THE CONGRESSIONAL CAPACITY COMMISSION ACT¶

Establishing an Independent Commission for Evidence-Based Determination of Congressional Resources¶

Revision 1.1¶

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE¶

This Act may be cited as the "Congressional Capacity Commission Act" or the "CCC Act."

SECTION 2. FINDINGS¶

Congress finds the following:

(a) Constitutional Authority¶

Ascertainment Clause Authority. The Constitution provides that "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law" (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). Congress possesses authority to establish by law the method by which compensation shall be determined, including delegation to an independent commission using professional methodologies.
Precedent for Delegation. Congress has successfully delegated similar sensitive decisions to independent commissions and agencies, including the Base Realignment and Closure Commission for military base closures, the Federal Judicial Center for judicial compensation recommendations, and the Federal Reserve System for monetary policy. These models demonstrate that delegation of politically sensitive decisions to independent professional bodies, operating under congressionally established standards with negative consent mechanisms, preserves constitutional authority while removing political vulnerability from individual legislative votes.
Elections Clause Authority. In addition to compensation authority, this Act draws on Congress's Elections Clause power (Article I, Section 4, Clause 1) to regulate federal elections by establishing resource adequacy standards that ensure members of Congress can effectively represent constituents and participate in the democratic process, thereby preventing wealth requirements from becoming de facto qualifications for federal office.

(b) The Institutional Capacity Crisis¶

Compensation Freeze and Real Wage Decline. Congressional base salary has been frozen at $174,000 since 2009 despite the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 establishing automatic cost-of-living adjustments tied to federal employee wage increases. Members have repeatedly voted to block these automatic adjustments to avoid political vulnerability from attack advertisements. During this 16-year freeze, inflation has eroded congressional compensation by approximately 30% in real terms, creating a salary level inadequate for maintaining two households, supporting families, and performing the duties of office without independent wealth.
Narrowing of Candidate Pool. The combination of frozen compensation, dual-residence requirements, limited staff resources, and inadequate operational support has created de facto wealth requirements for congressional service. Individuals without substantial personal wealth, family financial support, or willingness to accumulate significant debt face severe barriers to running for and serving in Congress. This systematically excludes working-class Americans, younger candidates with families, and individuals from middle-income backgrounds from meaningful participation in federal representation.
Staff Brain Drain and Institutional Knowledge Loss. Congressional staff salaries are capped at or below member salaries by statute and internal rules, creating severe compensation compression. Senior staff with 15-20 years of experience and specialized expertise in complex policy areas (tax law, nuclear policy, artificial intelligence, healthcare systems, financial regulation) routinely leave congressional service for private sector positions offering 3-5 times their congressional compensation. This perpetual talent drain depletes institutional memory, reduces policy expertise, and forces Congress to rely increasingly on outside lobbyists and interest groups to fill knowledge gaps, creating cognitive capture of the legislative process.
Technology Infrastructure Deficit. Congress operates with information technology infrastructure approximately 10-15 years behind current private sector and executive branch standards. Members and staff lack access to modern tools for legislative analysis, constituent relationship management, data analytics, secure communications, and research that are standard in comparable institutions. Statutory appropriations formulas and ad hoc budget processes cannot keep pace with rapid technological change, creating persistent capability gaps that reduce congressional effectiveness and capacity to oversee an increasingly complex federal government.
Inadequate Security Resources. The threat environment facing members of Congress has changed dramatically over the past decade, with substantial increases in credible threats, harassment, and violence directed at members, staff, and families. Security costs for district office hardening (bulletproof glass, access control systems, surveillance), residential security for members under threat, and travel security currently compete with staff salaries and constituent services within fixed Member Representational Allowance (MRA) budgets, forcing members to choose between safety and effectiveness. No systematic threat assessment or resource allocation process exists to ensure adequate security for members at risk.
Two-Household Financial Strain. Members of Congress must maintain residences in both their home districts and Washington, D.C., creating substantial financial burden not faced by other federal officials. Unlike military personnel who receive Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) when stationed away from home, members receive no housing support despite being required to maintain dual residences for their service. This financial strain is particularly acute for members from expensive real estate markets and those with families, contributing to the narrowing of the candidate pool and instances of members sleeping in offices to avoid housing costs, which degrades both personal dignity and institutional effectiveness.
Family and Career Sacrifice Barriers. The demands of congressional service -- erratic schedules with late-night votes and weekend sessions, extended periods away from home, ethics restrictions on spousal employment, lack of family support infrastructure -- create severe barriers for individuals with young children, working spouses, or caregiving responsibilities. These structural barriers disproportionately impact women, younger candidates, and anyone not supported by a stay-at-home spouse or independent wealth, further narrowing democratic representation.
Member Representational Allowance Inadequacy. The MRA, which funds all congressional office operations including staff salaries, office leases, technology, supplies, and constituent services, is calculated using statutory formulas that adjust based on aggregate indices (such as the Employment Cost Index) that do not track actual cost components. When specific costs (such as commercial office rents in district locations, specialized staff salaries, or technology requirements) increase faster than general indices, the formula creates persistent underfunding that degrades office capacity. No professional body exists to assess actual operational costs and adjust MRA components accordingly.

(c) The Self-Dealing Trap¶

Political Toxicity of Compensation Votes. Any congressional vote on compensation -- whether to increase salaries, restore automatic adjustments, or enhance benefits -- exposes members to political attack advertisements accusing them of "lining their own pockets" regardless of substantive justification or comparison to equivalent positions. This political vulnerability is so severe that members routinely vote against their own economic interests to avoid electoral consequences, creating a perverse incentive structure that makes congressional service financially unsustainable for anyone without independent wealth.
Performative Austerity and Systemic Consequences. The political dynamic described above has created a culture of performative austerity in which members compete to demonstrate fiscal restraint by opposing resource adequacy measures, even when such opposition demonstrably harms institutional effectiveness. This dynamic produces zombie formulas (automatic adjustments blocked repeatedly), degraded infrastructure, staff talent loss, and operational inadequacy that harm not individual members but the legislative branch's constitutional capacity to check executive power and represent the American people effectively.
Capture by Wealthy Interests. When congressional service becomes financially untenable for middle-class Americans, the institution becomes dominated by individuals who either possess substantial personal wealth, have access to family financial support, or are willing to position themselves for lucrative post-congressional careers in lobbying or corporate boards. This creates systemic bias in representation, policy priorities, and institutional culture that undermines democratic legitimacy and public trust.
Self-Perpetuating Dysfunction. The current system creates a feedback loop: inadequate resources produce legislative dysfunction and low public approval, which increases political vulnerability to accusations of self-dealing, which prevents resource adequacy improvements, which further degrades capacity and performance. No mechanism exists to break this cycle through evidence-based professional resource management insulated from electoral politics.

(d) The Broader Capacity Problem¶

Total Cost of Legislative Nodes. The institutional capacity question is not limited to member compensation but encompasses the total cost of maintaining high-performance legislative operations: staff expertise and retention, technology infrastructure, security, dual-residence support, family accommodations, office operational costs, and professional development. No existing body possesses authority or expertise to assess these costs comprehensively and make evidence-based determinations about resource adequacy. Instead, Congress makes ad hoc decisions during crisis situations or leaves zombie formulas in place that become increasingly divorced from operational reality.
Inability to Adapt to Changing Conditions. Statutory compensation formulas and MRA calculations cannot "think" -- they cannot assess whether specific cost components are increasing faster than general indices, whether new threats require additional security resources, whether technological change demands infrastructure investment, or whether housing markets have made dual-residence requirements financially prohibitive. Professional assessment requires human judgment informed by comprehensive data analysis, benchmark comparisons, and operational understanding that formulas cannot provide.
Crisis-Driven Decision-Making. In the absence of regular professional assessment, congressional resource decisions occur during crises (security incidents, staff walkouts, technology failures) when political pressure temporarily overcomes self-dealing concerns. This produces reactive, inadequate responses that address immediate emergencies without solving underlying systemic problems, followed by long periods of neglect until the next crisis.
Lack of Institutional Knowledge. Congress possesses no institutional mechanism for preserving knowledge about resource adequacy across member turnover, party control changes, and generational shifts. Each new Congress essentially starts from zero in understanding why current resource levels exist, what trade-offs they represent, and how they compare to historical baselines or peer institutions. This absence of institutional memory prevents learning from experience and rational resource planning.

(e) Successful Precedent Models¶

Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC). The BRAC model, established in 1988 and used successfully through multiple rounds, removed the politically toxic decision of closing military bases from individual congressional votes by delegating to an independent commission that conducted comprehensive analysis, held public hearings, and submitted closure recommendations that became law unless both chambers voted to disapprove. This model demonstrated that delegation with negative consent can depoliticize decisions where individual member interests conflict with systemic optimization, while preserving ultimate congressional authority through disapproval mechanisms.
Judicial Compensation. The Judicial Conference of the United States, through its Committee on Judicial Compensation, conducts regular studies comparing federal judicial salaries to relevant benchmarks and makes recommendations to Congress for adjustments. While these recommendations are not automatically enacted, the existence of an independent professional body issuing evidence-based assessments provides political cover for compensation adjustments and establishes objective standards against which congressional inaction can be measured. Judicial compensation has been maintained more effectively than congressional compensation precisely because of this independent assessment mechanism.
Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve's independence in monetary policy, established through Presidential appointment of Board governors with Senate confirmation and long staggered terms insulated from political pressure, demonstrates that politically sensitive economic decisions can be delegated to professional bodies with multi-branch appointments and protected tenure while maintaining democratic accountability through oversight and statutory authority to modify the Federal Reserve's mandate. This model of structured independence has proven durable through multiple changes in political control and economic conditions.
Senior Executive Service. The SES system, established in 1978, created professional compensation and performance management for senior executive branch officials, removing these decisions from individual agency discretion and annual appropriations battles. SES salaries are set through structured pay scales with regular adjustments based on comprehensive market analysis, demonstrating that federal government can attract and retain high-quality leadership through professionalized compensation systems rather than ad hoc political decisions.
State Judicial and Legislative Compensation Commissions. Multiple states have successfully established independent commissions to recommend or determine compensation for state legislators and judges, removing self-dealing concerns while ensuring competitive compensation that attracts qualified candidates. These state models provide extensive operational experience with commission structures, negative consent mechanisms, and political dynamics that can inform federal implementation.

(f) Why Independent Commission Model Works¶

Removes Individual Political Vulnerability. When an independent commission makes compensation determinations that become law unless Congress actively disapproves, individual members do not cast affirmative votes "for their own raises" that opponents can use in attack advertisements. The political dynamic shifts from "you voted to line your own pockets" to "you didn't block the independent commission," which is substantially less toxic. This shift in optics is essential to breaking the self-dealing trap.
Enables Evidence-Based Professional Assessment. Independent commissions can conduct comprehensive studies, collect detailed operational data, perform benchmark comparisons to equivalent positions, assess recruitment and retention challenges, and apply professional methodologies to resource adequacy questions. This evidence-based approach produces determinations that can withstand scrutiny and establish objective standards, in contrast to political negotiations that inevitably appear self-serving regardless of substance.
Preserves Constitutional Congressional Authority. Negative consent mechanisms -- where commission determinations become law unless Congress passes a Resolution of Disapproval -- preserve Congress's constitutional authority to "ascertain by Law" compensation and other resource levels while delegating operational determination to professional bodies. Congress retains ultimate power to reject specific determinations while avoiding the political toxicity of affirmative self-interested votes. This structure respects separation of powers and constitutional text while achieving practical depoliticization.
Prevents Single-Faction Capture Through Multi-Branch Appointments. Commission structures with appointments distributed across the President (with Senate confirmation), Chief Justice, House Speaker, and Senate Majority Leader ensure that no single political faction controls the commission. Combined with staggered long-term appointments and supermajority removal protections, this structure creates independent professional judgment rather than partisan advantage-seeking. Commissioners appointed by different branches and parties must cooperate to achieve the supermajority votes required for determinations, forcing consensus around evidence-based methodologies.
Creates Institutional Continuity Across Electoral Cycles. Long staggered terms (six years with one renewal permitted) for commissioners ensure that commission membership spans multiple election cycles and changes in political control. This continuity prevents commission capture by temporary political majorities and creates institutional memory about resource adequacy that persists across congressional turnover. Commissioners can develop expertise, build relationships with professional organizations conducting relevant research, and maintain consistent methodological approaches that improve over time.
Provides Transparency and Public Accountability. Independent commissions operating under open meeting requirements, public comment periods, and annual reporting obligations create transparency that political negotiations lack. The public and media can scrutinize commission methodologies, challenge data sources, and evaluate whether determinations reflect genuine capacity needs or hidden agendas. This transparency builds legitimacy for determinations and creates reputational incentives for commissioners to maintain professional standards.

TITLE I: COMMISSION ESTABLISHMENT AND GOVERNANCE¶

Section 101. Establishment of Congressional Capacity Commission¶

(a) Establishment as Independent Agency¶

There is hereby established the Congressional Capacity Commission (hereinafter "Commission") as an independent agency of the federal government. The Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any department, agency, or office of the executive branch. The Commission shall be governed by a nine-member board of commissioners appointed pursuant to subsection (b) and shall operate according to the procedures established in this Act.

(b) Commission Composition and Appointment¶

(1) Nine-Member Structure

The Commission shall consist of nine members ("Commissioners") appointed as follows:

Three Commissioners appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate;
Two Commissioners appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States;
Two Commissioners appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
Two Commissioners appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate.

(2) Appointment Timeline

Initial appointments shall be made within six months of the date of enactment of this Act;
If the President has not made nominations within 90 days of enactment, the remaining appointed Commissioners may proceed to organize the Commission with reduced membership until Presidential appointments are confirmed;
If the Chief Justice, House Speaker, or Senate Majority Leader has not made appointments within 120 days of enactment, the remaining appointed Commissioners may proceed to organize the Commission with reduced membership until all appointments are completed;
The Commission shall hold its first meeting within 60 days of the final Commissioner appointment or within seven months of enactment, whichever occurs earlier.

(3) Initial Term Staggering

To ensure continuity and prevent simultaneous turnover of multiple Commissioners:

At the Commission's first meeting, the Commissioners shall determine by lot which members receive two-year initial terms (three Commissioners), four-year initial terms (three Commissioners), and six-year initial terms (three Commissioners);
After initial terms expire, all subsequent terms shall be six years in length;
This staggering ensures that no more than three Commissioner terms expire in any single two-year period.

(4) Subsequent Terms and Reappointment

Commissioners serve six-year terms after the initial staggered terms;
Commissioners may be reappointed for one additional six-year term by the authority that made the original appointment;
A Commissioner who has served two full terms (12 years total) is not eligible for reappointment;
Commissioners continue to serve after their terms expire until successors are appointed and qualified, but not beyond one year after term expiration.

(5) Continuity Provisions

Commissioners whose terms have expired may continue serving until their successors are appointed and qualified, ensuring Commission continuity during appointment delays;
If a Commissioner position remains vacant for more than one year after term expiration, the Commission may continue operations with reduced membership provided at least five Commissioners remain;
The Commission may not issue Determinations (as defined in Title III) if membership falls below five Commissioners, but may conduct studies, hold hearings, and prepare draft reports.

(c) Qualifications and Expertise Requirements¶

(1) Required Expertise Domains

Each Commissioner must possess demonstrated professional expertise in one or more of the following domains:

Executive compensation and benefits design -- Experience in analyzing, designing, or administering compensation structures for senior executives in government, nonprofit, or private sector organizations, including knowledge of market-based salary benchmarking, benefits package design, and retention incentive programs;
Human resources and organizational management -- Professional experience in human resources strategy, talent acquisition and retention, organizational development, workforce planning, or personnel management in complex institutions;
Federal government operations and public administration -- Direct experience working in or studying federal government operations, congressional operations, legislative processes, or public sector management, including understanding of federal budget processes and appropriations;
Legislative process and congressional operations -- Experience as congressional staff, research on legislative institutions, or professional engagement with how Congress functions operationally, including knowledge of Member Representational Allowance, committee structures, and staff organization;
Labor economics and compensation analysis -- Academic or professional expertise in labor economics, wage determination, cost-of-living analysis, employment market dynamics, or econometric modeling of compensation systems;
Facilities management and infrastructure planning -- Professional experience in facilities planning, space management, technology infrastructure, physical security, or operational logistics for large distributed organizations;
Security assessment and threat evaluation -- Professional expertise in security threat assessment, protective operations, counterintelligence, cybersecurity, physical security infrastructure, or related fields;
Information technology and systems management -- Professional experience in enterprise information technology strategy, systems architecture, cybersecurity, technology procurement, or digital infrastructure management.

(2) Expertise Distribution Requirements

At least two Commissioners must possess expertise in executive compensation and benefits design;
At least one Commissioner must possess expertise in federal government operations or legislative processes;
At least one Commissioner must possess expertise in labor economics or compensation analysis;
The appointing authorities should consider expertise distribution when making appointments to ensure the Commission collectively possesses competence across all required domains;
Individual Commissioners may possess expertise in multiple domains, and such cross-domain expertise is encouraged.

(3) Professional Credentials

Commissioners must hold at minimum a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution;
At least five Commissioners must hold advanced degrees (master's or doctoral level) in relevant fields;
All Commissioners must demonstrate at least ten years of relevant professional experience in their area(s) of expertise;
Academic credentials may be supplemented by equivalent professional experience in exceptional cases where candidates possess extraordinary relevant expertise.

(4) Prohibited Backgrounds

Individuals are ineligible for appointment as Commissioner if they:

Have been convicted of any felony or crime involving moral turpitude;
Are currently registered as federal lobbyists;
Have been registered as federal lobbyists within the five years preceding appointment;
Currently hold any other federal office or federal employment (excluding military reserve service);
Are officers of any political party or political campaign organization;
Have direct financial interests in companies that contract with Congress or would benefit substantially from Commission determinations.

(d) Political Balance and Conflicts of Interest¶

(1) Partisan Balance Requirements

No more than five Commissioners may be members of the same political party at the time of their appointment;
For purposes of this subsection, "political party" means any party recognized for federal election purposes or any party recognized on state ballots in at least fifteen states;
Commissioners registered as independent or unaffiliated voters count toward neither party for balance purposes;
If a Commissioner changes party affiliation during their term, the partisan balance requirements apply as of the time of appointment, not current registration.

(2) Appointing Authority Balance Considerations

Appointing authorities should consider political balance when making appointments, recognizing that the Commission's legitimacy depends on professional independence rather than partisan advantage-seeking. Appointments should prioritize professional expertise and integrity over political alignment.

(3) Prohibited Concurrent Positions

During service as a Commissioner:

Commissioners may not hold any other federal office, including elected positions or executive branch appointments (excluding military reserve service which is permitted);
Commissioners may not serve as officers of any political party, political action committee, or candidate campaign organization;
Commissioners may not be employed by any political consulting firm or lobbying organization;
Commissioners may not serve on the board of directors or as executive officers of any company that holds contracts with Congress or congressional offices;
Commissioners may retain positions as professors, researchers, or consultants in academic institutions, think tanks, or research organizations provided such positions do not create conflicts of interest with Commission duties.

(4) Financial Disclosure Requirements

Within 30 days of appointment, each Commissioner shall file a comprehensive financial disclosure statement with the Commission covering:
All sources of income exceeding $1,000 in the previous calendar year;
All assets exceeding $10,000 in value;
All liabilities exceeding $10,000;
All positions held as officer, director, trustee, or employee of any organization;
All agreements for future employment or compensation;
Commissioners shall file updated financial disclosure statements annually within 30 days of the anniversary of their appointment;
Financial disclosure statements shall be made publicly available on the Commission website within 30 days of filing;
Commissioners shall recuse themselves from any determination where they have a direct financial interest or where their participation would create an appearance of impropriety.

(5) Post-Service Restrictions

For five years following the conclusion of service as a Commissioner, former Commissioners may not:
Register as federal lobbyists;
Lobby Congress or congressional staff on matters related to congressional resources, operations, or compensation;
Accept employment with companies that primarily contract with congressional offices;
Serve as compensated consultants on congressional compensation or resource allocation to any political party or partisan organization;
Former Commissioners may:
Return to academic positions and conduct research on congressional capacity;
Provide testimony to Congress or congressional committees if subpoenaed or invited;
Publish scholarly or policy analysis regarding congressional operations;
Accept positions with nonpartisan research institutions or think tanks;
Resume any professional activities not specifically prohibited above.

(6) Recusal Procedures

Any Commissioner who has a conflict of interest regarding any matter before the Commission shall disclose the conflict and recuse themselves from deliberations and votes on that matter;
If a question arises regarding whether a Commissioner should recuse, the Commissioner in question shall not participate in the determination of whether recusal is required;
The remaining Commissioners shall determine by majority vote whether recusal is required;
Determinations regarding recusal shall be made part of the public record;
A Commissioner who is required to recuse shall not count toward quorum requirements for the matter in question.

(e) Terms, Continuity, and Succession¶

(1) Standard Term Length

Following the initial staggered terms established in subsection (b)(3), all Commissioner terms shall be six years in length.

(2) Term Limits and Reappointment

Commissioners may serve one initial term plus one reappointment, for a maximum of 12 years total service;
Reappointment must be made by the same appointing authority that made the initial appointment;
Appointing authorities are encouraged but not required to reappoint Commissioners who have demonstrated professional competence and independence during their initial terms;
Commissioners who have served two full terms (12 years) are ineligible for any further appointments to the Commission.

(3) Service Until Successor Qualified

Commissioners whose terms expire continue to serve until their successors are appointed and qualified, ensuring continuity of Commission operations;
This continuation may not exceed one year beyond term expiration;
If a successor has not been appointed within one year of term expiration, the Commissioner position becomes vacant and the Commission operates with reduced membership until a successor is appointed;
Commissioners serving beyond term expiration retain full voting rights and all powers of office until succession occurs.

(4) Vacancy Filling

If a Commissioner position becomes vacant before term expiration due to death, resignation, removal, or other cause:
The appointing authority that made the original appointment shall appoint a successor within 90 days of the vacancy;
The successor serves the remainder of the unexpired term;
If the remainder of the unexpired term is less than three years, the successor may be reappointed for one full six-year term, for a potential maximum of nine years total service;
If the remainder of the unexpired term is three years or more, it counts as a full term for reappointment purposes, and the successor may be reappointed for one additional six-year term;
If an appointing authority fails to fill a vacancy within 180 days, the Commission continues operations with reduced membership;
The Commission may issue Determinations with reduced membership provided at least five Commissioners remain.

(5) Continuity During Political Transitions

Commissioner appointments are not affected by changes in the appointing authority (e.g., new President, new House Speaker, new Senate Majority Leader);
Appointing authorities may not remove Commissioners appointed by their predecessors;
When filling vacancies or making reappointments, new appointing authorities should give strong consideration to continuity and institutional knowledge;
This structure ensures the Commission maintains independence and expertise across political transitions.

(f) Removal Procedures¶

(1) Grounds for Removal

Commissioners may be removed from office only for cause, which shall be limited to:

Misconduct in office -- Including but not limited to:
Acceptance of bribes or other corrupt payments;
Use of Commission position for personal financial gain;
Knowing dissemination of false information in official capacity;
Violation of confidentiality requirements for closed deliberations;
Material violation of conflict of interest or recusal requirements;
Persistent neglect of duties -- Including but not limited to:
Failure to attend three consecutive scheduled Commission meetings without excuse;
Refusal to participate in Commission responsibilities over an extended period;
Failure to maintain required expertise or professional competence;
Incapacity -- Incapacity to perform the duties of office due to:
Mental or physical impairment lasting more than six consecutive months;
Incapacity that prevents meaningful participation in Commission functions;
Conviction of serious crimes -- Conviction of:
Any felony offense;
Any misdemeanor crime involving fraud, dishonesty, or moral turpitude.

(2) Removal Process

Initiation:
Any Commissioner may introduce a motion for removal of another Commissioner for cause;
The motion must be submitted in writing, specifying the grounds for removal and supporting evidence;
The Commissioner subject to removal proceedings shall receive the motion and have 30 days to respond in writing;
Investigation:
The Commission may appoint an independent investigator to examine the removal allegations;
The investigator shall have access to all relevant Commission records and may interview Commission staff and external witnesses;
The investigator shall issue a written report within 60 days of appointment;
Hearing:
The Commission shall hold a hearing on the removal motion;
The Commissioner subject to removal has the right to appear, present evidence, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel;
The hearing may be closed to the public if it involves classified information, personnel matters, or matters that would violate privacy rights;
A transcript shall be made of all hearing proceedings;
Vote:
Following the hearing, the Commission shall vote on whether to remove the Commissioner;
Removal requires a supermajority vote of six of the nine Commissioners;
The Commissioner subject to removal may not vote on their own removal;
If the Commissioner subject to removal is recused, removal requires six votes of the remaining eight Commissioners;
The vote shall be conducted by roll call and made part of the public record;
Suspension Pending Removal:
By supermajority vote (six of nine Commissioners), the Commission may suspend a Commissioner from duties pending final determination of removal proceedings;
Suspension shall be without loss of salary or benefits;
Suspended Commissioners do not count toward quorum and may not participate in deliberations or votes during suspension;
Suspension may not exceed 180 days; if removal vote has not occurred within 180 days, suspension automatically terminates.

(3) Judicial Review

Right to Appeal:
Any Commissioner removed from office may appeal the removal to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia within 30 days of removal;
The appeal shall be expedited and shall be heard by a three-judge panel;
Standard of Review:
The court shall review whether removal was for cause as defined in this section;
The court shall review Commission procedures for compliance with this section;
The court shall give deference to Commission factual findings but shall review legal determinations de novo;
Remedies:
If the court finds removal was not for cause or procedures were not followed, the court shall reinstate the Commissioner and may award back pay and benefits;
If the court upholds removal, the decision is subject to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and subsequently to the Supreme Court.

(4) Protection from Political Removal

Commissioners may not be removed based on:
Disagreement with specific Determinations issued by the Commission;
Political party affiliation or political views;
Criticism of Congress or congressional operations in official capacity;
Publication of research or testimony regarding congressional capacity;
Any reason other than cause as defined in subsection (f)(1);
Any attempted removal for political reasons shall be void ab initio and subject to immediate judicial invalidation;
The appointing authority that appointed a Commissioner has no special authority to remove that Commissioner; all removals must be by Commission supermajority vote as specified above.

(g) Chair Selection and Duties¶

(1) Election of Chair

At the first meeting of each calendar year, the Commissioners shall elect from among their members a Chair of the Commission by majority vote;
The Chair serves a two-year term in that role and may be reelected to subsequent two-year terms without limit;
Service as Chair does not extend a Commissioner's term; Chair service is an additional duty during the Commissioner's regular term;
If the Chair position becomes vacant during a two-year term due to term expiration, resignation, removal from Chair position, or other cause, the Commission shall elect a new Chair at its next scheduled meeting to serve the remainder of the two-year term.

(2) Chair Duties and Authorities

The Chair shall:

Preside over Commission meetings -- Establish agenda, recognize speakers, manage debate, call votes, maintain order, and enforce procedures;
Represent the Commission -- Serve as official spokesperson, testify before Congress, conduct media relations, and represent the Commission at official functions;
Coordinate Commission activities -- Ensure timely completion of studies, adherence to publication schedules, implementation of Determination procedures, and fulfillment of reporting obligations;
Supervise Executive Director -- Provide direction to the Executive Director regarding Commission priorities, work plans, and administrative matters (subject to overall Commission policy direction);
Execute Commission decisions -- Sign official Determinations, transmit documents to Congress, and implement actions authorized by Commission vote;
Emergency authority -- Make operational decisions requiring immediate action between scheduled Commission meetings, subject to ratification at the next meeting.

(3) Chair as First Among Equals

The Chair has no additional vote beyond their vote as a Commissioner; all Commissioners have equal voting power;
The Chair may not unilaterally block or advance any matter; all substantive decisions require Commission votes pursuant to voting procedures in Section 102;
The Chair serves at the pleasure of the Commission; Commissioners may remove the Chair from that position (while retaining Commissioner status) by majority vote at any time;
In the Chair's absence, the Commissioners present shall elect an Acting Chair from among themselves by majority vote to preside over that meeting.

(4) Vice Chair

The Commission may elect a Vice Chair to serve in the Chair's absence and to perform such other duties as the Commission may assign. The Vice Chair is elected by majority vote and serves at the pleasure of the Commission.

(h) Compensation¶

(1) Commission Member Compensation

Commissioners, other than the Chair, shall receive annual compensation at the rate established for Level III of the Executive Schedule under 5 U.S.C. Ã‚Â§ 5314, as adjusted from time to time;
This compensation level reflects the senior professional responsibility and expertise required for Commission service and is comparable to other high-level independent agency positions.

(2) Chair Compensation

The Chair shall receive annual compensation at the rate established for Level II of the Executive Schedule under 5 U.S.C. Ã‚Â§ 5313, as adjusted from time to time, reflecting the additional responsibilities of leading the Commission and representing it publicly.

(3) Travel and Expenses

Commissioners shall be entitled to travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United States Code, when traveling on official Commission business.

(4) Benefits

Commissioners are federal employees for purposes of federal employee benefits including health insurance, life insurance, and retirement benefits under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) or the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), as applicable. Years of service as a Commissioner count toward federal retirement vesting and benefit calculations.

(5) No Additional Compensation

Commissioners may not receive any compensation from the federal government beyond the compensation specified in this subsection, other than permitted outside employment or consulting that does not conflict with Commission duties.

Section 102. Commission Powers, Duties, and Operations¶

(a) General Authority¶

The Commission shall have the following authorities necessary to fulfill its mission:

(1) Study and Assessment Authority

The Commission may conduct comprehensive studies and assessments of:

Congressional resource adequacy across all categories addressed in this Act;
Member compensation levels, staff compensation levels, technology infrastructure, security resources, office operational costs, and member support systems;
Comparable positions in federal government, state governments, other democracies, and private sector organizations;
Recruitment and retention challenges facing Congress;
Operational costs and resource requirements for effective legislative operations;
Any other matters related to congressional institutional capacity.

(2) Investigative Powers

The Commission may:

Issue subpoenas -- The Chair, or any member of the Commission designated by the Chair, may sign and issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, electronic records, and other materials relating to any matter under investigation by the Commission;
Administer oaths -- The Chair or any Commissioner may administer oaths to witnesses appearing before the Commission;
Conduct hearings -- Hold public hearings and take testimony from members of Congress, congressional staff, administrative officials, subject matter experts, and any other relevant witnesses;
Compel testimony -- Seek enforcement of subpoenas in United States District Court if witnesses refuse to comply;
Protect confidential information -- Receive classified information or confidential operational data under appropriate security protocols.

(3) Access to Federal Records and Data

All departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the federal government shall provide the Commission, upon request, with:
Financial records and budget data;
Personnel records and compensation data (appropriately anonymized where required by privacy laws);
Operational data and performance metrics;
Technology systems documentation;
Security assessments and threat intelligence (at appropriate classification levels);
Any other records or data relevant to the Commission's authorized studies;
The Commission shall maintain appropriate security clearances and protocols for handling classified information;
The Commission shall comply with all applicable privacy laws and shall anonymize personal information in public reports.

(4) Coordination with Other Agencies

The Commission shall coordinate with and may request assistance from:

The Government Accountability Office;
The Congressional Budget Office;
The Congressional Research Service;
The Office of Personnel Management;
The General Services Administration;
The United States Capitol Police;
Intelligence community agencies (for security threat assessments);
Any other federal agency possessing relevant expertise or data.

(b) Determination Authority¶

(1) Scope of Determination Authority

The Commission possesses authority to issue binding Determinations (as defined and governed by Title III) regarding:

Staff compensation and structure -- Salary bands, position classifications, benefit standards, and retention incentives for congressional staff;
Technology and infrastructure -- Technology standards, capability requirements, budget allocations, and refresh cycles for congressional information systems;
Security and safety -- Security funding levels, threat-based allocations, physical security standards, and cybersecurity requirements;
Member support infrastructure -- Duty Station Allowance (housing support), travel policies, family support mechanisms, and work-life balance systems;
Member Representational Allowance -- MRA component adjustments, regional cost differentials, adequacy assessments, and formula recalibrations;
Member compensation package -- Base salary, retirement and pension structure, benefits composition, and cost-of-living adjustments.

(2) Phased Implementation

The Commission's authority to issue binding Determinations in each domain shall be implemented according to the phased schedule established in Title II, Section 201. During Phase 1 (Year 1), the Commission develops methodologies and conducts baseline studies but issues no binding Determinations. During Phase 2 (Year 2), the Commission issues reports and recommendations in technical areas but binding Determinations remain limited. Beginning in Phase 3 (Year 3+), the Commission assumes full authority to issue binding Determinations across all domains.

(3) Negative Consent Mechanism

All Determinations issued by the Commission shall become law according to the negative consent procedures established in Title III, Section 301. This mechanism ensures congressional constitutional authority is preserved while removing political vulnerability from individual votes on Commission recommendations.

(4) Professional Standards Requirement

All Determinations must be based on professional methodologies, transparent data sources, comprehensive benchmark comparisons, and evidence-based analysis. The Commission shall develop and publish detailed methodology documents explaining how Determinations are formulated, what data sources are used, and how professional standards are maintained. These methodology documents shall be subject to peer review by independent experts and GAO oversight.

(c) Staff and Organizational Structure¶

(1) Executive Director

Appointment:
The Commission shall appoint an Executive Director by majority vote;
The Executive Director serves at the pleasure of the Commission and may be removed by majority vote;
The Executive Director shall possess professional expertise in public administration, organizational management, or related fields, and shall have demonstrated ability to manage complex analytical organizations;
Compensation:
The Executive Director shall receive compensation at the rate established for Level IV of the Executive Schedule under 5 U.S.C. Ã‚Â§ 5315, as adjusted from time to time;
Duties:
Manage day-to-day Commission operations;
Supervise Commission staff;
Implement Commission policies and decisions;
Prepare annual budgets and manage Commission finances;
Serve as chief administrative officer;
Coordinate with federal agencies on Commission behalf;
Report to the Commission and Chair on operational matters.

(2) Professional Staff

The Commission may employ professional staff in the following categories, with qualifications and compensation determined by the Commission:

Compensation analysts -- Professionals with expertise in executive compensation analysis, market-based salary benchmarking, benefits design, and total compensation modeling;
Human resources specialists -- Professionals with expertise in HR strategy, talent management, position classification, career development, and organizational effectiveness;
Technology assessment experts -- Professionals with expertise in information technology systems, cybersecurity, enterprise architecture, technology procurement, and infrastructure management;
Security analysts -- Professionals with expertise in threat assessment, protective operations, physical security, counterintelligence, and security resource planning;
Economists -- Professionals with expertise in labor economics, econometric modeling, cost-of-living analysis, and economic impact assessment;
Policy analysts -- Professionals with expertise in public policy analysis, legislative processes, congressional operations, and institutional capacity assessment;
Legal counsel -- Attorneys with expertise in constitutional law, administrative law, employment law, and legislative drafting;
Administrative support staff -- Administrative assistants, budget specialists, human resources coordinators, technology support, communications specialists, and other support personnel.

(3) Staff Qualifications and Expertise

Professional staff in analytical positions (compensation analysts, HR specialists, economists, policy analysts) shall possess at minimum a master's degree in a relevant field and at least five years of relevant professional experience;
Technology and security staff shall possess professional certifications or equivalent demonstrated expertise in their respective fields;
Legal counsel shall be licensed attorneys in good standing;
The Commission should strive to maintain a professional staff with diverse expertise, backgrounds, and perspectives to enhance analytical quality;
Staff appointments shall be based on professional qualifications and merit, not political affiliation or connections.

(4) Organizational Flexibility

The Commission has discretion to determine its internal organizational structure, create divisions or departments as needed, establish reporting relationships, and adapt its structure to operational requirements;
The Commission shall maintain flexibility to adjust staffing levels and composition based on workload demands, available funding, and evolving analytical needs;
The Commission may use temporary consultants, contractors, or detailees from other federal agencies to supplement permanent staff for specialized projects.

(5) Personnel Policies

Commission staff are federal employees subject to federal personnel rules and regulations;
The Commission shall establish personnel policies governing hiring, promotion, performance evaluation, discipline, and termination;
Staff members shall be subject to the same conflict of interest and confidentiality requirements that apply to Commissioners, adapted appropriately to staff roles;
Commission staff may not engage in partisan political activities that would compromise Commission independence or professional reputation.

(d) Contracting and Procurement¶

(1) Authority to Contract for Services

The Commission may enter into contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with qualified organizations to obtain services including:

Compensation surveys and benchmarking studies -- Professional consulting firms specializing in executive compensation analysis, market surveys, and total compensation modeling;
Technology assessments and audits -- Technology consulting firms, systems integrators, cybersecurity specialists, and infrastructure assessment organizations;
Security evaluations and threat assessments -- Security consulting firms, threat intelligence organizations, and protective services specialists;
Facilities studies and space planning -- Architects, facilities management consultants, and real estate professionals;
Expert consultations and peer review -- Academic researchers, subject matter experts, professional associations, and independent reviewers;
Data collection and analysis -- Survey research organizations, data analytics firms, and statistical consultants;
Communications and public engagement -- Communications specialists, web developers, and public relations consultants.

(2) Competitive Procurement Requirements

All contracts exceeding $25,000 shall be awarded through competitive procurement processes;
The Commission shall publish Requests for Proposals (RFPs) or Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) allowing interested parties to submit proposals;
Contracts shall be awarded based on merit criteria including:
Professional qualifications and relevant experience;
Proposed methodology and work plan;
Cost and value;
Track record and references;
Absence of conflicts of interest;
Contract award decisions shall be documented with written explanations of selection rationale;
Competitive procurement requirements may be waived for contracts under $25,000 or in emergency situations where time does not permit competitive processes.

(3) Contract Management Standards

All contracts shall include:
Clear scopes of work with defined deliverables;
Performance metrics and quality standards;
Reporting requirements and timelines;
Confidentiality and conflict of interest provisions;
Payment terms tied to deliverable completion;
Termination provisions for non-performance;
The Commission shall designate contract managers responsible for overseeing contractor performance, reviewing deliverables, and ensuring contract compliance;
Contractors shall be required to submit progress reports and shall be subject to Commission oversight and evaluation.

(4) Performance Monitoring

The Commission shall maintain systems for tracking contractor performance, identifying problems, and taking corrective action when performance is deficient;
Contractors that fail to meet performance standards may be subject to:
Performance improvement plans;
Financial penalties as specified in contracts;
Contract termination;
Debarment from future Commission contracts;
The Commission shall maintain records of contractor performance for use in future procurement decisions.

(e) Meetings and Procedures¶

(1) Regular Meeting Schedule

The Commission shall meet at least once every three months (quarterly);
The Chair may call additional meetings as necessary to fulfill Commission responsibilities;
Any five Commissioners may petition the Chair to call a special meeting; the Chair shall schedule such meeting within 14 days of receiving the petition;
Meetings shall be held at the Commission's headquarters or at such other locations as the Commission determines appropriate.

(2) Quorum Requirements

Five Commissioners constitute a quorum for conducting Commission business;
No formal actions may be taken without a quorum present;
Commissioners participating via secure video or audio conferencing count toward quorum provided all participants can see or hear deliberations and vote;
If fewer than five Commissioners are available, the Commission may hold informational briefings and discussions but may not take formal votes.

(3) Voting Procedures

Routine matters -- Commission decisions on procedural matters, administrative issues, contracting decisions, staff appointments, meeting schedules, and other routine business require a majority vote of Commissioners present and voting;
Determinations -- Issuing any Determination (as defined in Title III) regarding staff compensation, technology standards, security funding, member support, MRA adjustments, or member compensation requires a supermajority vote of six of the nine Commissioners. Commissioners not present for the vote are not counted for this purpose; the requirement is six affirmative votes regardless of how many Commissioners are present. This supermajority requirement ensures that Determinations reflect broad consensus and have strong legitimacy;
Internal governance -- Adoption of Commission bylaws, rules of procedure, methodology standards, and other internal governance documents requires a majority vote;
Chair election and removal -- Election of the Chair requires a majority vote; removal of the Chair from that position (while retaining Commissioner status) requires a majority vote;
Removal of Commissioners -- Removal of a Commissioner for cause requires a supermajority vote of six of the nine Commissioners, as specified in Section 101(f).

(4) Open Meeting Requirements

All Commission meetings shall be open to the public, except as provided in paragraph (5);
Notice of public meetings shall be published on the Commission website at least seven calendar days in advance, including:
Date, time, and location;
Agenda items to be considered;
How the public may attend in person or remotely;
Procedures for public comment;
Public meetings shall be livestreamed on the Commission website and archived for later viewing;
The Commission shall provide opportunity for public comment at meetings, subject to reasonable time limits;
The Commission shall maintain technology enabling remote public access to all meetings.

(5) Closed Session Permissions

The Commission may conduct closed sessions only for:

Deliberations on specific Determinations -- Deliberations regarding specific numerical values or policy details in draft Determinations may be closed to allow frank discussion, but votes on final Determinations must occur in open session;
Personnel matters -- Discussions regarding hiring, promotion, discipline, or termination of specific staff members;
Contract negotiations -- Discussions of negotiating strategies or competitive sensitive information related to pending procurement decisions;
Security matters -- Discussions involving classified threat intelligence, specific security vulnerabilities, or protective measures that could be compromised by public disclosure;
Legal advice -- Confidential consultations with legal counsel regarding litigation, legal compliance, or legal strategy;
Preliminary investigations -- Initial fact-gathering and deliberations regarding potential Commissioner misconduct before formal removal proceedings are initiated.

Closed sessions shall be limited to the minimum necessary to protect legitimate interests. The Commission shall announce in public session when it is entering closed session and shall specify the basis for closure under this subsection.

(f) Transparency and Public Access¶

(1) Public Meetings and Livestreaming

All public Commission meetings shall be livestreamed in real-time on the Commission website using technology that is accessible to individuals with disabilities;
Video and audio recordings of all public meetings shall be archived on the Commission website indefinitely;
Archives shall be searchable by date, topic, and participant to facilitate public research and oversight.

(2) Meeting Minutes and Records

The Commission shall prepare detailed minutes of all public meetings including:
List of Commissioners present;
Summary of all agenda items discussed;
Summary of public comments received;
Record of all votes taken, including how each Commissioner voted on roll call votes;
Summaries of presentations and testimony received;
Minutes shall be posted on the Commission website within 14 days of the meeting;
For closed sessions, the Commission shall prepare minutes documenting topics discussed (without revealing content that justified closure) and shall release such minutes when the reason for closure no longer applies.

(3) Determination Documentation

All Determinations issued by the Commission shall include:

The specific resource allocation or policy being determined;
The methodology used to formulate the Determination;
All data sources relied upon;
Benchmark comparisons performed;
Analysis of alternatives considered;
Rationale explaining why the Determination was chosen;
Responses to significant public comments received;
Expected impacts and implementation timeline;
How each Commissioner voted (including any statements explaining votes).

This comprehensive documentation shall be published simultaneously with transmission of the Determination to Congress as required by Title III.

(4) Public Comment Procedures

The Commission shall provide public comment periods for:
Proposed Determinations (45 days as required by Title III);
Draft methodology documents (60 days);
Proposed internal rules and procedures (30 days);
Annual work plans (30 days);
Public comments may be submitted electronically via the Commission website, by mail, or in person at public hearings;
All public comments shall be posted on the Commission website (excluding personal information such as addresses and phone numbers);
The Commission shall review all substantive public comments and shall prepare written responses explaining how comments were addressed or why they were not adopted;
Summary of public comments and Commission responses shall be published with final actions.

(5) Commission Website and Information Dissemination

The Commission shall maintain a comprehensive public website containing:

Organizational information:
Commissioner biographies and financial disclosure statements;
Commission bylaws and rules of procedure;
Organizational chart and staff directory;
Contact information for public inquiries;
Determinations and reports:
All Determinations issued, with supporting documentation;
Annual reports to Congress;
Study reports and analyses;
Methodology documents and technical appendices;
Historical archives of all Commission actions;
Meeting information:
Upcoming meeting schedules and agendas;
Livestream links for upcoming meetings;
Archived video and audio of past meetings;
Meeting minutes and vote records;
Public participation:
Instructions for submitting public comments;
Schedules for public comment periods;
Notices of public hearings;
Archives of public comments received;
Transparency data:
Annual budget and expenditure reports;
Contracts and procurement information;
GAO audit reports and Commission responses;
Performance metrics and evaluation data.

(6) Freedom of Information Act Compliance

The Commission is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. Ã‚Â§ 552;
The Commission shall designate a FOIA officer responsible for processing requests;
The Commission shall respond to FOIA requests within statutory deadlines;
The Commission shall maintain a public FOIA reading room on its website containing frequently requested documents;
The Commission shall publish FOIA processing statistics annually.

END OF PART 1

This completes the Intro (Title Block, Findings) and Title I (Commission Establishment and Governance).

Word count: approximately 5,800 words (within estimated range of 5,500-6,000 for this section).

Next section will be Title II: Phased Authority Transfer.

CCC ACT - TITLE II: PHASED AUTHORITY TRANSFER¶

TITLE II: PHASED AUTHORITY TRANSFER¶

Section 201. Implementation Timeline and Authority Phases¶

(a) Three-Phase Structure Overview¶

The Commission's authority to issue binding Determinations shall be implemented in three phases over a three-year period following enactment. This phased approach ensures the Commission develops professional credibility, establishes evidence-based methodologies, and builds public trust before assuming authority over politically sensitive resource determinations, particularly member compensation.

(1) Rationale for Phased Implementation

Credibility Building -- Allowing the Commission to demonstrate professional, non-partisan operation through technical studies and lower-stakes determinations before addressing member compensation reduces political resistance and establishes legitimacy;
Methodology Development -- Complex resource adequacy questions require sophisticated analytical frameworks, comprehensive data collection, and validated methodologies that cannot be developed instantly; phased implementation provides time for rigorous professional development;
Stakeholder Confidence -- Members of Congress, staff, and the public need assurance that the Commission operates with professional integrity and independence; establishing this confidence through observable performance on technical matters facilitates acceptance of authority over more sensitive areas;
Systematic Data Collection -- Baseline data on current resource levels, operational costs, benchmark comparisons, and capacity gaps must be systematically collected and analyzed before making evidence-based determinations; rushing this process would compromise analytical quality;
Political Viability -- Phased implementation addresses incumbent concerns about immediate changes by providing a multi-year runway during which the Commission proves its value before assuming full authority.

(2) Phase Timing

Phase 1 (Year 1): Establishment and Development -- Begins on the Effective Date (date of enactment) and continues for 12 months;
Phase 2 (Year 2): Limited Technical Authority -- Begins 12 months after the Effective Date and continues for 12 months;
Phase 3 (Year 3+): Full Authority -- Begins 24 months after the Effective Date and continues indefinitely.

(3) Authority Progression

Each phase grants progressively broader authority:

Phase 1: No binding Determinations; focus on organization, methodology development, baseline studies, and stakeholder engagement;
Phase 2: Authority to issue recommendations and conduct public reviews of technology, security, and staff structure; establish credibility through professional analysis without binding authority over compensation or budgets;
Phase 3: Full authority to issue binding Determinations across all domains including member compensation, staff compensation, MRA adjustments, technology mandates, security funding, and member support infrastructure.

(b) Phase 1: Establishment and Development (Year 1)¶

Phase 1 begins on the Effective Date and continues for 12 months. During this phase, the Commission establishes its operations, develops methodologies, collects baseline data, and prepares for future Determination authority. No binding Determinations are issued during Phase 1.

(1) Commission Appointment and Organization (Months 1-6)

During the first six months of Phase 1:

Appointments:
Appointing authorities (President, Chief Justice, House Speaker, Senate Majority Leader) make initial Commissioner appointments pursuant to Section 101(b);
If appointments are delayed beyond six months, partial Commission may organize and begin operations with reduced membership as permitted by Section 101(b)(2);
First Meeting:
Commission holds first meeting within 60 days of final appointment or within seven months of enactment, whichever occurs earlier;
Commissioners determine initial term staggering by lot as required by Section 101(b)(3);
Commission elects Chair and Vice Chair pursuant to Section 101(g);
Organizational Establishment:
Commission adopts initial bylaws and rules of procedure;
Commission establishes committee structure if desired;
Commission determines internal organizational framework;
Commission identifies priority tasks and establishes work plan for Phase 1.

(2) Executive Director and Staff Hiring (Months 1-9)

During the first nine months of Phase 1:

Executive Director:
Commission conducts search for Executive Director;
Commission interviews candidates and makes selection by majority vote;
Executive Director appointed by Month 6 if possible;
Initial Staff Recruitment:
Executive Director, with Commission approval, develops staffing plan;
Initial staff positions advertised and filled:
- Senior compensation analysts (2-3 positions);
- Senior economists (2 positions);
- Policy analysts (2-3 positions);
- Legal counsel (1-2 positions);
- Technology assessment specialists (1-2 positions);
- Security analysts (1-2 positions);
- Administrative support (2-3 positions);
Target: Core professional staff in place by Month 9;
Professional Development:
Staff receive training on congressional operations, federal compensation systems, analytical methodologies, and relevant legal frameworks;
Commission establishes relationships with professional associations, academic institutions, and subject matter experts.

(3) Headquarters and Infrastructure (Months 1-9)

During the first nine months of Phase 1:

Physical Headquarters:
Commission identifies and secures office space in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area;
Office space sufficient for Commission meetings, staff operations, secure document storage, and public access;
Facilities operational by Month 6;
Technology Infrastructure:
Commission procures and implements:
- Secure data management systems;
- Website platform for public transparency;
- Video conferencing and livestreaming capabilities;
- Analytical software and tools;
- Communications systems;
Technology infrastructure operational by Month 9;
Security Protocols:
Commission establishes protocols for handling classified information;
Commissioners and staff obtain necessary security clearances;
Secure facilities for sensitive deliberations established.

(4) Methodology Development (Months 3-12)

Throughout Phase 1, the Commission develops rigorous methodologies for future Determinations:

Compensation Benchmarking Framework:
Commission identifies relevant benchmark positions for congressional members and staff:
- Federal: Executive Schedule levels, Senior Executive Service bands, federal agency heads;
- State: State legislators (population-adjusted), state cabinet officials;
- Private sector: Senior executives in comparable organizations (adjusted for public service);
- International: Legislators in peer democracies (adjusted for purchasing power parity);
Commission develops methodology for weighting multiple benchmarks;
Commission establishes protocols for updating benchmarks regularly;
Technology Assessment Protocols:
Commission develops framework for assessing congressional technology capabilities;
Commission identifies relevant technology standards and best practices;
Commission establishes metrics for measuring technology adequacy;
Commission creates methodology for comparing congressional technology to executive branch and private sector standards;
Security Evaluation Procedures:
Commission develops threat assessment methodology in coordination with intelligence community;
Commission establishes protocols for determining individual member threat levels;
Commission creates framework for allocating security resources based on risk;
Commission develops standards for physical security, cybersecurity, and protective operations;
MRA Adequacy Metrics:
Commission develops methodology for assessing actual costs of congressional office operations;
Commission identifies MRA component categories (office leases, staff salaries, technology, supplies, travel, constituent services, communications);
Commission creates framework for analyzing regional cost differentials;
Commission establishes protocols for adjusting MRA components independently based on actual cost changes;
Data Collection Systems:
Commission designs data collection instruments (surveys, cost tracking systems, operational audits);
Commission establishes protocols for protecting confidential information while enabling analysis;
Commission develops database architecture for storing and analyzing longitudinal data;
Professional Standards Documentation:
Commission drafts comprehensive methodology documents explaining analytical approaches;
Commission subjects draft methodologies to peer review by independent experts;
Commission revises methodologies based on expert feedback;
Commission publishes final methodology documents for public review and comment (60-day comment period);
Commission incorporates substantive public comments and finalizes methodologies.

(5) Stakeholder Engagement (Months 6-12)

During the second half of Phase 1:

Member Interviews:
Commission conducts confidential interviews with members of Congress (voluntary participation);
Interviews explore resource adequacy challenges, operational problems, security concerns, family/career barriers, and suggestions for improvements;
Commission ensures bipartisan representation in interview sample;
Interview data aggregated to protect individual member confidentiality;
Staff Surveys:
Commission conducts comprehensive surveys of congressional staff:
- Compensation levels and career progression;
- Reasons for leaving congressional service;
- Technology adequacy and operational challenges;
- Workload and work-life balance;
- Suggestions for improvements;
Survey design ensures anonymity to encourage candid responses;
Commission achieves representative sample across chambers, parties, and position types;
Expert Consultations:
Commission convenes expert panels on:
- Executive compensation in government and nonprofit sectors;
- Legislative operations and institutional capacity;
- Technology infrastructure and cybersecurity;
- Security threat assessment and protective operations;
- Housing markets and cost-of-living analysis;
Commission contracts with research organizations for specialized studies;
Congressional Office Operational Audits:
Commission conducts operational audits of sample congressional offices (voluntary participation);
Audits examine actual costs, resource utilization, operational challenges, and capacity constraints;
Audit findings aggregated to identify systemic patterns while protecting individual office confidentiality;
Public Hearings:
Commission holds at least four public hearings during Phase 1:
- Two hearings in Washington, D.C.;
- Two hearings in other regions of the country;
Hearings solicit testimony from:
- Current and former members of Congress;
- Current and former congressional staff;
- Experts on government compensation and institutional capacity;
- Representatives of professional associations;
- Members of the public;
All hearing testimony and written submissions made part of public record.

(6) Baseline Studies and Reports (Months 9-12)

During the final months of Phase 1, the Commission prepares comprehensive baseline reports:

Baseline Resource Assessment Report:
Documents current congressional resource levels across all domains;
Compares current levels to historical baselines (inflation-adjusted);
Identifies resource adequacy gaps and operational deficiencies;
Establishes benchmark comparisons showing where Congress stands relative to comparable institutions;
Published by Month 12 with 90-day public comment period;
Methodology Report:
Comprehensive documentation of all analytical methodologies developed during Phase 1;
Explains data sources, analytical approaches, benchmark selection, and professional standards;
Subjected to GAO review for methodological soundness;
Published by Month 12 with 60-day public comment period;
Phase 2 Work Plan:
Detailed plan for studies and reviews to be conducted during Phase 2;
Timeline for public comment periods and hearings;
Preliminary identification of areas where recommendations may be issued;
Published by Month 12.

(7) No Binding Determinations in Phase 1

During Phase 1, the Commission:

Does not issue binding Determinations regarding any resource category;
Does not make recommendations for specific compensation levels, technology standards, security funding, or MRA adjustments;
Focuses exclusively on establishing operations, developing methodologies, collecting data, engaging stakeholders, and preparing for Phase 2 activities;
May publish factual findings, descriptive reports, methodology documents, and work plans, but these are informational only and create no legal obligations.

(c) Phase 2: Limited Technical Authority (Year 2)¶

Phase 2 begins 12 months after the Effective Date and continues for 12 months (Months 13-24 after enactment). During this phase, the Commission issues its first public assessments and recommendations in technical, lower-sensitivity areas, demonstrating professional competence and building credibility before assuming full authority. Phase 2 focuses on proving Commission value through high-quality analysis without binding authority over compensation or budgets.

(1) Technology Infrastructure Assessment (Months 13-18)

During the first half of Phase 2:

Comprehensive Technology Audit:
Commission conducts detailed audit of congressional information technology systems;
Audit examines:
- Current technology capabilities and gaps;
- Cybersecurity vulnerabilities and protective measures;
- Comparison to executive branch and private sector technology standards;
- Member and staff technology needs and satisfaction;
- Technology procurement processes and vendor relationships;
- Training and support adequacy;
Audit conducted by Commission staff with support from contracted technology consulting firms;
Technology Standards Development:
Commission identifies baseline technology capabilities that all congressional offices should possess:
- Secure communications platforms;
- Legislative analysis and research tools;
- Constituent relationship management systems;
- Data analytics and visualization tools;
- Collaboration and document management;
- Cybersecurity infrastructure;
Commission develops recommended technology standards based on industry best practices;
Commission identifies authorized vendors and procurement vehicles;
Technology Needs Assessment:
Commission estimates costs of achieving baseline technology standards;
Commission identifies technology refresh cycles preventing obsolescence;
Commission analyzes technology budget adequacy within current MRA allocations;
Commission projects long-term technology investment requirements;
Public Technology Report (Month 18):
Commission publishes comprehensive Technology Infrastructure Assessment Report;
Report includes:
- Findings from technology audit;
- Recommended baseline technology standards;
- Cost estimates and budget implications;
- Implementation timeline and priorities;
- Comparison to executive branch and private sector standards;
Report contains recommendations, not binding requirements -- serves to demonstrate Commission analytical capability;
90-day public comment period follows publication;
Congressional committees briefed on findings.

(2) Security Threat Assessment (Months 13-18)

Parallel to technology assessment, the Commission conducts security evaluation:

Threat Environment Analysis:
Commission coordinates with U.S. Capitol Police, FBI, Secret Service, and intelligence community to assess current threat landscape;
Analysis examines:
- Trends in threats against members of Congress;
- Types of threats (physical violence, cybersecurity, harassment, threats to families);
- Geographic and demographic threat patterns;
- Adequacy of current security resources;
Analysis conducted at appropriate classification levels with proper security protocols;
Member Security Needs Assessment:
Commission develops threat classification system for assessing individual member risk levels;
Commission conducts confidential security assessments for members facing elevated threats (voluntary participation);
Commission analyzes costs of adequate security measures:
- District office physical security (bulletproof glass, access control, surveillance);
- Residential security for high-risk members;
- Travel security protocols;
- Personal device cybersecurity;
Commission identifies funding gaps where members face trade-offs between security and office operations;
Security Standards Development:
Commission develops recommended baseline security standards for all congressional offices;
Commission develops threat-based security funding framework;
Commission identifies need for security funding separate from MRA to prevent security-operations trade-offs;
Public Security Report (Month 18):
Commission publishes Security Threat Assessment and Resource Adequacy Report;
Report includes unclassified findings and recommendations (classified annexes provided to appropriate congressional committees);
Report documents:
- Threat environment assessment (unclassified summary);
- Recommended baseline security standards;
- Estimated costs of adequate security;
- Proposed threat-based funding framework;
- Analysis of current funding inadequacy;
Report contains recommendations, not binding requirements;
90-day public comment period follows publication;
Congressional committees receive classified briefings.

(3) Staff Structure and Compensation Analysis (Months 15-20)

During the second half of Phase 2:

Staff Position Classification Study:
Commission conducts comprehensive analysis of congressional staff positions:
- Position types, responsibilities, and required qualifications;
- Career progression pathways;
- Salary ranges and compression problems;
- Comparison to equivalent positions in executive branch (SES, GS scale) and private sector;
Commission develops recommended position classification framework;
Brain Drain Documentation:
Commission analyzes staff turnover data:
- Turnover rates by position type and seniority level;
- Reasons for departure (exit interviews and surveys);
- Destinations after leaving congressional service;
- Salary differentials between congressional service and post-congressional employment;
Commission documents institutional knowledge loss and operational impacts;
Retention Problem Analysis:
Commission identifies structural barriers to staff retention:
- Salary caps preventing competitive compensation for senior staff and specialists;
- Lack of career advancement opportunities;
- Work-life balance challenges;
- Benefits adequacy;
Commission develops recommended retention strategies;
Staff Compensation Benchmarking:
Commission conducts market survey comparing congressional staff salaries to:
- Federal Senior Executive Service;
- State legislative staff;
- Committee staff vs. member office staff;
- Private sector policy and government relations positions;
Commission identifies salary gaps and compression problems;
Commission develops recommended salary bands decoupled from member salary caps;
Public Staff Compensation Report (Month 20):
Commission publishes Comprehensive Staff Compensation and Retention Analysis;
Report includes:
- Position classification framework;
- Brain drain documentation;
- Salary benchmarking results;
- Recommended salary bands for staff positions;
- Retention incentive proposals;
- Benefits package recommendations;
Report contains recommendations and analysis, not binding salary determinations -- Commission demonstrates analytical capability on compensation issues without politically sensitive binding authority;
90-day public comment period follows publication;
Congressional committees briefed on findings.

(4) Member Representational Allowance Component Review (Months 15-20)

Parallel to staff analysis, the Commission examines MRA adequacy:

MRA Cost Structure Analysis:
Commission analyzes actual costs by MRA component:
- Office lease costs (DC and district offices);
- Staff salaries (current, not Commission-determined);
- Technology and equipment;
- Supplies and materials;
- Travel and transportation;
- Constituent services;
- Communications and outreach;
Commission compares allocated MRA amounts to actual operational costs;
Regional Variation Studies:
Commission documents geographic cost differentials:
- Commercial office rent variations across districts;
- Wage market variations for staff recruitment;
- Travel cost variations based on district geography;
- Cost-of-living variations affecting operational expenses;
Commission identifies systematic over-funding and under-funding patterns;
MRA Adequacy Assessment:
Commission compares current MRA formula adjustments (typically tied to ECI) to component-specific cost changes:
- Example: "ECI rose 2% last year, but DC commercial rent rose 18%, creating systematic underfunding of office lease component";
Commission identifies inadequacy gaps and recommends component-specific adjustments;
MRA Formula Evaluation:
Commission evaluates whether current statutory MRA formula effectively tracks actual costs;
Commission develops alternative adjustment methodology allowing component-specific updates;
Commission demonstrates that "a formula can't think" -- professional assessment required for adequate resource allocation;
Public MRA Report (Month 20):
Commission publishes Member Representational Allowance Adequacy Analysis;
Report includes:
- Cost structure analysis by component;
- Regional cost differential documentation;
- Adequacy gap identification;
- Recommended component-specific adjustment methodology;
- Projected impacts of recommended adjustments;
Report contains recommendations and analysis, not binding MRA adjustments -- demonstrates need for flexible professional assessment;
90-day public comment period follows publication;
Congressional committees briefed on findings.

(5) Public Comment and Congressional Engagement (Months 18-24)

Throughout the second half of Phase 2:

Public Comment Periods:
Commission conducts 90-day public comment periods for each report published;
Commission receives and reviews all public comments;
Commission publishes summaries of comments received and Commission responses;
Congressional Committee Briefings:
Commission briefs relevant congressional committees on all Phase 2 reports:
- House and Senate Administration Committees;
- House and Senate Appropriations Committees;
- House Oversight Committee;
- Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee;
Commission makes staff available for technical consultations;
GAO Methodology Review:
Government Accountability Office conducts independent review of Commission methodologies used in Phase 2 studies;
GAO assesses:
- Methodological soundness and professional standards compliance;
- Data quality and source reliability;
- Analytical rigor and objectivity;
- Absence of partisan bias;
GAO issues public report on methodology review (Month 24);
Commission responds to GAO findings and implements recommended improvements;
Stakeholder Feedback Collection:
Commission surveys members and staff regarding Phase 2 reports;
Commission solicits feedback on analytical quality, usefulness, and credibility;
Commission uses feedback to refine approaches for Phase 3;
Public Engagement:
Commission holds public hearings (at least two) to discuss Phase 2 findings;
Commission engages with media to explain findings and build public understanding;
Commission emphasizes professional, non-partisan analytical approach.

(6) Credibility Establishment Goals

The primary purpose of Phase 2 is demonstrating Commission credibility through:

Professional Quality: Reports demonstrate rigorous methodology, comprehensive data collection, and objective analysis meeting professional standards;
Non-Partisan Operation: Findings based on evidence, not political advantage-seeking; Commission demonstrates independence from partisan pressures;
Transparency: All methodologies, data sources, and analytical processes fully documented and publicly available; Commission operates with maximum transparency;
Responsiveness: Commission seriously considers public comments and expert feedback; Commission revises approaches based on constructive criticism;
Usefulness: Reports provide valuable information to Congress, enabling evidence-based resource decisions even without binding authority; Commission establishes that independent professional assessment improves decision quality.

(7) No Binding Authority in Phase 2

During Phase 2, the Commission:

Issues recommendations and analysis in reports published;
Does not issue binding Determinations requiring implementation;
Does not set salary levels for members or staff;
Does not mandate technology standards or security measures;
Does not adjust MRA allocations or component formulas;
Demonstrates value through high-quality professional analysis that informs congressional decision-making without creating legal obligations;
Builds political and public confidence in Commission competence before assuming binding authority.

(d) Phase 3: Full Authority (Year 3+)¶

Phase 3 begins 24 months after the Effective Date (beginning of Month 25) and continues indefinitely. During Phase 3, the Commission assumes full authority to issue binding Determinations across all resource domains, including member compensation. The Commission exercises this authority according to procedures specified in Title III.

(1) Activation of Full Determination Authority

Beginning 24 months after enactment:

All Authority Domains Active:
Staff compensation and benefits;
Technology and infrastructure standards;
Security funding and standards;
Member support infrastructure (housing allowance, family support);
Member Representational Allowance component adjustments;
Member compensation package (salary, pension, benefits);
Binding Determinations:
Determinations issued by the Commission become law according to negative consent procedures in Title III;
Congress retains authority to disapprove Determinations but affirmative approval is not required;
Regular Determination Schedule:
Commission establishes regular schedule for Determinations as specified in Section 302;
Annual Determinations for staff compensation, technology standards, security funding;
Biennial Determinations for member compensation and MRA adequacy;
As-needed Determinations for emergency situations or market condition changes.

(2) Staff Compensation and Benefits Authority (Year 3+)