Congressional Capacity Commission Act¶

Implementation Timeline¶

Published January 2025¶

Based on Rev 1.1 of the Congressional Capacity Commission Act

PHASE 1: ESTABLISHMENT (MONTHS 1-12)¶

Immediate Actions Upon Enactment¶

[ ] Appointing authorities begin Commission appointment process
President nominates 3 members (Senate confirmation required)
Chief Justice appoints 2 members
House Speaker appoints 2 members
Senate Majority Leader appoints 2 members
Target: All appointments within 6 months
[ ] Initial appropriations secured
Year 1: $8-12 million authorized
Funds available until expended

Months 1-6: Commission Formation¶

[ ] All nine members appointed and confirmed
[ ] First Commission meeting held (within 60 days of final appointment or 7 months after enactment)
[ ] Term staggering determined by lot (three 2-year, three 4-year, three 6-year initial terms)
[ ] Chair elected by Commission members (majority vote, 2-year term)
[ ] Commission establishes meeting schedule (quarterly minimum)

Months 3-9: Infrastructure and Staffing¶

[ ] Executive Director selected (Level IV Executive Schedule compensation)
[ ] Headquarters location selected in DC metro area
[ ] Office lease negotiated and space prepared
[ ] Initial staff hired:
Compensation analysts
Economists
HR specialists
Policy analysts
Legal counsel
Technology specialists
Security analysts
Administrative staff
[ ] Technology infrastructure deployed:
Database systems
Financial management systems
Document management
Public transparency portal/website
Cybersecurity protections

Months 6-12: Methodology Development¶

[ ] Compensation benchmarking framework developed
[ ] Technology assessment protocols established
[ ] Security evaluation procedures created
[ ] MRA adequacy metrics defined
[ ] Data collection systems implemented
[ ] Professional standards documented
[ ] Methodology peer review completed
[ ] GAO methodology review conducted

Months 6-12: Baseline Studies¶

[ ] Baseline Resource Assessment Report:
Current congressional compensation vs. benchmarks
Current staff compensation and retention data
Technology infrastructure audit
Security threat environment assessment
MRA adequacy analysis
Trend analysis (historical capacity decline)
[ ] Stakeholder Engagement:
Member interviews (sample across parties, seniority, regions)
Staff surveys (comprehensive across offices and committees)
Expert consultations (compensation professionals, HR, security, technology)
Congressional office operational audits
Public hearings (DC and regional)
[ ] Phase 2 Work Plan published

Month 12 Deliverables¶

[ ] Baseline Resource Assessment Report (public)
[ ] Methodology Report (public, with professional standards documentation)
[ ] Phase 2 Work Plan (public)
[ ] Initial Commission Annual Report to Congress

KEY PRINCIPLE: Phase 1 issues NO binding Determinations. Focus is building credibility through professional, transparent operations.

PHASE 2: LIMITED TECHNICAL AUTHORITY (MONTHS 13-24)¶

Core Mission¶

Demonstrate Commission value through high-quality analysis of non-sensitive areas. Issue recommendations only -- no binding Determinations yet.

Months 13-18: Technology and Security Assessments¶

[ ] Comprehensive Technology Audit:
Assessment of current congressional IT capabilities
Capability gap identification
Security vulnerability assessment
Comparison to private sector and executive branch standards
Technology needs assessment (AI, secure communications, CRM, cybersecurity, analytics)
Vendor and contract assessment
Cost estimates for modernization
[ ] Technology Standards Development:
Baseline technology requirements for all offices
Advanced capabilities for committees
Cybersecurity standards (mandatory MFA, encryption, monitoring, etc.)
Interoperability standards
Refresh cycle recommendations
[ ] Public Technology Report issued (Month 18)
90-day public comment period
Congressional committee briefings
Media and stakeholder engagement
[ ] Security Threat Assessment:
Physical threat analysis (office attacks, member safety)
Cyber threat analysis (nation-states, criminal actors, hacktivists)
Harassment and intimidation threat tracking
Family and staff threat assessment
Intelligence community coordination (Capitol Police, FBI, Secret Service, DHS)
Threat classification framework
[ ] Security Standards Development:
Physical security requirements (district offices, residences)
Cybersecurity standards (personal devices, communications, monitoring)
Protective detail criteria
Travel security protocols
[ ] Public Security Report issued (Month 18)
Classified version to relevant committees
Unclassified summary public
90-day comment period

Months 15-20: Staff and MRA Analysis¶

[ ] Staff Structure and Compensation Study:
Position classification framework
Current salary analysis by position and seniority
Brain drain documentation (interviews with departing staff, salary comparisons to K Street)
Retention problem quantification
Career path analysis
Benchmarking to comparable positions (SES, private sector, comparable organizations)
Benefits adequacy assessment
[ ] Public Staff Compensation Report issued (Month 20)
Clear documentation of staff retention crisis
Salary band recommendations
Career framework proposals
90-day comment period
[ ] MRA Component Review:
Cost structure analysis (office lease, staff salaries, technology, supplies, travel, constituent services, communications)
Actual cost data collection (voluntary from offices)
Regional variation studies (urban vs. rural, high-cost vs. low-cost markets)
Formula evaluation (does current formula track actual costs?)
Adequacy assessment (are offices systematically underfunded?)
[ ] Public MRA Report issued (Month 20)
Component-by-component analysis
Regional cost differential methodology
Formula recommendations
90-day comment period

Months 18-24: Credibility Building¶

[ ] GAO methodology review of all Phase 2 reports
[ ] Congressional committee briefings on findings
[ ] Public hearings on recommendations
[ ] Stakeholder feedback collection
[ ] Refinement of methodologies based on feedback
[ ] Preparation for Phase 3 transition

Month 24 Deliverables¶

[ ] Technology Report (final, post-comment)
[ ] Security Report (final, post-comment)
[ ] Staff Compensation Report (final, post-comment)
[ ] MRA Report (final, post-comment)
[ ] Phase 3 Transition Plan
[ ] Commission Annual Report Year 2

KEY PRINCIPLE: Phase 2 recommendations demonstrate Commission can produce high-quality, non-partisan, professional analysis. This builds credibility for Phase 3 binding authority.

PHASE 3: FULL AUTHORITY (MONTH 25+)¶

Month 25: Full Authority Activation¶

All six authority domains become active with binding Determination authority:

Staff Compensation and Structure (Section 401)
Technology and Infrastructure (Section 402)
Security and Safety (Section 403)
Member Support Infrastructure (Section 404)
Member Representational Allowance (Section 405)
Member Compensation Package (Section 406)

Months 25-30: Initial Determinations (Non-Compensation)¶

Priority 1: Staff Compensation

[ ] Staff salary bands Determination issued
Position classification system
Salary ranges by grade and location
Explicit authority to decouple senior staff from member pay caps
Market-based specialized expert compensation
Retention incentives
[ ] 60-day review period
[ ] Implementation begins (assuming no congressional disapproval)

Priority 2: Technology Standards

[ ] Technology infrastructure Determination issued
Mandatory technology capabilities for all offices
Technology budget allocations within MRA
Authorized vendor lists
Refresh cycles
Cybersecurity mandates
[ ] 60-day review period
[ ] Implementation begins

Priority 3: Security Funding

[ ] Security Classification funding Determination issued
Threat-based allocation methodology
Physical security standards and funding
Cybersecurity requirements
Travel security protocols
Separate from MRA
[ ] 60-day review period
[ ] Implementation begins

Priority 4: Member Support Infrastructure

[ ] Duty Station Allowance Determination issued
DC housing stipend calculation methodology
Amount by family size
Tax treatment clarification
Opt-in procedures
[ ] Family/childcare support provisions
[ ] Travel policy updates
[ ] 60-day review period
[ ] Implementation begins

Months 30-36: Member Compensation Determination¶

The Sensitive One:

[ ] Comprehensive member compensation study completed
Multiple benchmark comparisons (Executive Schedule, SES, private sector, peer legislatures, state legislators, judicial)
Recruitment competitiveness analysis
Job demand and responsibility assessment
Economic indicators review
Senate differential analysis
[ ] Member Compensation Package Determination issued:
Base salary for House
Base salary for Senate (differential if warranted)
Retirement/pension structure
Benefits package
Annual COLA mechanism
[ ] Extended public comment period (90 days)
[ ] Multiple public hearings
[ ] GAO methodology review
[ ] Congressional committee briefings
[ ] Determination transmitted to Congress
[ ] 90-day Congressional review period (extended for member compensation)
[ ] Determination becomes law unless disapproved

Month 36+: Ongoing Operations¶

Annual Determinations (Required): - [ ] Staff compensation adjustments - [ ] Technology audit and standards updates - [ ] Security threat assessment and funding

Biennial Comprehensive Reviews (Required): - [ ] Member compensation package review - [ ] MRA adequacy assessment - [ ] Congressional Capacity Scorecard - [ ] Trend analysis and long-term planning

As-Needed Determinations: - Emergency technology requirements - Security incidents requiring immediate response - Market condition changes - Operational disruptions

Continuous Activities: - Annual GAO audits - Public transparency (website, reports, meetings) - Stakeholder surveys and feedback - Methodology refinement - Congressional briefings

KEY MILESTONES SUMMARY¶

Timeline	Milestone	Status
Enactment	Act becomes law	Starting point
Month 6	All Commissioners appointed	Phase 1
Month 12	Phase 1 complete, baseline reports	Transition
Months 13-24	Phase 2 technical analysis	Building credibility
Month 24	Phase 2 complete, recommendations issued	Transition
Month 25	Phase 3 begins, full authority active	Major transition
Months 25-30	Staff, technology, security Determinations	Implementation
Months 30-36	Member compensation Determination	Most sensitive
Month 36+	Ongoing regular operations	Steady state

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS¶

1. Appointments Quality¶

Make or break: Commission credibility depends on appointing highly qualified, respected professionals.

Ideal Commissioners: - Recognized experts in compensation, HR, economics, federal operations - Track record of non-partisan professionalism - Diverse geographic and professional backgrounds - No obvious political axes to grind - Commitment to evidence-based decision-making

Avoid: Partisan operatives, ideologues, anyone who will undermine credibility.

2. Methodology Rigor¶

Foundation of legitimacy: Professional methodologies meeting industry standards.

Must demonstrate: - Rigorous benchmarking using multiple data sources - Statistical validity - Transparent data sources and calculations - Peer review and GAO validation - Comparison to professional compensation consulting standards

Avoid: "Black box" determinations, hidden data, unjustified conclusions.

3. Public Transparency¶

Builds trust: Maximum transparency demonstrates Commission has nothing to hide.

Requirements: - Open meetings (livestreamed, archived) - All Determinations and supporting documentation public - Methodologies fully documented and explained - Responsive to public comments - Clear, accessible website - Plain-language explanations

Avoid: Secrecy, opacity, lack of responsiveness to concerns.

4. Political Independence¶

Core legitimacy: Commission must be genuinely independent, not a partisan tool.

Critical: - Multi-branch appointments prevent capture - Commissioners demonstrate independence in practice - No political pressure on determinations - GAO audits verify absence of partisan bias - Public confidence in non-partisan operations

Avoid: Appearance of favoritism, partisan determinations, political interference.

5. Phased Credibility Building¶

Strategic patience: Demonstrate value before claiming sensitive authorities.

Phase 2 critical: - High-quality recommendations on technology and security - Positive reception from members and staff - Media coverage emphasizes professionalism - Congressional committees view Commission as valuable resource

By Phase 3: Commission has earned trust to handle member compensation.

POLITICAL MESSAGING GUIDE¶

For Commission Proponents¶

When advocating for the Act:

[YES] DO SAY: - "Removing political toxicity from necessary resource decisions" - "Independent professional commission like BRAC for base closures" - "Evidence-based, transparent process with congressional oversight" - "Ensures middle-class Americans can serve in Congress" - "Builds institutional capacity for effective governance"

[NO] DON'T SAY: - "Congress needs a raise" (even if true) - "Members deserve more pay" (moral claim) - "Fairness requires..." (sounds like activist) - "Other countries pay more" (sounds defensive)

For Members Considering Support¶

How to explain vote FOR the Act:

[YES] DO SAY: - "I'm voting to establish an independent commission of experts to make professional, evidence-based recommendations on congressional resources" - "This removes the political toxicity from these decisions while maintaining congressional oversight" - "Similar to how BRAC handled base closures -- independent commission, congressional review" - "We need institutional capacity to govern effectively, and this provides transparent, accountable process"

[NO] DON'T SAY: - "I'm voting to raise congressional pay" (you're not) - "We deserve this" (moral claim invites attack) - "Congress is underpaid" (even if true, sounds self-serving)

If a Determination comes up and you're not voting to disapprove:

[YES] DO SAY: - "An independent commission of experts appointed by the President, Chief Justice, Speaker, and Senate Majority Leader conducted rigorous analysis and made this determination" - "They used professional benchmarking and transparent methodology" - "GAO audited their work and found it sound" - "I reviewed their evidence and declined to override their professional judgment" - "Congress retains authority to disapprove if we determine their analysis is flawed"

[NO] DON'T SAY: - "I voted to raise my pay" (you didn't) - "I support this raise" (sounds self-interested) - Anything that sounds like YOU made the decision

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES AND RESPONSES¶

Challenge: "This is an unconstitutional delegation"¶

Response: - Ascertainment Clause says compensation shall be "ascertained by Law" - Congress ascertains BY LAW that compensation = Commission determination - Similar to BRAC, Congressional Review Act, Trade Promotion Authority - Negative consent preserves congressional authority - Multiple precedents upheld by courts

Challenge: "The Commission will be captured by [party/faction]"¶

Response: - Multi-branch appointments (President, Chief Justice, Speaker, Senate Majority Leader) - No more than 5 from same party - Staggered 6-year terms spanning multiple elections - Supermajority removal protections - Annual GAO audits checking for bias - Public transparency enabling outside scrutiny

Challenge: "Why not just let market forces work?"¶

Response: - Market forces don't work when one side of transaction (Congress) cannot negotiate due to political toxicity - 16-year freeze demonstrates market failure - Result is institutional capacity decay and narrowing of candidate pool to wealthy - Independent commission enables rational resource allocation

Challenge: "This will cost taxpayers billions"¶

Response: - Commission costs $3-7M annually to operate (tiny fraction of federal budget) - Adequate congressional compensation costs ~$50-100M additional annually (depending on increases) - Compare to $6+ trillion federal budget -- less than 0.002% - Effective governance from properly resourced Congress saves far more through better decisions - Alternative is continued capacity decay and dysfunction

SUCCESS METRICS¶

Year 1 (Phase 1)¶

[YES] All Commissioners appointed within 6 months
[YES] Baseline reports published on schedule
[YES] Methodology receives positive GAO review
[YES] Congressional committees view Commission positively
[YES] Media coverage emphasizes professionalism

Year 2 (Phase 2)¶

[YES] Technology, security, staff, and MRA reports issued
[YES] Reports receive bipartisan praise for quality
[YES] GAO methodology reviews positive
[YES] Members and staff report Commission recommendations valuable
[YES] Public comment demonstrates stakeholder engagement

Year 3+ (Phase 3)¶

[YES] First Determinations implemented without congressional disapproval
[YES] Staff retention improves measurably
[YES] Technology modernization visible in offices
[YES] Security improvements implemented
[YES] Member compensation Determination proceeds smoothly
[YES] Annual GAO audits find no partisan bias
[YES] Congressional satisfaction with Commission high

Long-term (Years 5-10)¶

[YES] Congressional capacity metrics improve (staffing, technology, security, effectiveness)
[YES] Candidate pool broadens (more middle-class candidates)
[YES] Staff retention rates normalize
[YES] Technology gap with private sector closes
[YES] Commission viewed as established, legitimate institution
[YES] No serious efforts to dismantle Commission

FINAL CHECKLIST: IS THE ACT READY?¶

[x] Complete statutory text drafted (35,591 words)
[x] All seven Titles completed
[x] 30 comprehensive Findings
[x] Phased implementation framework
[x] Negative consent mechanism detailed
[x] All six authority domains specified
[x] Accountability and oversight provisions
[x] General provisions and definitions
[x] Executive summary prepared
[x] One-page summary prepared
[x] Implementation guide prepared
[ ] Legal review conducted
[ ] Stakeholder feedback obtained
[ ] Congressional champion identified
[ ] Introduction in Congress
[ ] Committee consideration
[ ] Floor passage
[ ] Presidential signature
[ ] COMMISSION OPERATIONAL

Revision History¶

Revision 1.1 (Current) - Reformatted to comply with APAI Document Production Standards - Renamed from "Implementation Checklist and Quick Reference" to "Implementation Timeline" - Standardized header and footer format

Revision 1.0 - Initial publication as Implementation Guide

📄 Download this document (opens on GitHub -- click the ⬇ download button)

Prepared by Albert Ramos for The American Policy Architecture Institute