanceSenate AppropriationsSenate EnergySenate Small BusinessSenate Indian AffairsSenate Homeland SecuritySenate IntelligenceSenate BankingSenate CommerceSenate HELPSenate BudgetSenate Foreign RelationsSenate Veterans AffairsSenate EnvironmentSenate Rules
Which Committees Retain Their Staff the Longest?Retention is defined as ratio of committee tenure to congress tenure, i.e. how much of one's Hill career has been spent at their current committee
53% 90%
Average of Retention for each Committee broken down by Master Chamber. Color shows average of Retention.
$0K $10K $20K $30K $40K $50K $60K $70K $80K $90K $100K $110K $120K $130K $140K
Avg. Salary 2017
House Financial ServicesSenate Intelligence
House AppropriationsHouse Intelligence
House Foreign AffairsSenate Appropriations
House Armed ServicesHouse Agriculture
House TransportationHouse Ways and Means
House JudiciarySenate Small BusinessSenate Armed Services
Senate RulesSenate Banking
House EthicsHouse Rules
Senate Foreign RelationsSenate Energy
Senate AgricultureSenate Finance
House BudgetHouse AdministrationSenate Environment
House EnergyHouse Veterans Affairs
Senate HELPHouse Small Business
House EducationHouse Homeland Security
Senate CommerceSenate Budget
Senate JudiciarySenate Veterans Affairs
Senate Homeland SecuritySenate Indian Affairs
House Natural ResourcesHouse Science
House Oversight
Average Salary by Committee
$83K $136K
Average of Salary 2017 for each Committee. Color shows average of Salary 2017.
F MHouseSenate 55.89%
52.07%44.11%47.93%
Committee StaffGender Balance byChamber
% of Total Staff broken down byGender and Chamber.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
% of Total Staff
Senate RulesHouse Small Business
House EducationSenate Small Business
House AppropriationsHouse Homeland Security
House Ways and MeansHouse Veterans Affairs
House EthicsSenate HELP
Senate Indian AffairsSenate Environment
House OversightHouse Agriculture
House RulesHouse Science
Senate AgricultureSenate Veterans Affairs
House AdministrationSenate Appropriations
Senate CommerceHouse Intelligence
Senate JudiciarySenate Homeland Security
Senate EnergyHouse Transportation
House JudiciarySenate Budget
House Foreign AffairsHouse Energy
Senate Armed ServicesHouse Financial Services
House BudgetSenate Foreign Relations
House Armed ServicesSenate Finance
House Natural ResourcesSenate Banking
Senate Intelligence
Gender Balance by CommitteeGender
MF
% of Total Count of Gender for each Committee. Color shows details about Gender.
M FHouseSenate $96K
$101K$105K$111K
Average Salary byGender by Chamber
Average of Salary 2017 broken downby Gender and Chamber.
Committee Gender
$0K $10K $20K $30K $40K $50K $60K $70K $80K $90K $100K $110K $120K $130K $140K $150K
Avg. Salary 2017
House FinancialServices
MF
Senate Intelligence MF
HouseAppropriations
MF
House Intelligence MF
House ForeignAffairs
MF
SenateAppropriations
MF
House ArmedServices
MF
House Agriculture MF
HouseTransportation
MF
House Ways andMeans
MF
House Judiciary MF
Senate SmallBusiness
MF
Senate ArmedServices
MF
Senate Rules MF
Senate Banking MF
House Ethics MF
House Rules MF
Senate ForeignRelations
MF
Senate Energy MF
Senate Agriculture MF
Senate Finance MF
House Budget MF
House Administration MF
Senate Environment MF
House Energy MF
House VeteransAffairs
MF
Senate HELP MF
House SmallBusiness
MF
House Education MF
House HomelandSecurity
MF
Senate Commerce MF
Senate Budget MF
Senate Judiciary MF
Senate VeteransAffairs
MF
Senate HomelandSecurity
MF
Senate Indian Affairs MF
House NaturalResources
MF
House Science MF
House Oversight MF
$142K$117K
$142K$115K
$135K$133K
$138K$124K
$136K$100K
$125K$114K
$123K$105K
$120K$109K
$107K$119K
$100K$120K
$123K$91K
$118K$96K
$119K$92K
$134K$102K
$110K$102K
$105K$104K
$115K$92K
$107K$96K
$103K$98K
$107K$101K
$105K$91K
$103K$94K
$108K$86K
$104K$92K
$107K$81K
$106K$88K
$92K$98K
$108K$87K
$84K$98K
$102K$84K
$97K$85K
$91K$88K
$95K$83K$82K
$96K$91K
$83K$116K
$76K$91K
$79K$99K
$70K$90K
$84K
Average Salary by Committee by GenderGender
MF
Average of Salary 2017 for each Gender broken down by Committee. Color shows details about Gender. The marks are labeled by average of Salary 2017.
Committee Avg. Salary 2017 (M) Avg. Salary 2017 (F) Gender Pay Gap Gender Pay Gap as %Senate Indian AffairsHouse ScienceHouse Foreign AffairsHouse JudiciaryHouse EnergySenate RulesSenate Armed ServicesHouse AdministrationHouse RulesHouse Small BusinessSenate IntelligenceHouse Financial ServicesHouse Veterans AffairsHouse Armed ServicesSenate FinanceSenate JudiciaryHouse Natural ResourcesSenate CommerceSenate Foreign RelationsHouse IntelligenceHouse BudgetSenate AppropriationsHouse AgricultureSenate Homeland SecuritySenate BankingHouse OversightSenate AgricultureSenate EnergySenate BudgetHouse AppropriationsHouse EthicsSenate HELPHouse TransportationSenate EnvironmentHouse EducationSenate Veterans AffairsHouse Ways and MeansHouse Homeland SecuritySenate Small Business -23.64%
-20.61%-20.36%-16.85%-16.44%-12.35%-11.39%
-7.24%0.69%1.53%3.00%5.66%5.68%7.01%7.46%8.55%8.88%8.90%9.07%
10.56%10.69%12.01%12.47%13.23%13.78%14.86%16.91%17.59%19.13%20.01%20.09%21.01%22.74%23.83%24.55%26.15%26.32%29.54%34.79%
($22,625)($17,402)($20,310)($13,829)($13,813)($11,392)($12,213)
($6,642)$722
$2,072$2,734$5,855$6,101$6,332$8,218$7,791
$10,644$11,164
$9,342$14,589$11,442$11,632$11,291$12,584$14,521$18,353$18,009$25,021$27,204$21,664$23,145$22,750$27,064$31,837$26,299$32,165$35,859$29,325$40,321
$118,351$101,830$120,043
$95,879$97,851
$103,639$119,452
$98,404$103,816$133,073
$88,493$97,626
$101,303$84,011
$101,900$83,371
$109,186$114,300
$93,704$123,608
$95,605$85,256$79,243$82,540$90,879
$105,143$88,479
$117,195$115,031
$86,614$92,053$85,512$91,975
$101,767$80,824$90,817
$100,375$69,942$75,584
$95,725$84,428$99,733$82,050$84,038$92,247
$107,239$91,762
$104,538$135,145
$91,227$103,482$107,403
$90,343$110,119
$91,162$119,830$125,464$103,046$138,197$107,048
$96,888$90,534$95,123
$105,401$123,496$106,488$142,216$142,234$108,278$115,197$108,262$119,039$133,604$107,123$122,982$136,234
$99,266$115,905
Gender Pay Gap by CommitteePositive value indicates men have higher average salaries than women; negative value indicates women havehigher average salaries than menThat is to say, the gender pay gap as % can be read as "Women make X% less than men."
Avg. Salary 2017 (M), Avg. Salary 2017 (F), Gender Pay Gap and Gender Pay Gap as % broken down by Committee.
Committee
-25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Gender Pay Gap 2017
Senate Indian AffairsHouse Science
House Foreign AffairsHouse Judiciary
House EnergySenate Rules
Senate Armed ServicesHouse Administration
House RulesHouse Small Business
Senate IntelligenceHouse Financial Services
House Veterans AffairsHouse Armed Services
Senate FinanceSenate Judiciary
House Natural ResourcesSenate Commerce
Senate Foreign RelationsHouse Intelligence
House BudgetSenate Appropriations
House AgricultureSenate Homeland Security
Senate BankingHouse Oversight
Senate AgricultureSenate EnergySenate Budget
House AppropriationsHouse EthicsSenate HELP
House TransportationSenate Environment
House EducationSenate Veterans Affairs
House Ways and MeansHouse Homeland Security
Senate Small Business -23.6%
-11.4%-12.3%
-16.4%-16.9%
-20.4%-20.6%
21.0%20.1%20.0%
19.1%17.6%
16.9%14.9%
13.8%13.2%
12.5%12.0%
10.7%
34.8%29.5%
26.3%26.2%
24.6%23.8%
22.7%
10.6%
-7.2%
5.7%3.0%
1.5%0.7%
9.1%8.9%8.9%
8.5%7.5%
7.0%5.7%
Gender Pay Gap by CommitteePositive value indicates men have higher average salaries than women; negative value indicates women have higher average salaries than menThat is to say, the gender pay gap as % can be read as "Women make X% less than men."
-24% 35%
Gender Pay Gap as % of Avg. Male Salary 2017 for each Committee. Color shows Gender Pay Gap as % of Avg. Male Salary 2017. The marks are labeled by Gender Pay Gap as % of Avg. Male Salary 2017.
LegislativeAssistant
Comms Admin Other Staff Other Policy PSM Counsel Senior Staff$0K
$10K
$20K
$30K
$40K
$50K
$60K
$70K
$80K
$90K
$100K
$110K
$120K
$130K
$140K
$150K
$160K
Avg.
Sal
ary
2017
$87K206 ppl
$89K421 ppl
$103K241 ppl
$104K463 ppl
$119K429 ppl
$151K180 ppl
$103K81 ppl
$64K72 ppl
Average Salary by Position
$64K $151K
Average of Salary 2017 for each Position ID. Color shows average of Salary 2017. The marks are labeled by averageof Salary 2017 and count of Committee. The view is filtered on Position ID, which excludes Null.
Legislative A.. Com.. Admin
OtherStaff
OtherPolicy PSM Coun..
SeniorStaff
F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M$0K
$10K
$20K
$30K
$40K
$50K
$60K
$70K
$80K
$90K
$100K
$110K
$120K
$130K
$140K
$150K
$160K
$170K
Avg.
Sal
ary
2017
$68K
39 p
pl
$95K
100
ppl
$91K
233
ppl
$104
K38
ppl
$104
K12
8 pp
l
$108
K26
9 pp
l
$124
K24
7 pp
l
$151
K11
3 pp
l
Average Salary by Position and GenderGender
FM
Average of Salary 2017 for each Gender broken down by Position ID.Color shows details about Gender. The marks are labeled by average ofSalary 2017 and count of Committee. The view is filtered on average ofSalary 2017, Gender and Position ID. The average of Salary 2017 filterkeeps non-Null values only. The Gender filter keeps F and M. ThePosition ID filter excludes Null.
Chamber Committee
2005 2010 2015
Year of Year
House HouseAdministration
House Agriculture
HouseAppropriations
House ArmedServices
House Budget
House Education
House Energy
House Ethics
House FinancialServices
House ForeignAffairs
House HomelandSecurity
House Intelligence
House Judiciary
House NaturalResources
House Oversight
House Rules
House Science
House SmallBusiness
HouseTransportation
House VeteransAffairs
House Ways andMeans
Senate Senate Agriculture
SenateAppropriations
Senate ArmedServices
Senate Banking
Senate Budget
Senate Commerce
Senate Energy
SenateEnvironment
Senate Finance
Senate ForeignAffairs
Senate HELP
Senate HomelandSecurity
Senate IndianAffairs
Senate Intelligence
Senate Judiciary
Senate Rules
Senate VeteransAffairs
0
20
40
020
40
6080
0
100
200
020
40
60
0
20
40
020
40
60
80
0
50
100
0
10
20
020
40
60
80
020
40
60
80
0
20
40
6080
010
20
30
40
020
40
60
80
020
40
60
0
50
100
010
20
30
40
020
40
60
020
40
60
020
40
60
80
010
20
30
010
20
30
0
20
40
0
50
100
0
20
40
0
20
40
60
0
20
40
020
40
60
0
20
40
0
20
40
020
40
60
80
20
4060
80
0
50
100
0
50
100
0
10
20
0
20
40
0
50
100
0
10
20
0
10
20
30
Committee Staff Levels, 2001-2016
The trend of sum of # Staff for Year Year broken down by Chamber and Committee.
-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130%
% Difference in Staff
House EthicsHouse Energy
Senate CommerceHouse Armed Services
Senate IntelligenceSenate Appropriations
House IntelligenceSenate Homeland Security
Senate Foreign AffairsHouse Administration
Senate FinanceSenate Rules
Senate EnergyHouse Financial Services
House AppropriationsHouse ScienceSenate Budget
House Foreign AffairsHouse Veterans Affairs
House Ways and MeansSenate Armed Services
House EducationSenate Indian Affairs
House Natural ResourcesHouse Small Business
House BudgetHouse Transportation
Senate HELPSenate Veterans Affairs
Senate AgricultureHouse Judiciary
House RulesSenate Judiciary
House AgricultureHouse Oversight
Senate EnvironmentSenate Banking
Staffing Changes by Committee, 2016 vs. 2001Note: House Homeland Security Committee is excluded from this analysis as it did not exist until 2003
-44.8% 125.0%
% Difference in # Staff for each Committee broken down by Year Year. Color shows % Difference in # Staff. The view is filtered on Committee and Year Year. The Committee filter excludes House Homeland Security. The Year Year filterkeeps 2001 and 2016.
House Homeland Security 100.0%
House Homeland SecurityStaffing Changes, 2016 vs.2003By 2016, House Homeland Securitystaff levels had doubled from initial2003 levels
% Difference in # Staff broken down by YearYear vs. Committee. The view is filtered onCommittee, which keeps House HomelandSecurity.
-100% -50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% 400% 450% 500% 550% 600%
HouseAdministrationCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
HouseAgricultureCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
HouseAppropriationsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House ArmedServicesCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House BudgetCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House Educationand theWorkforceCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House Energyand CommerceCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House EthicsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House FinancialServicesCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House ForeignAffairsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House HomelandSecurityCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House JudiciaryCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House Oversightand GovernmentReformCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
HousePermanentSelect Committeeon Intelligence
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House RulesCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House Science,Space andTechnologyCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House SmallBusinessCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
HouseTransportationand InfrastructureCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House Veterans'AffairsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House Ways andMeansCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
SenateAgriculture,Nutrition andForestryCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
SenateAppropriationsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate ArmedServicesCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate Banking,Housing andUrban AffairsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
SenateCommerce,Science andTransportationCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate Energyand NaturalResourcesCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
SenateEnvironment andPublic WorksCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate FinanceCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate ForeignRelationsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate Health,Education, Laborand PensionsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
SenateHomelandSecurity andGovernmentalAffairsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate IndianAffairsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate JudiciaryCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate RulesandAdministrationCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate SelectCommittee onIntelligence
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate SmallBusiness andEntrepreneurshipCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate Veterans'AffairsCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Change in Committee Staff Composition, 2017 vs. 2001Bar reflects % increase or decrease in count of staff members of the specified type, comparing 2017 to 2001NB: This view filters out the House Natural Resources and Senate Budget Committees due to differences in scale
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Administrative, Communications, Leadership Staff, Policy Staff and PSMs for each Committee broken down by Year. Color shows details about Administrative, Communications, Leadership Staff, Policy Staff and PSMs. The data is filteredon Year, which ranges from 2001 to 2017. The view is filtered on Committee, which excludes House Natural Resources Committee and Senate Budget Committee.
-100% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% 700% 800% 900% 1000% 1100% 1200% 1300% 1400% 1500% 1600% 1700% 1800% 1900%
HouseNaturalResourcesCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
SenateBudgetCommittee
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Change in Committee Staff Composition, 2017 vs. 2001 (2)Bar reflects % increase or decrease in count of staff members of the specified type, comparing 2017 to 2001NB: This view only includes House Natural Resources and Senate Budget Committees due to different magnitudes of scale from other committees
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Administrative, Communications, Leadership Staff, Policy Staff and PSMs for each Committee broken down by Year. Color shows details about Administrative, Communications, Leadership Staff, Policy Staff and PSMs. The data is filtered onYear, which ranges from 2001 to 2017. The view is filtered on Committee, which keeps House Natural Resources Committee and Senate Budget Committee.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200% 220% 240% 260% 280% 300%
House HomelandSecurity
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
House Homeland Security Change in Committee Staff Composition, 2017 vs. 2003Bar reflects % increase or decrease in count of staff members of the specified type, comparing 2017 to 2003
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Administrative, Communications, Leadership Staff, Policy Staff and PSMs for each Year broken down by Committee. Color shows details about Administrative, Communications, Leadership Staff, Policy Staff and PSMs. The view is filtered onCommittee, which keeps House Homeland Security.
-35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
House AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Senate AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Change in Chamber Staff Composition, 2017 vs. 2001Bar reflects % increase or decrease in count of staff members of the specified type, comparing 2017 to 2001
AdministrativeCommunicationsLeadership StaffPSMsPolicy Staff
Administrative, Communications, Leadership Staff, PSMs and Policy Staff for each Chamber broken down by Year. Color shows details about Administrative, Communications, Leadership Staff, PSMs and Policy Staff. The data is filtered onYear, which ranges from 2001 to 2017.
Senate Veterans Affairs2
Senate Small Business2
SenateRules1
Senate Judiciary3
Senate Intelligence2
SenateIndian1
Senate HomelandSecurity5
Senate HELP7
Senate ForeignRelations4
Senate Finance9
Senate Environment8 Senate Energy
4
Senate Commerce7
Senate Budget4
Senate Banking4
Senate Appropriations11
Senate Agriculture8
SASC1
House Ways and Means10
House Veterans Affairs3House Transportation
11
House Science6
House Rules2
HouseOversight3
House NaturalResources2
House Judiciary5
HouseIntel1House Hmld Sec.
2
House Foreign Affairs7
House Financial Services8
House Energy17
House Education7
House Budget3
House Appropriations15
House Agriculture6
House Administration6
HASC1
Which Committees Employ the Most Former Lobbyists?Graph shows 2017 absolute lobbyist count for each committee (i.e. actual number of individuals, rather than as a % of that committee's staff)Note: House Ethics and House Small Business employed 0 former lobbyists in 2017 and are therefore not shownNote: The box with no label represents the Senate Armed Services Committee, which employed 1 former lobbyist in 2017
HouseSenate
Committee and sum of Lobbyist Count. Color shows details about Chamber. Size shows sum of Lobbyist Count. The marks are labeled by Committee and sum of Lobbyist Count.
103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116
Congress1
House
Senate
$0M
$100M
$200M
$300M
$400M
Tota
l Com
mitt
ee A
utho
rizat
ions
$0M
$100M
$200M
$300M
$400M
Tota
l Com
mitt
ee A
utho
rizat
ions
$396M
$261M$282M
$305M
$166M
$223M
How Has Each Chamber's Committee Funding Changed Over Time?HouseSenate
The trend of sum of Authorization for Congress1 broken down by Chamber1. Color shows details about Chamber1.