Ep. 6: How to Work With and Oversee Federal Agencies

Written By POPVOX Foundation

Oversight of the Executive branch is a cornerstone responsibility of Congress and essential to the checks and balances of America’s federal government. In this episode, Aubrey Wilson and Taylor J. Swift speak with experienced Congressional staff and scholars about the House’s oversight powers, strategies for effective interactions between the branches, and recent changes to Congressional authorities due to the overturning of the Chevron doctrine.

Dr. Kevin R. Kosar, a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, specializes in Congressional studies, American politics, and government reform. With a Ph.D. from New York University, Kevin's career spans roles at the R Street Institute and over a decade at the Congressional Research Service. He cofounded the Legislative Branch Capacity Working Group and currently edits UnderstandingCongress.org and hosts its podcast. Kevin has authored several books on governance and public policy, including Congress Overwhelmed: The Decline in Congressional Capacity and Prospects for Reform. His expertise is frequently sought by media outlets and he has testified before Congress, contributing significantly to public discourse on government effectiveness and reform.

Nicole Tisdale is a national security expert with 14 years of experience at the White House National Security Council and House Committee on Homeland Security. She played a key role in creating the $1 billion cybersecurity grant program in the bipartisan infrastructure law and passing significant cybersecurity legislation. In 2019, Nicole founded Advocacy Blueprints, LLC, and authored Right To Petition to help others exercise their First Amendment right to advocate. A barred attorney, Nicole continues to volunteer with advocacy and education groups, and serves as Senior Fellow at the POPVOX Foundation.

Betsy Wright Hawkings, a veteran of Congressional operations, served as Chief of Staff to four Republican House Members over a 25-year period. Her career includes significant achievements in bipartisan legislation, such as the Congressional Accountability Act and the establishment of the 9-11 Commission. As the founding Managing Director of Democracy Fund's Principled Leadership and Effective Governance program, Betsy developed initiatives to reduce partisan gridlock and enhance Congressional effectiveness. Currently, she leads Article One Advisors, a consulting firm focused on improving Congressional function and fostering cross-ideological dialogue. A Williams College Mead Scholar, Betsy has been recognized for her public service by institutions including the Stennis Center for Public Service.

Dr. Maya Kornberg, a leading expert in democratic governance and civic engagement, is the author of Inside Congressional Committees: Function and Dysfunction in the Legislative Process. As the Research Lead for the elections and government program at NYU's Brennan Center for Justice, she focuses on legislative reform, political information dynamics, and civic participation. Maya has held positions at various nonprofits and international organizations, including the UN Development Program, and was the lead author of the 2022 Global Parliamentary Report. With a Ph.D. from Oxford University, she has taught at prestigious institutions including New York University, Georgetown, and American University. Her insights frequently appear in major media outlets, contributing to public discourse on democratic processes and reforms.

Keenan Austin Reed, a seasoned Capitol Hill professional, is CEO of the Alpine Group and Executive Director of the Public Policy Holding Company Board of Directors. Her decade of Congressional experience includes roles as Chief of Staff and top Policy Advisor, where she worked on issues ranging from climate change to rural broadband for the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In 2018, Keenan cofounded the Black Women's Congressional Alliance, a bipartisan organization supporting over 300 Black women staffers across both chambers of Congress. A graduate of Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University with both a bachelor's degree and an MBA, Keenan has also managed political campaigns and served in senior roles for state and local government officials.

Key Tips

Oversight support

Overseeing the Executive branch is an overwhelming task, but Members and their staff have many resources and support offices at their disposal to help. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Research Service (CRS), Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the various agencies’ Inspectors General (IGs) are a few key ones to get to know.

Practicing your handshake

Agency oversight can be particularly effective if pursued as a relationship between a Member of Congress and agency staff. Rather than engaging with an agency with a gotcha approach, Members and staff may find it more effective to get to know the agency team through requesting closed-door briefings, tours, and informational interviews. This way, the agency can learn more about Congressional intent and interest, and potentially become a partner to help you advance your goal of improving agency or program operations.

Persistence is key

Sending oversight letters is a common practice on the Hill, but depending on the agency, topic, and numerous other factors, it may take a while for agencies to respond. For oversight topics that are the highest priority, Members should pursue phone calls, briefings, or meetings scheduled with the appropriate agency staff.

White House advocacy

The Administration can be very helpful advocates for legislation that aligns with its policy, not only when a bill is being considered across the chambers, but through federal agencies’ policy implementation of law. When introducing a keystone piece of legislation for your office, consider reaching out to the White House early in the process to raise awareness and get its feedback to begin exploring how the Administration can be a partner to accomplish your legislative goals.

Committees and caucus

The Executive branch pays attention to how committees of jurisdiction signal what legislation may actually move through the legislative process. As such, getting committee support for legislation or a policy priority can be key for moving your oversight agenda forward. If you have an oversight-related priority that does not align with your committee assignments, joining a caucus and working with its members can better leverage policy influence.

Notable Quotes

“So up until now,...Congress has really relied on the Executive [branch] to sort out the nuances of different things,...because…the agencies are really where technical expertise has been housed. The Executive branch has, according to some estimates, 120 times as much funding as the Legislative branch. But now Congress can no longer be doing that. It will have to legislate with more specificity in a post Chevron world where agencies don’t have that power anymore – to really be sorting out the details of implementing different policies. And, in terms of oversight, that’s really important because Congress fills a very important space in the overall checks and balances in conducting oversight of the Executive.”
— Dr. Maya Kornberg, Senior Research Fellow and Manager at the Brennan Center for Justice
“A lot of Members, it’s worth noting, do not necessarily have legislative experience…what made them effective was hiring staff who had that experience, who understood the process, who understood both the legislator and the legislature side of it in particular, but also kind of the broader picture. That was really important. And I think, is something that’s worth thinking about for any incoming freshmen.”
— Dr. Maya Kornberg, Senior Research Fellow and Manager at the Brennan Center for Justice
“One of my colleagues always says, ‘You send a letter, it gets put in a drawer.’ You know? You’ve got a call? Follow up, ask for a meeting. You know you’ve got to. You can’t just send a letter, right? You’ve got to be insistent. And, at the same time, asking for the committee of jurisdiction to follow up and being insistent in that way.”
— Betsy Wright Hawkings, Manager of Congressional Outreach at the Levin Center and former Chief of Staff
“Perhaps you have interests that are just flowing from your constituents, your supporters, your voters, things that they care about. And when you first approach the agency, approach it in a neutral tone, do not come in hard and heavy because that’ll immediately put them on their heels. And the agency has any number of tools to make it difficult for you to learn what you want to learn. You want to have a trust based relationship. Agencies don’t want to be picked apart like any human being doesn’t want to be picked upon. So in reaching out, ask for an informational interview. Ask to hold this in a closed door setting so they don’t feel like you’re going to trot them out and use them as a campaign prop, then rinse and repeat. And over time, you can start to develop friendships, trust, and you can start to see what their interests are because bureaucracies are not monolithic.”
— Dr. Kevin Kosar, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
“I remind [Members], your constituents don’t care what committee you’re on. They don’t think there’s a single issue that comes up before Congress that you cannot work on, and that you should not be advocating for them. So if you’re not on a committee, just know the caucuses. But also – building relationships and coalitions gives you the same level of access and influence… There are plenty of times where I remember Members would say, ‘This isn’t my bill, but this is why this is really important.’”
— Nicole Tisdale, former Director for the White House National Security Council and the House Committee on Homeland Security
“The reality is the minute you’re elected, you are not a junior Member of Congress. You are these folks’ life-line. There’s 700,000 people that you are the line between whether they make it or not. I think about Congress and particularly our offices – whether you’re the DC office or some of the district offices or state based offices – as we’re the hospital…When people call for help and intervention with our federal agencies, they’re calling you on their worst day. So you are empowered [from] day one to do what you have to do to raise attention to your district and every member of your leadership or your conference will respect you for standing up for your district.”
— Keenen Austin Reed, Principal and incoming CEO at the Alpine Group and former Chief of Staff

Highlighted and Additional Resources

Further Listening

For more insights into successful Congressional oversight tactics and how to communicate committee work back to constituents, check out episode 5 on “How Committees in the House Work and How to be an Effective Committee Member” and episode 7 on “Reaching Your Constituents and Translating Your Impact to the District.”

About the Hosts

Aubrey Wilson is POPVOX Foundation’s Director of Government Innovation. Aubrey served as former Deputy Staff Director for the Committee on House Administration (CHA) in the 118th Congress. In this role, she coordinated efforts to make the House work more effectively, including overseeing the inaugural session of CHA’s bipartisan Subcommittee on Modernization. Prior, Aubrey served as Director of Oversight and Modernization for CHA during the 117th Congress. She is a former House legislative assistant and member of the R Street Institute Governance Policy and federal affairs team.

Taylor J. Swift is POPVOX Foundation’s Director of Government Capacity. Prior to joining POPVOX Foundation, Taylor was a senior policy advisor at Demand Progress, focusing on Congressional transparency, efficiency, capacity, and modernization. Taylor also worked at the House of Representatives Democratic Caucus where he focused on congressional modernization, budget, appropriations, education, labor, environmental, and tax policy. Taylor graduated with his master’s degree from The University of Akron, working as a teaching assistant for the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics.

About the Podcast

“Gavel In” is a nonpartisan explainer podcast series designed especially to mentor new Members Elect of the incoming 119th Congress, their staff, and families to help them successfully set up their new office, team, and Washington home base with ease and navigate the professional and personal challenges of life as a Representative. Gavel In guides Members-Elect about House Floor operations, office structure and hiring, budgeting, technology, security, ethics, and also the intricacies of parliamentary procedure, rules, and how a bill becomes a law.

Created by former Congressional staff from both sides of the aisle by the nonpartisan POPVOX Foundation, “Gavel In” features expert advice from former Members of Congress and their spouses and is a great complement to the House’s official New Member Orientation to ensure Members Elect get all the support they need to succeed as they embark on their new careers in Congress.

About POPVOX Foundation

With a mission to inform and empower people and make government work better for everyone, POPVOX Foundation is focused on ensuring that democratic institutions are equipped to address the “pacing problem” — the gap between emerging technologies and governance. Co-founded in 2021 and led by proud former Congressional staffers from both sides of the aisle, the team at POPVOX Foundation brings empathy, a deep respect for the Legislative branch, and diverse expertise to its efforts to modernize Congress and other governing institutions.

Transcript

Ep. 6: How to Work with and Oversee Federal Agencies

Introduction

Taylor J. Swift: Welcome to episode six of Gavel In, a podcast series focused on demystifying how the House of Representatives works. We've created this show for incoming House freshmen of the 119th Congress, their spouses, and their staff as an off-the-Hill resource to supplement your official New Member Orientation onboarding.

Aubrey Wilson: We are your hosts, Aubrey Wilson and Taylor J. Swift. We're two recovering House staffers from both sides of the aisle who share a love for the institution and are dedicated in supporting its ongoing evolution through our work at POPVOX Foundation. We're a nonpartisan nonprofit that works to inform and empower people and make government work better for everyone.

Taylor J. Swift: We spent the last couple of months gathering the perspectives of prominent Members of Congress, think tank experts, staffers, and Congressional veterans who share their vast Capitol Hill knowledge and help pull back the curtain on what life is really like in Congress.

Aubrey Wilson: And although our episodes are full of advice from people who have walked the walk in the House, we do want to be transparent. This is not official guidance.

Taylor J. Swift: In this episode titled “How to Work With and Oversee Federal Agencies,” we'll help build up your skill set on developing relationships with federal agencies and conducting oversight of the Executive branch, a key function of Congress.

Our guests will also describe the Legislative branch support agencies that are available to support you in your Article One duties, to make sure that the law is being faithfully executed.

Aubrey Wilson: You're in luck, because you're going to gain the wisdom of some of the preeminent experts on Congressional oversight and interbranch cooperation, including Dr. Kevin Kosar, a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former Congressional Research Service analyst.

Taylor J. Swift: We also have Nicole Tisdale, who served as Staff Director for the House Homeland Security Committee for ten years before holding a leadership role for the National Security Council under President Biden. She's also a Senior Fellow at POPVOX Foundation. We also spoke with Betsy Wright Hawkings, who heads Article One Advisors and served as Chief of Staff for four Republican House Members over a 24-year span. She was also a Fellow to the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.

Aubrey Wilson: We also talk about Congress's internal considerations for responding to the impacts of the overturning of Chevron with Dr. Maya Kornberg. She's the research lead for elections and government programs at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

And rounding out our guest for this episode is the amazing Keenan Austin Reed. She's incoming CEO of the Alpine Group and a former Chief of Staff.

Taylor J. Swift: Without further ado, let's gavel in.

Aubrey Wilson: All right, Taylor, we are here for our episode focused on Executive branch oversight. I'm so excited for this one because although we have other episodes on how to be an effective committee member, this one actually hones in on that real-world relationship that needs to form between Members of Congress and the Executive branch.

Taylor J. Swift: Yeah, I couldn't agree more. This isn't a theoretical conversation, this is, we're going to be covering tons of actionable items that you and your staff can use to understand proper oversight to make sure Congress can work better. So, a lot of Members run for Congress to fix Washington, and they come to Congress with a specific focus. They want to focus on two to three policy issue areas,but a lot of that comes down to proper oversight and effective oversight is actually a skill. It's a muscle, and there's a lot of nuance to it: you have to make sure that you're being diligent, you're following proper protocols, you're working really closely with staff, other Members, agencies.

There are a lot of moving pieces. And in the ethos, you know, folks think that oversight has a reputation of kind of being a gotcha game, but like you mentioned, our guest lineup today is really fantastic. And it kind of shows the different sides of the oversight game, and we're really excited to share that perspective with you. So, like I mentioned, there is a ton of content around collaborating with agencies, collaborating with the White House, and even working on the, working with the other side of the aisle.

So even if you're from opposing parties, oversight is a First Branch of government function. So, we're going to be talking about it from multiple different angles and we're really excited for all of you to listen to this one today.

Aubrey Wilson: Amazing. Thanks so much, Taylor. Do you want to intro our first guest?

Taylor J. Swift: Let's do it.

Interview with Dr. Kevin Kosar

Taylor J. Swift: Dr. Kevin Kosar is not only a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a longtime DC think tank expert on Congress, but he also edits UnderstandingCongress.org and hosts the Understanding Congress podcast. We are all big fans of that podcast. And to you loyal listeners out there, you may remember him from previous episodes on Gavel In on government 101 and our feature on the House Rules.

Aubrey Wilson: So, Kevin, when new Members hear the term “Congressional oversight,” what should that mean to them and what all can that entail?

Dr. Kevin Kosar: Well, at the conceptual level, I would suggest a new Member should think of themselves as a lawmaker. And when it comes to the agencies, those are the executors of the law. And with that division of labor, comes an inherent oversight responsibility. So the Constitution, Article Two, says that the President and by extension, the Executive branch, should take care that the law be faithfully executed.

That means not only following the words of the law, but aiming for the larger purpose of it, and Congressional intent in enacting the law. Well, you can't just trust the Executive branch to do that. There can be misunderstandings about what's expected. There could be simply different political interests at work over there, even if the Administration is of your same party and you're in the majority.

So, you need to do the work to keep your eyes on the Executive branch, to see what all they are doing and whether the law is being faithfully carried out. It's a big job. There's a lot of laws. But thankfully, Members of Congress do have a lot of help available. Most of this sort of work will occur through a committee which has its own staff, but, of course, you as an individual Member can work that out of your personnel office. You also have Legislative branch support agencies who can help you out. You have the Government Accountability Office, which helps follow the money, follow the appropriated dollars to see that they’re being well spent. You have the Congressional Research Service who can help explain policies to you and their history, and agencies’ histories, and everything that goes with how the Executive branch does what it does, be it issuing regulations or following executive orders or what have you.

You have the Congressional Budget Office, they also are available. They will give you facts and figures, perhaps different from the President's Office of Management and Budget, about how money is being spent, what economic forecasts may say, what this may imply for government revenues, etc., etc., and not to be forgotten in that mix is Inspectors General, which were also created by Congress to support Congress in trying to figure out whether agencies are behaving within the law.

Aubrey Wilson: So when you're talking about that oversight relationship between Congress and the Executive branch agencies, it's no surprise that that relationship can sometimes be very tense. For a freshman Member’s office who is interested in reaching out to an agency for the first time, whether it's just to get to know the agency because it's, you know, a topic that's important to the district, or whether it's casework related, what can kind of be expected for how that interaction between a Member of Congress and that first touchpoint with an agency might go?

Dr. Kevin Kosar: Well, I think a new Member would do himself or herself a favor by trying to get a little bit clear in what the purpose of the contact is. What's the scope? Agencies have a lot of things going on. And what do you want to ask about — which law that they're carrying out, which program within any of those laws that they're carrying out, or are you interested in something else?

Are you concerned about their human resources policies, how employees are being treated, diversity, equity, inclusion that's occurring within the branch? Any of those sorts of things, you kind of got to figure out what your scope is, and that's going to come through a little bit of background study. Again, go back to Legislative branch support agencies, Congressional Research Service, Government Accountability Office reports.

Those can kind of tee up discrete topics that may catch your interest or, you know, perhaps you have interests that are just flowing from your constituents, your supporters, your voters, things that they care about. And when you first approach the agency, approach it in a neutral tone, do not come in hard and heavy because that'll immediately put them on their heels, and the agency has any number of tools to make it difficult for you to learn what you want to learn. You want to have a trust-based relationship. Agencies don't want to be picked upon like any human being doesn't want to be picked upon. So, in reaching out, ask for an informational interview, ask to hold this in a closed-door setting so they don't feel like you're going to trot them out and use them as a campaign prop, then rinse and repeat.

And over time, you can start to develop friendships, trust, and you can start to see what their interests are, because bureaucracies are not monolithic. You may have an agency that's run by somebody who takes some stands that you really like, or you think are really loathsome. That doesn't mean that the persons that you are meeting with feel the same way.

They are often playing these complex games where they're talking up to their supervisors and the agency heads, but meanwhile are carrying on their own lives, and their execution of law in different ways. They can be terrific sources of information, insight to a legislator, but you have to do the work first of developing the trust and showing them that you genuinely care about the work. You're not just taking their time because you want to ultimately embarrass them in some way to bolster your reelection prospects.

Taylor J. Swift: So you mentioned the relationship between the committee staff and the personal staff and the support agencies. That's a lot of moving parts, and that's a lot of relationships, especially with consequential issues or even casework, like Aubrey brought up. How does a Member or a staff kind of handle these relationships differently? Is a committee staffer is supposed to be the ones that are going to be really reaching out to these agencies, is it going to be the personal staff?

Are they going to be doing it together? I think our audience would be really interested to kind of hear some best practices based on what kind of situations arise.

Dr. Kevin Kosar: So, yes, Members wear two hats. You are a Member and you also are a committee member. Now, if you want to keep the stakes low, if you're in that developing a relationship stage, I would say reaching out from your personal office is the place to start. Not everyone would agree with that, but I think when you reach out from a committee perch that can create feelings in the Executive branch, like, “Oh, what are they getting ready to tee up? How are they going to get us?” You do it through your personal office, you learn some things that way. In the course of learning, that's going to parlay over nicely into your ability to be a more effective committee member, because you are doing your homework, you're starting to learn stuff. You're not going to be completely dependent upon whatever's coming down from the Chairman or Ranking Member, depending on where you sit.

So, I would say go that route first, but there's no guarantee you'll get a response. Some agencies take the position that they don't really have to respond, or if they do respond, maybe they're just going to fob you off as a kind of low level government affairs person who's going to drag their feet, add you to the stack of other requests that they get from media and whomever else, and then eventually get around to sending you a boring form letter that is not much use.

If you get that, yeah, certainly you may have to go from the committee route, but go with some grace about this. And there is nothing wrong, if you really have the time and you have the desire, with simply phoning over to an agency and letting them know you're just going to come over for a visit, because you’d like to take a look around and like to see their shop and learn more about what's what there.

And the last thing they want is to close you out and create a scene, that doesn't work for anybody. But, yeah, Congressional Research Service, I should say, is available to you as a Member, it's available to your personal staff, certainly is available to committee staff. Government Accountability Office, that's really responsive only to committees. Sure, you could try to call over there, but their bread and butter is not responding to Members and their staff. So yeah, you've got different tools, all of which can be wielded from your personal office, but ultimately, the real power is going to be in the committee where you do have the ability to report out legislation.

Taylor J. Swift: So you just mentioned the Congressional Research Service and, Kevin, you spent years working at CRS, providing expertise and analysis to Members of Congress and their staff. So, for our listeners, you know, it's a lot of information, so I think it would be helpful to give kind of a 101 on what CRS actually does and how Members can kind of get the most out of working with CRS.

Dr. Kevin Kosar: Sure. Think of CRS as both a think tank at your service and a reference library at your service. That's largely how most of their staff are classified. You have analysts who are subject matter experts, and you have reference librarians, library science professionals who also tend to know particular issue areas as well, but who generally can find anything you want found — data, facts, history, legislative history, you name it, they can dig it up.

They've got the Library of Congress, which is like the biggest, or one of the biggest, library troves on Earth. So, you can learn to become an effective Member of Congress by drawing on CRS. They are a shared service, so there's lots of smart people with long institutional memory, who can school you up on topics in a confidential manner.

You're allowed to ask dumb questions to them,so are your staff. It'll never see the light of day, you don't have to worry about being embarrassed. It's all held in confidence. So, you can school up on subject matter. You can also go over and take classes there: introduction to legislative procedure, introduction to budget process, introduction to oversight.

They have course, after course, after course, where they will explain the facts. And you can develop, then, your own relationships with them, so you can keep them on speed dial any time you want them, email them, call them and then get back to you to answer questions, tiny and large. CRS can pretty much help you throughout the whole of the lawmaking process.

You know? Yeah, like I said, they could school you up on procedures, so you know how to introduce bill, or how committees report out bills, and Chairman's marks, and all those abstruse things that you're going to be running into. But they can advise you on an issue that you care about, and then you can go to the Legislative Counsel in the House and get initial bill language drafted, and then you can take it back to CRS.

They've got lawyers, their subject area issue experts there who can look it over, and then you go back to Counsel and polish it up a little bit more, and you could shop it around people on the Hill, and then go back to CRS with that feedback. They can be there the whole step of the way. If you're lucky enough that you're on a committee and they hold a hearing and they want to talk about your bill.

Guess what? You can go to CRS and say, “Hey, can you recommend some people that we can bring in here to talk about this topic?” and CRS can give recommendations. CRS can help draft questions for hearings. You know, they can be there every step of the process all the way through things getting enacted into law, regulations being issued on them, program assessments being made.

You can come back to CRS at any point, and they can be helpful to you or your staff.

Aubrey Wilson: We talked a little bit about the kind of resources that CRS provides, and earlier on, you mentioned a couple of the other kind of Congressional support entities, including the Government Accountability Office, Congressional Budget Office, all of these play different roles.

Can you just give a quick summary of when you would approach CRS versus GAO versus CBO, and kind of the different roles that they played, kind of as complementary, but also very different?

Dr. Kevin Kosar: Certainly, yeah. To the average Member of Congress, CRS is the Legislative branch support agency that you will use the most. It's built to serve individual Members and their staffs. Services in their name and the variety of things that they do just speak to so many of your different activities, whether it's lawmaking, whether it's oversight, you name it, they can educate you on it.

Now, Government Accountability Office is responsive mostly to committee chairs, and its job is to audit government agencies, to follow the money. It will issue opinions when private sector entities protest that a bid they put for a government product or service that they didn't win and they feel like something illegal happened or unfair happened, so they will issue bid protest opinions.

They will also issue legal opinions on the Executive branch’s use of appropriated funds. Was this spending legal? Was it not legal? Was it in some sort of gray area? Again, GAO is a committee-based entity. Congressional Budget Office, primarily it works with the Congressional Budget committees, but it can touch an individual Member, should the Member be moving legislation through the legislative process or be cosponsoring or supporting legislation in some way. When that bill gets reported out of committee, the Congressional Budget Office will issue a score, an estimate of how many dollars is it going to cost versus how many benefits it will bring, and that's consequential. It's good to know whether a bill is going to have more costs than benefits, but it also has consequences for legislative procedure. Bringing up a bill that does not cost more than the benefits it brings, it's easier to get it through the legislative process than a bill that has more costs than benefits.

Aubrey Wilson: As Members kind of put on their oversight hat in the new Congress, do you have any other, kind of broad advice for how they can be successful in that role?

Dr. Kevin Kosar: There are far too many issues for any Member or any committee to follow. So, you will need to pick. You'll need to pick something that you feel passionate about, that you can have the energy to stick with it, because these issues very seldom are simple issues. They are longstanding, complex policies administered by institution affecting stakeholders that could be in the thousands or tens of thousands or even millions and tens of millions if you're talking about something like healthcare policy, or defense, or even agriculture. I mean, some of these policies are global policies. So, narrowing down on something that you really have the belly for so that you can master the details, that's what you should think about when you pick. And you may not know, it's okay to graze early in your career and look for opportunities, but wait, don't commit yourself to something for the long term unless it is something you can be passionate about.

Discussion

Taylor J. Swift: We're going to pick up right where Kevin left off with our next guest who's really excited to sit down with us because she offers a ton of Congressional experience, but also Executive branch experience. But before we go there, let's talk a little bit, Aubrey, about Congressional oversight and implementation.

Aubrey Wilson: Oh my gosh, Taylor, that's such a good idea. Thank you. Yeah. So I think, this is one of those, like, weird nuances that I don't think that I actually really understood until I left the Hill and kind of reflected back on my time as a Congressional staffer. You know, obviously, as a new staffer on the Hill or as a Member on the Hill, you know the legislative process.

We have an episode on it, episode one. But like, in reality, I mean, most people who are in this line of work can outline the legislative process. And there's this weird culture that legislative process ends with signing a bill into law, like it ends with that wet signature by the President. And it's been this really interesting kind of cultural, I think, like disadvantage that we think that way on the Hill because actually the implementation of that law's policy correctly in alignment with Congressional intent, should actually be the tail of that legislative process.

And the idea that, like, if you implement a law and then it actually gets carried out by the agencies and it doesn't match what Congress intended, then that's where Congress needs to step back in and reform that law,and that needs to be this ongoing kind of iterative process and conversation between Congress and the, you know, the Executive branch agency that's carrying out that policy.

And we forget about that part. Like really often on the Hill, I think that we kind of move on or you get the win from signing this bill into law, but you don't actually realize that that's kind of the start of actually changing things in the country. It's not the end of it. And so with that being the case, you know, that is actually where Congressional oversight comes in, is that implementation aspect.

And so that's like when we are talking to our guests today, I think, like their emphasis on the relationship that has to be formed, and having that not necessarily be a gotcha, but like this learning experience is really, really important because you're not actually going to know how that policy gets implemented until it's actually like, you know, rubber hits the road being carried out by agencies, you know, through all of their bureaucratic processes as well.

And that needs to be communicated back to Congress to be, like I said, this kind of conversation and relationship that evolves over time. And that takes a lot of intention. And that's something that, you know, not only do Members of Congress and staff have to be very proactive at building those bridges, but Members of Congress also really need to keep their ears open to hear about when a program that should be going well isn't.

And I think that there's a lot of actually different ways that Members can hear those stories, and Congressional staff can hear the stories.

Taylor J. Swift: Honestly, that was a perfect answer. And to kind of hone in on what you just said about implementation in Congress, hearing those stories and Members hearing those stories, that is exactly what Congressional casework does. So, oftentimes constituents will contact a Congressional office looking for assistance, and what kind of assistance, you know, you may ask, deals in Congressional office.

So, maybe a constituent is reaching out because they have a casework request around a misdirected benefits payment, maybe from the Veterans Affairs, veterans system, or Social Security. Maybe they're having difficulty filling out forms or even applying for programs such as Social Security or education or other federal benefits. There are also really, really unique things to each district.

Maybe it even could be applying for specific grants. But a lot of these casework practices are largely left to Member offices to determine. And so to your point that it's so important for Member offices to be engaged in this space, that is why having strong relationships with the agencies and having your district staff have strong relationships with not only your DC staff, but those agency officials as well, that turnaround time varies wildly depending on what the case is, depending on how much bandwidth there is, depending on where we're at in the Congressional cycle, a lot of people could be dealing with the same issue, especially if there is a natural disaster or a crisis or something of that nature, and so we see influxes all the time.

But oftentimes this is stuff that is not covered at all in the national media, but it has an immense effect on not only the success of your operations in your district, but the perception of your office, as well.

Aubrey Wilson: No, Taylor, that's such a good point. And just to hone in on what you were just saying, too, you know, you kind of alluded to the fact that, you know, caseworkers are obviously, you know, a couple staffers of your district-based team usually, is where the where the caseworkers usually sit. And those individuals, they're really kind of that frontline customer service aspect of a Congressional office, and they hear all, as you were saying, they hear all these one-off cases, about, you know, true individual stories and struggles of dealing with the federal government. And these individuals' last resort is to call their Member of Congress, ask for help, of having that, you know, seat in Congress, you know, advocate for the constituent to try to get their problem solved.

And one of the actual recent modernization changes in the House is this push to find out a way to aggregate that data. So, if you have, you know, all of your offices in an entire region of the country, if everyone is seeing that FEMA is having a bad response rate or there's some issue that's happening with the IRS, to each individual caseworker that just might look like these one- off issues, but if you were to zoom out and look at the data across all of these different Congressional offices in this region, it could be a trend that actually showcases that something's actually wrong with the processes at one of these agencies. And so what we've really seen, with kind of looking at studying Congressional casework, which I want to put a huge tag in here for Anne Meeker, who's with the POPVOX Foundation, and has been working in and studying Congressional casework for such a long time.

She was a former Congressional caseworker. She has this amazing program called Casework Navigator, and so I highly recommend like people look into those resources, but one of the things that she has really emphasized is that the Congressional offices that are so effective with oversight are the ones who their DC legislative team builds a strong relationship with their caseworker team, and then that caseworker team can communicate the problems that they're seeing and the trends are seeing to the legislative staff in DC, so that those one-off problems are actually seen as oversight issues.

And then the legislative team in DC can then talk to people across their state delegation or across the caucus to see if those trends are there. And so, you know, that's kind of like, you know, the traditional way of doing it. And as I was saying, I think the House is starting to wake up, that maybe this is some, like, data that can actually be collected that actually help inform committees, and so there's a project called the “Casework Aggregator” that I think House Digital Services is working on right now, so definitely something that freshmen should look into when they're trying to get a really good foothold and oversight that really affects their district.

Taylor J. Swift: That is such a great way to humanize some of the solutions that the House is trying to create to make better systems. And again, a lot of this relies on collaboration, communication, and trust. And not only that means within your Congressional office, so like you mentioned, your DC staff and your district staff, but also the DC staff and the agencies, and the district staff and the agencies, and the district staff and the constituents.

It's a lot of moving parts, but if you have strong foundations, good practices, things to build on, and things to show that these trends could be more than just one-off cases, this is better data to help inform these problems to find solutions. And so I think you put that beautifully, and to transition, our next guest actually talks about how to build those relationships in a practical way.

Aubrey Wilson: Yeah, and she also really digs into how when you start building those relationships and you're trying to figure out how to approach solutions with the Executive branch, where to start. So with that, Taylor, let's intro our next guest.

Interview with Nicole Tisdale

Taylor J. Swift: Our next guest is someone who's honed in on complex issues of cybersecurity policy and law, and has established herself as a leading voice on the topic. Nicole Tisdale served as the Staff Director for the House Homeland Security Committee for ten years, before holding leadership roles at the National Security Council under President Joe Biden. Her work led to the creation and passage of the Cyber Incident Reporting Law, the most significant cybersecurity law in a decade.

She also helped establish a $1 billion cybersecurity grant program. Nicole is also the founder of Advocacy Blueprints, an organization that helps provide consulting and advocacy training focused on national security and cyber policy issues.

Aubrey Wilson: She has navigated both the halls of Congress and the White House, so you'll want to pay close attention as Nicole shares her advice on how Members of Congress can work with the Administration to ensure that their legislation is signed into law and implemented according to your wishes.

Taylor J. Swift: So, Nicole, you spent a few years working for the White House National Security Council, and it's no secret to our listeners and everyone that the White House plays a pretty crucial role on implementing laws passed by Congress.

So, in your experience, what are ways that Members of Congress can work with the White House to ensure that their legislation is signed into law?

Nicole Tisdale: Sure. Well, I think the best way to work with the Administration, to make sure that you can get a public law, is remember that the Administration can be really good advocates for whatever legislation that you're working on. So, when I worked at the National Security Council, I was Director of Legislative Affairs, which means I was like a two way advocate.

So, I would go to the Hill and in front of Congress, and I would advocate for the White House and for the Administration, for their legislative priorities and their legislative needs. I'd say it was two-way, because, I didn't know this when I took the job, but I also was an advocate for Congressional Members and making sure that the Administration knew what these Members priorities were and could amplify their priorities and help them to work together to get public laws, and then also so that the Administration could implement them. In terms of what that looks like in practice, when an agency likes a piece of legislation, it's something that is on their priority list and they want to support it. They can be really good advocates to other Members on the Hill.

So, let's say you're trying to introduce a piece of legislation in the Senate that the Department of Homeland Security supports. The Department of Homeland Security is having meetings every day in front of House Members. They're doing briefings every day in front of House Members, having them to say, “Also, we heard that Senator so-and-so is going to be introducing a piece of legislation that is going to also be focused on this.”

They really kind of act like connectors of a way that sometimes people in the opposite chamber are like, “Oh, I didn't know that there was going to be or that there is pending legislation, or there's introduced legislation in another chamber.” What they are also doing, especially when it is a priority, they're building up their Congressional coalition in a way that can be helpful to you.

And so I think it's really important, especially for legislation or trying to implement or trying to pass bills that you actually want to become laws, you really want to make sure you're talking to the Administration early, because I gave a very positive example, but also when the Administration doesn't like a piece of legislation, they still advocate they just advocate against your legislation.

And so, I would say I had an equal number of meetings on the Hill where I would say, “This is a really good piece of legislation that is in another chamber,” or that, “A Member in this chamber has introduced and the Administration supports it,” as I did meetings where I said, “This is really not a bill that is going to be helpful, and here is why.” Either it doesn't recognize the missions or the funding that is needed, like you have, like, a really good argument in place to counter that legislation as well. And so I think as people think about the White House and the Administration, they are going to be advocates either for or against something that is moving if it impacts their agency, and so talking to them ahead of time, either way, is how you get out in front of them. If they're going to oppose it, you want to make sure that you are being responsive to that when you are trying to get cosponsors. Like, this is why DHS is going to oppose this. It's going to require a new level of oversight, but we need that transparency as Members of Congress.

You want to be able to talk to the Administration because you want to make sure you're weaving their advocacy for or against your legislation as part of your strategy to get cosponsors and get it passed.

Taylor J. Swift: So, with those strategies in mind, is a Member working with its committee staff, its personal staff to have these conversations with the relevant agencies, or the other committees on the other side of the chamber? Is it a combination of everything? We'd love to hear more.

Nicole Tisdale: It's a combination of everything, and it depends. So, I will say, when I was in the Administration, just because of the nature of 100 Members being in the Senate and 441 Members being in the House, with Senate staff we could work with personal office staff, but you would really see that at the agency level. So I will say at the White House, I didn't really have any conversations or negotiations at the personal office level in the House or the Senate, but at the Administration level, they do do a lot of negotiations with Senate personnel office staff, again, because there's so many Members in the House, a lot of the negotiations at the Administration level and at the White House level are just done with committee staff.

So, the Administration kind of uses committee staff as a filter. Some pieces of legislation are only to introduce as messaging bills. Some bills are introduced, and Members want them to move, but committees have not prioritized them, so they are not going to be marked up. Because so many bills are introduced, and so many bills are referred to committees, but committees aren't going to take action, you really use committee staff as a filter, so you only engage on the legislation that is actually going to move, and it's a capacity issue. The Administration just didn't have enough people to engage on every single piece of legislation, and so you have to filter and only focus on what's going to move.

I say that to say, many committee staff will tell us, like, this is a Member's personal office bill, and it's really, really important to the personal office, and so the committee staffers would invite the personnel office to participate in meetings, to engage with the Administration, but from my role on the day to day, I always kept the committee staff on the email chain.

I'd never want to do a meeting with just the personal office staff, because the personal office staff aren't the people who can actually make sure that that bill moves through the chamber and goes to the other chamber for consideration.

Aubrey Wilson: I want to ask you about Executive branch agency oversight and interaction for a Member who actually isn't on the committee of jurisdiction for that agency. It's obviously a really challenging thing to navigate, especially when you have constituents who are so passionate about a particular topic that maybe, once again, through casework or through some other avenue, is on a Member's priority list, but they just don't have the committee jurisdiction.

Can you talk a little bit about, like, the role that caucuses can play here and how caucuses can actually help be an avenue for agency engagement, even if you're not on the committee?

Nicole Tisdale: Yeah, and if you're not on a committee of jurisdiction and you're really passionate about an issue and you want to see movement, caucuses are the way to go. And when we say caucuses, I mean geographical caucuses. So, is it the Mississippi delegation or is it the Southern delegation? But I also, oh, is it a rural delegation? Is it the Midwest delegation?

I also mean identity caucuses. So, is it the Congressional Black Caucus? Is it the Women's Caucus? Is it the Congressional Hispanic Caucus? Then, they're also topical caucuses. Is it the Cybersecurity Caucus? Is it the Healthcare Caucus? Is it the Financial Services Caucus? You really want to build, you want to use your relationship building if you're not on a committee of jurisdiction, because then you can widen the number of people who care about this issue.

So the Cybersecurity Caucus is a really good example of, there were many Members on the leadership for the Cybersecurity Caucus in the House and the Senate ,those are actually Chairs and Ranking Members of national security Committees. But I noticed over time, a lot of the Members of the caucus were not on national security committees. And so, they used the caucus as a way to show “I'm very focused on cybersecurity. This is a priority for me. I want to be a part of not just legislation, but oversight.” And so we had meetings with the caucus at the same level that we did the committee staff. That being said, the caucuses don't usually have staff. So, some of the identity caucuses are different, like the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, The Women’s Caucus ,they have staff, they have policy directors, but most of the topical staff or, sorry, topical caucuses or the regional caucuses, they don't have staff. So even if you go through, use a caucus, which is a really good way to build your coalition and amplify your relationships, you still need to incorporate the committee staff into negotiation.

And so, the way that would work is we would meet sometimes with the Cybersecurity Caucus to talk about a specific piece of cybersecurity legislation, why it was important for them, why they wanted the Administration to focus on it. But when it's time to put pen to paper, we need to also make sure that the committee staff are in that room, because they are the ones that can actually put the pen to the paper.

And so caucuses are a really good idea. I tell Members do not be, every Member has like the committees they want to be on, and everybody gets a little sad when they don't get on the committees. I remind them, your constituents don't care what committee you're on. They don't think there's a single issue that comes up before Congress that you cannot work on, and that you should not be advocating for them.

So if you're not on a committee, just know the caucuses, but also building relationships and coalitions, give you the same level of access and influence and Members are really good advocates for their noncommittee friends or their coalition. There are plenty of times where I remember Members would say, “This isn't my bill, but this is why this is really important.”

And when you have a bigger coalition, people have different, people have similar priorities too. And so maybe a former schoolteacher isn't ideal for your cybersecurity legislation until you realize that schools have cyber attacks at a disproportionate amount. And so you may be a former tech Member who's based in San Francisco, and you want someone that has, like, been in the military or worked at a tech company.

But I tell you, with that Member that’s a school teacher that ran for Congress because her school had a cyber attack, she is going to be a really good advocate for you as well. And so just really expanding who you think about are going to be a part of your coalition.

Aubrey Wilson: So, Nicole, after years of working both from the perspective of being on a House committee that does incredible oversight and then also working for the White House, when you think of the freshmen coming in and their new staff who have to kind of first traverse into this oversight relationship with the Executive branch, what are kind of the top three things that come to mind regarding perspective setting of how their freshman term is going to go with dealing with the Administration?

Nicole Tisdale: This is a really good question. I think when freshman Members sometimes hear about oversight, they either think it's going to be very, very boring and they don't want to do it, or they think it's going to be this high risk, like criminal courtroom hearings where you're going to be like, asking all these questions, and the news is going to be there, and you're going to be on the 7:00 news.

I would say oversight is like, firmly in the middle of all of that. And so I think one of the things for new Members to think about in terms of oversight is when you first get to Congress, you get to establish what kind of legislator you're going to be, but also what kind of oversight you're going to do.

Some Members never met a set of weeds that they didn't want to jump in when it comes to oversight, right? Like they're like, “I want to be in the weeds. I want to ask the technical questions. I want stats.” There are Members that are like, “I just always want metrics and stats. I want to know how much money was spent, how many people were involved,” and you can be one of those oversight Members, but know that that's not going to necessarily lend itself to hearings.

That's going to be a lot of letter writing. Right? Because witnesses come, and it's more than reasonable that most witnesses don't have a lot of these statistics at the ready. There are Members, I always say, Chairman Thompson, who I worked for, he's a letter Member. He never met a letter that he did not want to send to do oversight, for him, because he likes to ask very nuanced questions.

This is also a hat tip to the Government Accountability Office. New Members, the Government Accountability Office, GAO can help you write oversight questions. So, if you think you're going to be the kind of Member that likes to ask the like, technical questions, but you don't know how to ask the technical questions, you or your staff can also reach out to the Government Accountability Office and CRS, to kind of help you formulate, the Congressional Research Service, CRS, to help you formulate those questions to ask, like very specific metrics.

Now, the other kind of and there are multiple types of oversight that you can do, but there are also Members that really enjoy kind of digging to the underlying themes and strategies and like patterns. What are we seeing over and over again? Like, does this department keep building their own technology when they could save more money and buy it off the shelf and have it customized?

There are the kind of Members that are like, I actually want to do most of my oversight on the agency by focusing on big picture strategy and maybe even talking more to outside folks, right? Like, all agency oversight isn't just asking the agency questions all the time. It is also asking industry, is asking advocates, trying to get multiple people to help you do the oversight, because you and your staff are going to be limited in how much you can do.

I tell people all the time, I spent a lot of time doing oversight on the Department of Homeland Security's side, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office, but I had to do that, along with fifteen other offices that I was also in charge of doing oversight with but there were advocacy groups that every day their job was to pay attention to what that office was doing.

They knew when press releases were happening, they knew when they were doing op-eds, they knew when they were doing community meetings, and they would go to those events, and then they would report out to me, or I would have meetings with them and they would say, you know, “This is what you should be asking that office. Here's something that we notice that they are doing.”

And so for new Members, I would say, and it's okay if the first week, the first month, even the first year, you have not figured out what kind of oversight that you want to do, but just know that you should be building toward that, and you should be working toward that, because once you figure out exactly what kind of oversight you want to do, you will do that across multiple committees, and you'll do that across multiple terms while you're in Congress, and you'll get known for that.

I always knew which Members I could, like, get them to sign on to a letter because they wanted to get in the weeds. But I also knew the kind of Members that may come to a hearing and may be able to pull on bigger threads so that we could continue to do the oversight that was needed.

Interview with Betsy Wright Hawkings

Aubrey Wilson: Our next guest today is a returning expert to Gavel In, who you may recall from our very first episode. Betsy Wright Hawkings served as Chief of Staff to four Republican House Members for over two decades, and she is the current Manager of Congressional Relations for the Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy. It's a nonpartisan nonprofit that carries on the legislative oversight legacy of Senator Carl Levin, Michigan's longest serving Senator.

Betsy is especially regarded for her leadership in the modernization space, both inside Congress when she was a Fellow for the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, and in the world of philanthropy, where she was the Managing Director at Democracy Fund.

So, Betsy, you served as Chief of Staff on the Hill for almost 25 years for a variety of Members of Congress, and during that time, you played a really key role in some very impactful legislation, not the least of which, was the bill that actually created the 9/11 Commission, following September 11th. And then today, you are actually with the Levin Center, which is an incredible support organization that, among a number of resources, offers oversight training for Congressional staff to really kind of professionalize that part of their jurisdiction and portfolio.

When new Members hear the term Congressional oversight, what should that mean to them and what all can that entail?

Betsy Wright Hawkings: So what it should mean to them is something that they can do, like right now, to make government work better and put some wins on the board. And it doesn't take necessarily two years, and it doesn't require passing legislation, and it's a win. It can be something that they can take back home as a win to their constituents.

And so it, oversight can mean lots of things, but fundamentally it means making government work better for their constituents. That's the goal. It works best when you can just, I mean, it works best generally when you can find a Member of the other party to do it with you, and for a whole host of reasons that we can talk about.

But, and not only when there's a Member of the other party in the White House, or a Member of, you know, when the Senate is controlled by the other party, or even when the chamber you're sitting in is controlled by the other party, things tend to always work better when they're bipartisan.

And, a lot of oversight comes out of casework. I mean, the 9/11 Commission, we talked a little bit about this, the 9/11 commission actually came out of casework. It came out of constituents who had lost loved ones, who were not willing to let I mean, after they were dealing with all the other casework related issues, that they had dealt with, they were not willing to fundamentally have their constituents, have had their family members died in vain, and they petitioned their government until their government listened, and that's how we finally, finally, finally got that commission. And then it's how that commission ended up, having recommendations that were meaningful, was because those family members insisted on it. But and because they were bipartisan and, so, as an example, you're, you might find, as a newer Member, that you are getting a number of inquiries through your district office, about a particular problem having to do with Social Security or Medicare or a particular veteran's issue or, a case in point, in one of the offices where I worked, we had a couple of constituents who had gotten very sick after a blood transfusion, and came to learn that there was a problem with the nation's blood supply. It led to, after much inquiry through casework and so on, led to an investigation in the subcommittee that my boss was chairing at the time.

Anyway, it led to an investigation that essentially there were inadequate controls for hepatitis in the nation's blood supply, and a lot of the blood supply was contaminated. This was some years ago. My point is, that started with a couple of constituents who were sick, who were suspicious. They were at a hospital, an urban hospital.

Somebody said something to my boss. He was, that's the kind of issue he loved. He was on it, and it went from there. There were so, there were a number of we, had a VA hospital right over the line, and then in a neighboring district, there were all kinds of VA issues that we identified as, you know, ending up having national, you know, there were similar problems, you know, systemic problems nationwide that he did that he did oversight, ended up doing oversight hearings on. But, so, Members can see, you know, if they see if, you know, one case is a problem. Five cases is a trend. Right? So, you know, you can ask for it. You can send a letter, ask for a meeting.

You know, here's a point. One of my colleagues always says, you send a letter, it gets put in a drawer, you know. You've got to call, follow up, ask for a meeting. You know you've got to, you can't just send a letter, right? You've got to be insistent. At the same time, asking for the committee of jurisdiction to follow up and being insistent in that way, if you're not the Chairman or a member of the committee of jurisdiction, right? Like you got to be persistent. But if it's a bipartisan letter, it will get more attention than if it's just Republicans or just Democrats, because it can easily be dismissed as partisan. With agencies, if it's bipartisan, it will get taken more seriously. With a committee, if it's bipartisan, it will get taken more seriously because one side or the other can't just dismiss it.

And then, you know, if you do your research, you learn what you need to learn, you get your facts together, often, even without a hearing, you can learn enough to make recommendations, and get the committee to issue a report, even without a hearing, making recommendations on how to on how to improve, you know, whatever “x” is, particularly if your staff is willing to help, and Members might or might not have the have the staff to do that.

There are some, not many, but some, personal offices that have oversight staff on their personal office staff. The overall point is, it's a way of moving the needle and having an impact that doesn't require floor time. It doesn't require getting on the calendar. It doesn't require getting anything through the Senate if you're a House Member. It doesn't require getting a signature if you're in the legislature. Right? It's something you can take home and say, “Look, you know, we made a difference. We saw the problem. We learned what we needed to do to make the problem better, you know, and we did it.”

Aubrey Wilson: For new Members and staff who are kind of trying to get their head wrapped around all that's available to them to find progress and oversight, there's so many different avenues as we've talked about, and there's so many different priorities that they can that they can pursue, whether it's through committee assignments or just, like you said, through casework, through the work in their districts, work in DC, the skill set of being an oversight staffer to really support a Member is one that definitely comes with time and lots of practice.

Do you have any recommendations for kind of where new staffers can start to kind of learn the ropes of Congressional oversight, kind of understand how those dynamics work, what's out there for staff who are just starting to kind of take on these portfolios?

Betsy Wright Hawkings: Yeah, so the Project on Government Oversight, POGO.org, has regular training on the subject. Levin Center also does regular training. There actually, I think will be in Setting Course, a section on oversight as of, this edition, that I'm updating. So, and I think, I think there will be some training, in this in the first quarter of 2025, that will be offered.

So, I mean, I know, I know that the Levin Center will do training in the first quarter of 2025. I don't know whether it will be offered, in the context of New Member Orientation or not, but the training is there. It's on the Levin Center and POGO websites.

It will be discussed in Setting, there's going to be a little bit about it in Setting Course, and it's, you know, just be in touch with either Levin Center, POGO, or preferably both. Levin Center is Levin-Center.org.

Interview with Dr. Maya Kornberg

Taylor J. Swift: Now that you have more of a grounding in how oversight works, we're going to shift gears and delve into how the Supreme Court overturning of the 40-year Chevron doctrine impacts Congressional oversight of federal agencies with Dr. Maya Kornberg, a leading expert in democratic governance and author of Inside Congressional Committees: Function and Dysfunction in the Legislative Process.

So, Maya, the recent Chevron decision could have a pretty significant implication on how Congress writes laws, interprets legislation, and now oversees other branches of government. So, for our audience who is unfamiliar with this decision, can you kind of provide some background on what Chevron means in terms of Congressional oversight of agencies and how that will impact its work?

Dr. Maya Kornberg: Definitely. So, what happened this summer in one of the last days of the term, was that Supreme Court justices abandoned a decades-old standard called Chevron deference. What Chevron deference did was it directed courts to defer to agency interpretations of statutes in cases where statutes were vague or silent. And so what this meant was that a lot of the power to really, interpret and implement stayed with the federal agencies.

And this was important because federal agencies really house, when we think about kind of the broader government space, they house a lot of the technical expertise necessary to be grappling with complicated issues. And, the Chevron reversal really disempowered agencies and it disempowered them, at a time when I think it is all the more important to have this technical expertise, because we're grappling with increasingly complicated, technical, and scientific questions like artificial intelligence, and other things.

So, up until now, in terms of Congress, Congress has really relied on the Executive to sort out the nuances of different things, and it has done this because, as I mentioned, the agencies are really where technical expertise has been housed. The Executive branch has, according to some estimates, 120 times as much funding as the Legislative branch.

But now Congress can no longer be doing that, it will have to legislate with more specificity in a post-Chevron world where agencies don't have that power anymore to really be sorting out the details of implementing different policies. And, in terms of oversight, that's really important because Congress fills a very important space, in the overall checks and balances, in conducting oversight of the Executive.

So, this includes, obviously, confirming nominations and appropriations and things like that, and, it also includes, in terms of committee work, there's a lot of hearings that are focused on oversight where different agency heads are called in for testimony, and different information is requested. And so in a post-Chevron world, Congress will have to even more so be buffing itself up both to conduct oversight and to legislate with specificity.

It will need the technical expertise that it currently does not have to be doing these things to be, not just waiting for the Executive to be sorting out details, but to really be figuring out some of the specifics of, on implementation itself, and it will have to do this both in order to legislate effectively and in order to conduct effective oversight, which is a key part of its job.

Aubrey Wilson: So Taylor and I have actually had a lot of conversations since the Chevron overturning about how, with both of us being prior Congressional staffers, we really recognize that a lot of Congressional staff see the legislative process actually ending when a bill is signed into law. And we don't really, Congress doesn't really consider implementation as part of that legislative process.

And Chevron seems to actually, really kind of finally open that door for Congress, or at least open it again, I should say, for Congress to refocus on that implementation, and I know you've obviously, like, really highlighted the fact that that takes bodies and time and work and expertise to be brought back into Congress. And so as freshman Members start kind of, adjusting to, doing oversight of the Executive branch, do you have any recommendations of resources or strategies for staff hiring or kind of any like, tips that a freshman could take on to start, like you say, kind of buffing up their office on a small scale to start adjusting to this change?

Dr. Maya Kornberg: So I'll give another example, from Henry Waxman because I think it's a good historical example, and this is in terms of how he pushed forward AIDS funding and funding for AIDS research during the Reagan Administration. And one of the things that Waxman writes in his memoir about how he did this, at a time when there were a lot of cuts to to funding in the President's budget that passed, was that he and his staff had really deep relationships within Executive agencies that allowed them to understand exactly where they could, I would say open a window where a door was closed, given what was going on, and eventually what they did was, through a combination of block grant funding and threatening to block an appointee for Surgeon General and other means, they found ways, even when the President's budget was passed, to guard funding for AIDS research. And one of the reasons that Waxman was able to do this was because his staff knew a lot about both the agency process, the Congressional process, and they had those relationships that helped them kind of get the intel that was necessary in order to effectively maneuver. So in terms of buffing up staff, I think it's important that a lot of Members talk about staff, both who have the technical expertise in different issues, but also staff who have the professional experience and professional relationships across the Hill and with different agencies to really understand what's going on and what is going to be the most effective strategy.

In speaking to new Members, for a new research project that I'm doing on the experiences of freshman, one of the things that I hear, particularly from Members who don't have legislative experience, and a lot of Members, it's worth noting, do not necessarily have legislative experience, is that, what the, make or break decision for them, what made them effective was hiring staff who had that experience, who understood the process, who understood both the legislature side of it in particular, but also kind of the broader picture, that was really important. And I think, is something that's worth thinking about for any incoming freshmen.

Aubrey Wilson: In buffing up Congress in that way, like going back to kind of the relationships that staff bring, when it comes to engaging with Executive branch agencies as a freshman Member of Congress, it's no surprise that that relationship between the First Branch and the Executive branch, definitely has some tension. And I think that that tension is particularly highlighted during oversight hearings, obviously.

And oversight has become this very kind of combative word, like it's kind of an attack dog, watchdog relationship, where in reality it can actually be a lot more collaborative, and I think at times Congress has had a little bit more of a collaborative relationship with the Executive branch. In your research on kind of committee effectiveness and, and kind of building up committee relationships, right, in Member relationships with the Executive branch, do you have any recommendations for how freshmen can kind of start that process of becoming known with the agency that maybe has the biggest impact on their district, or as a kind of a legislative priority for them?

Dr. Maya Kornberg: Well, one of the things that freshmen can take advantage of is their questioning time in hearings. And I think that this questioning time, particularly for high profile hearings, is really a way for freshmen to get across to the public, and across to other politicians, get across to the agencies what they care about, and also signal their expertise on an issue.

And so I think that that's a really important way for freshmen to kind of get their name out there, and be signaling where they stand on certain issues. And I think it's also a way for them to be signaling the way that they want to engage with Executive agency officials. We see different kinds of questioning in hearings in Congress, and Members can make a choice to ask inquisitive questions that are really meant to solicit kind of more information from the agency representative who is there testifying, or they can ask kind of more “gotcha questions,” which are really more of a statement than a question.

If we look at enough Congressional hearings, we see both, there is a combination and there is a strategic decision that lies behind which to use, but definitely, it's a way for a Member to signal, “I want to build a relationship with you, and so I will use my questioning time to really solicit information,” versus, “I'm going to use my questioning time to really make statements.” And so this is something to keep in mind in terms of, kind of an overall signaling of where a Member’s at, as well as a relationship building with a specific person who's testifying on behalf of an agency.

Aubrey Wilson: Maya, that's such a good point about Members really approaching their questions with the intention of what they're trying to get out of it.

Is there anything else you'd like to add about how to approach oversight effectively as a Member of Congress?

Dr. Maya Kornberg: It might be worth noting that oversight hearings, you know, can be more contentious on topics that are more contentious. I think that there is a tendency, especially perhaps for freshmen who are coming in, who don't have legislative experience, of seeing Congress on television like everyone else has, that, the Brett Kavanaugh nomination hearing is, you know, is kind of an example where that's really a hearing where you have 20 million people watching and a committee that has, by all accounts, nowadays, a more contentious relationship, and fractured relationship between the majority and the minority, and deals with a lot of partisan issues.

That's not necessarily indicative of how all oversight hearings are. And the more contentious partisan topics — and we've actually seen nominations also change in terms of nominations hearings and become more contentious in terms of the hearings than they perhaps once used to just a few decades ago, but hearings like this that are more partisan, are different from hearings which we see Congress have all the time where they're calling in a specific person from an agency to provide information on a specific issue, and it's not particularly partisan, and there's not a huge audience watching on television, and it's really just informing them.

So, I think just dispelling that myth is something that I always try to do. That just because the media tends towards what's most salacious, that doesn't mean that's the only thing happening in Congress, and I think that's particularly true for oversight.

Discussion

Aubrey Wilson: With that scene setting by Maya about what Congressional oversight hearings can and cannot be, I'm really excited that we're going to wrap up this episode with actionable advice from a former Chief about how to undertake effective oversight. But before we head there, though, Taylor, I really do think it's worth us taking a second to talk about the overturning of Chevron, which we did briefly speak to Maya about.

It's a pretty weighty and in-the-weeds topic, but one that I think both of us, and well, like a lot of people in the Congressional community, are anticipating to have a ripple effect across Congress.

Taylor J. Swift: Yeah, it's a great thing to start reading about if you're a listener. This could have lasting impacts for not only Congress, but agency interpretation on decisions as well. So, Maya brought this up with the Supreme Court decision in June of 2024, the Loper Bright decision, overturned the Chevron doctrine. And that's because this decision makes Congress have a requirement to be more clear on its intent, so it has to be more clear on defining intent and statutes, and that means that they need to be more proactive as new issues arrive, rather than depending on federal agencies to respond. So, what exactly does that mean?

It means that Congress is going to have to be a little more granular on how it writes legislation, because they can't lean on agencies to do it for them, and that is a massive, massive change because this has been this way for four decades.

Aubrey Wilson: So that kind of goes back to our implementation conversation we were having, you know, a couple of guests ago about how, you know, the legislative process doesn't end with, you know, signing that bill into law and then hoping that the agencies will just kind of figure it out. With the overturning of Chevron, it really sounds like Congressional staff are going to have to have a lot of implementation conversations with agency officials prior to the policy actually becoming law, so that the law itself actually talks about implementation and clarifies how that will be carried out in more detail.

If that's the case, Taylor, what are some of the kind of like on-the-ground changes that Congress might have to make now that Chevron has been overturned?

Taylor J. Swift: That's a great question. So, just looking from the top down, Congress by itself is really, really, really small compared to the Executive branch. I know we've talked about this, but the Legislative branch operates at roughly 1/120 the budget that the Executive branch has. There are millions of Executive branch employees, almost 3 million individuals, while the Legislative branch in Congress only has roughly 30,000.

And so when we're talking about that imbalance of powers, requiring Congress to make sure that they are interpreting and having stronger definitions within statutes, that's a huge deal, because Congress already is resource constrained. We've talked before in other episodes about how funding for the Legislative branch has actually been decreasing when we adjust for inflation, compared to that of the Executive branch.

That also is the case for committee staff and support office staff. So, if we look at, we adjust for inflation, since the 1980s, Congress has actually seen a 41% reduction in House committee staff and a 25% decrease in support office staff funding. So, think the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office, and that all coincides with increased legislative inactivity and oversight already.

So even before this decision, there has been a huge surge in the amount of bills that have been introduced in Congress. I believe since the 115th Congress, there's been like a 75% increase or so in the proposed number of bills and a 39% increase in the number of amendments. So, you're already putting a ton of workload on these support office agencies.

So, think about your friends over at the House Office of Legislative Counsel, those folks that are drafting the legislation, combine all of these previous increases with this overturning, if legislative intent, if defining intent has to be more specific, this is going to require greater granularity and legislative writing, which means that there could be more detail put in a lot of this legislation.

There could be more legislation overall, because as we know, Congress has to negotiate. There has to be compromise in order to pass legislation. But if you have to be more proactive because you can't rely on agencies to interpret things, that requires more collaboration from both sides of the aisle on the front end, which then may require greater granularity and more legislation to be passed, because it just has to be more specific.

So I know we just threw a lot at you, but this is going to be a huge thing that Congress is going to have to look at over not only the 119th Congress, but moving forward on the whole. And, you know, we talk about this all the time at POPVOX Foundation, but we showed you the numbers. Congress just is not prepared from a capacity and resource perspective to really take on this burden, and so we talk about all the time greater modernization tools, more resources, more training for staff, more legal expertise. All of these things are going to be needed in order for Congress to respond to this Supreme Court decision successfully.

Aubrey Wilson: Gosh, Taylor. Yeah, when you're talking about Congressional capacity, and all of the work that Congress will have to do on top of all the work, it's already been doing, you know, all I can think about is just like, you know, the need for more people and more staff, like you were saying, more tools and how much that just kind of touches everything, right?

You know, I think about the other episodes we're even just doing for this podcast, you know the one on staffing, you know we have a whole episode on modern uses of the MRA and how the MRA has increased, which is the Members’ Representational Allowance. You know, obviously this, you know, episode is on Congressional oversight, and that is the kind of, you know, arena of Congress that is going to really play this huge role in responding to Chevron.

And so, yeah, the ripple effects of that decision are going to be really interesting to watch, and thank you for that additional background. And like Taylor was saying, I think there's a lot of amazing resources out there for new freshmen and new Members and their staff to get smart on this issue and be able to talk about it, and just understand that it's it's time for Congress to understand that it really needs to step up to the plate.

You know, I think a lot of the Chevron discussions have been taking place talking about the effect that it will have on the judiciary and the Judicial branch, but in reality, like, this power has actually always been vested in Congress, and so it's kind of Congress not even taking it back, it's just more of just like I said, kind of stepping up to the plate and utilizing it.

Taylor J. Swift: That's well said, and I often think about, this quote I heard once that just really, really resonates me, and I hope it resonates with our listeners, too: “Whatever your goals are, you need Congressional capacity to achieve them, whether that's more efficient regulatory capacity, better technology and oversight capacity,” or even just staffing and resource capacity like you just mentioned, “Whatever your goals are, you need to make sure that there is investment in order for those goals to become a reality.”

And I think this is a perfect transition into our next guest. Making sure that there is an investment in relationships and working with those federal agencies, working with those Executive branch officials, will help create better understandings between both agencies and Congress for not only what is being implemented now, but of course, the changes in Chevron and what is going to be implemented by law in the future because of these changes.

Aubrey Wilson: Perfect. Well, with that, let me intro our next guest. So, next, joining us in to wrap up this episode is Keenan Austin Reed. She's the incoming CEO of the Alpine Group and a former Chief of Staff. And as Taylor said, she gets into the weeds on how to be really effective and implement Congressional oversight even with the existing resources that you have.

Interview with Keenan Austin Reed

Taylor J. Swift: So, Keenan, you were Chief of Staff for several years for a prominent Member on the House side, and you just gave some fantastic staff level advice on how to not only establish those relationships, but then maintain them and build up, kind of your professional background on how this whole process works. Can you share maybe a specific example of a time when your team, or yourself, or you were collaborating with an agency, that helped you achieve a policy or goal in your district?

Keenan Austin Reed: Oh my gosh, make me feel so old here. I'm like, oh, I'm trying to go back, but let me go back in my ledger. One of the, in my last role, we had tremendous problems with postal delivery and postal service, and it was around the time that the Congressional Oversight Committee in Congress was looking at postal reform.

So, it's one of those things where because we had so many, we first started out as kind of bottom up. We started with constituents giving us tons of mail, phone calls about how they were not getting their mail and the patterns of, you know, not receiving it on time, not receiving it with a degree of predictability, and there were even news reports about it.

So local news started to cover, “Oh, you know, we found this heap of mail shoved somewhere in cars,” and, like, it was clear that the mail was being mishandled and not discarded. This was not specific to one city or county within our district. It was sort of a widespread issue, and it spoke to larger issues within our postal services about, like, the amount of staff and that sort of thing.

So, first thing we were able to do was to work with the agency to get regular calls from their senior level executives. So, our caseworker who we had handling that issue, she was able to have direct audience and be able to bring in our most significant constituent cases and get answers on those, so that was a little bit more elevated.

Every Congressional agency or every agency has a Congressional desk where staff and Members can call, log their concerns in and get answers back in a very timely way, and that system is fantastic, but this took it a step further. This was a proactive, biweekly meeting where we were able to get those answers. Then, beyond that, because there was such a large outcry and we just, the Member just insisted that this is egregious and we really can't have, people get their medicine in the mail, people get bills paid in the mail. There are all sorts of, your taxes, your pay, all of these things that are just really sensitive and important. You cannot not have predictability and reliability to that, so we did town halls and the Postal Service was nice enough to come in and get beat up, you know, and take those.

I give them a lot of credit because if you're the, the staging of this is that things are not going well, and they're coming in to, really take the heat. So, that was something that we were able to work with them and we, you know, we were fair to them and said, “But this is not okay.”

And we've got to make that happen. And then we were also, fortunate for us, the delegation, someone within our Congressional delegation is Chairman of that committee, so we were able to also do that, to work more formally on legislation, but both legislatively, through town halls and through case work, we were able to work with the agency to sort of create this 360 strategy to help us be impactful for our constituents.

I think it starts off with just co-creating a roadmap to solve a problem. If you're operating in a space of “gotcha,” they're going to sense that, and they're not going to be interested in that. But I've had fantastic help, I can think about my previous Member who was in Florida, we had tons of natural disasters and some of the relationships we had with FEMA or we had, this was a major [??] but representing one of the most diverse districts in Congress, we had a lot of immigration issues. So, our, whereas most caseworkers maybe get off at 5:00, I don't know, I'm assuming I'm sure people work around the clock, but our caseworkers may have to deal with people who enter in our borders at 3 AM, and so we were able to work with DHS and had that sort of direct communication.

So I think of fantastic examples, but each time started off with knowing the problem and co-creating the solution with the agency and just constant communication.

Aubrey Wilson: You know, I think that when working with Congress and working with kind of an oversight agenda and the agency and building those relationships, you know, it is a long game. And when it comes to, you know, first reaching out with that oversight letter, then you said, you know, obviously creating kind of a roadmap for progress, that can be a really intimidating kind of interaction to start out to build and, and to just kind of, take that first step forward, especially when you're part of you know, 441 Members and delegates, you're a freshman, probably in that scenario, you might even be part of the minority party, you know, expectations for getting a response from a federal agency might even be kind of low, but it might be an on an issue that is really important to your district.

Do you have any recommendations or tips for how to get a letter to an agency, how to get them to respond to that, or how to bring extra attention, or how to put extra weight on that letter to more likely get a response, and get that call back to start that relationship forming.

Keenan Austin Reed: Yeah, I do. Okay. So, one thing that leapt out of me, Aubrey, was, yes, you, for Members of Congress, you might be a senior or junior. And in here in DC, you're all about the seniority of it all. You know, you move up and over time, and you get to the top of the dais on your committee or you get more senior in your leadership, what have you, you get nicer things. I am very pro that. But the minute, the reality is the minute you're elected, you are not a junior Member of Congress, you are these folks’ life line. There's 700,000 people that you are the line between whether they make it or not. I think about Congress and particularly our offices, whether you're the DC office or some of the, our district offices or state based offices, as we're the hospital.

I mean, especially the constituent in the ones that are in the state, the ones that are really focused on constituent services, when people call for help and intervention with our federal agencies, they're calling you on their worst day. So we, you are empowered on day one to do what you have to do to raise attention to your district. And every Member of your leadership or your conference will respect you standing up for your district.

If there's anything to leave, empower it with it’s that. So, if you want more attention to your letters, you can do a few things. One is you can give, you can share that letter, and I would recommend doing this anyway, share that letter with the committee of jurisdiction if you're not on that committee of jurisdiction.

So, if you've got an ag oversight issue, share it with the Chair and Ranking Member of the Ag Committee so that they know, and I would meet with them, and if you can't meet with them, sometimes folks are busy, you need to find them on the floor. And if you're staff, you need to send your boss with a charge to find them on the floor.

I do a little typed up note cards of basically talking points of what I want them to say, you know, what you want your Member to say, and you know, you can you can kind of set that up for for them to kind of meet at like a “meet cute” right on the floor, and just share with them the letter, ask for their support, and ask that person who has more of a direct channel to elevate it.

The other thing you can do is find partners within your delegation. So, sometimes within your neighboring districts, you may strategically want to be bipartisan about it. Use those relationships to, “Hey, it's not just my district, it's my state,” and make the folks that are senior to you, this is where seniority can be helpful, use your, the seniority of your district to elevate the issue.

Use the leadership and conference leadership, the caucus and conference leadership to help elevate the issue. So you can meet with, you know, Leader Jeffries or Speaker Johnson and say, “Look, this is a huge issue in my district,”and they get it. People immediately get it, and they understand the level of urgency.

Depending on who you are, you can go a little bit nuclear. If people are not listening to you, you have a microphone — it’s called your social media, right? So you can send out a release, and in fact, if you're going through the trouble of doing a letter, you might want to consider doing a release, right? And telling, because you, there's the actual doing the work, but your constituents need to know that you're taking decisive action on this. And so you want to make sure that you've worked out with your communications team how you're going to tell people that you're doing this work. You may want to have coordinated interviews on outlets that your constituents watch. So you're saying, “Hey, I've gotten this issue. It's come to my attention. I don't appreciate it. I'd like some answers.” And then you're putting your release out and then, depending on what the issue is, you may want to have press promote it. That really is an issue by issue, and what the roadmap is. But if people are, if you're needing to elevate it, I would do that.

The last thing I would say is, the White House and the agencies are going to come to Members of Congress at some point, so people sometimes think about this too linear, so if you're at the Congressional picnic, but you haven't gotten your, so then the Congressional picnic, I'm saying I'm saying short form, but the White House Congressional picnic.

So you're thinking, “Oh, that's fun. Nice to have some barbecue on the lawn of the White House. Yay,” but you have this very urgent issue in your eyes and in the eyes of your constituents, take that letter to the White House Congressional picnic and talk to the staff of the White House, and if you get audience with the President, tell him, if you get audience with a different administrator, because these people are going to tell someone that, “This Member of Congress asked me this question, and we need to get back to them,” but you can't be, and I've coached a lot of Members through this, Members that I work for, Members that I support since then, you cannot be shy about what your needs are. Until the need is solved, everybody has an answer. So, you know anybody attached to that White House, “Hey, I see you, and I just need you to know. And by the way, I have not gotten any answer on this,” and keep talking about it. The more you talk about it, the more you're elevating and the more they realize that it is serious to you and you are not backing down.

Taylor J. Swift: Yeah, that was perfect. This has been such an incredible experience talking to you, Keenan, thank you so much for your time. Any last things that you want to kind of tell some of our listeners before we break?

Keenan Austin Reed: So I will just say that, we are so lucky, and I would say blessed, that's my faith, that we have these experiences, but that doesn't mean that it's not hard, or the days are not long, or that we don't sometimes interface with people that are less than fun, and that is okay.

There are a lot of resources available to you, and most of these things, if they are challenging to you, they have been challenging to others. So, try not to go in with your problems, try to reach out to others who can work with you to solve the problem and be patient with yourself. A lot of Members come from either states where they've been leaders, they've been mayors, and they're used to getting things done quickly.

Congress, we’re a little slow. So, be patient with us and be patient with yourself, and it will be a fantastic experience. And lastly, just thank you for your service. Thank you for choosing this career.

Taylor J. Swift: What a perfect place to end. Keenan, thanks for your wisdom, your experience, your expertise. I think our listeners are going to get so much out of this for so many different reasons. So again, just thank you for your time, especially with how busy everything's been.

Conclusion

Aubrey Wilson: We want to extend an extra special thank you to our guests Dr. Kevin Kosar, Nicole Tisdale, Betsy Wright Hawkings, Dr. Maya Kornberg, and Keenan Austin Reed for sitting down with us and talking about Congress. Thank you truly for listening, and please consider joining us next time on Gavel In for more insider knowledge and actionable tips for your journey during your term in Congress.

If you found today's episode helpful, please feel free to share it with your colleagues and be sure to go to our website. It's popvox.org/gavel, where the episode page has extra resources that we mentioned to make sure that you and your team are set up for success, both in DC and the district. Speaking of which, you can also go to popvox.org/futureproofing to learn how you can make a difference in your new role to ensure that Congress is likewise set up for success in the long run.

Follow us @popvoxfdn on X and Instagram, and we’re POPVOX Foundation on LinkedIn. Thank you so much for your service and we'll see you in Congress.

POPVOX Foundation
Previous

Ep. 7: Reaching Your Constituents and Translating Your Impact to the District
Next

Ep. 5: Understanding Your Office Budget (“MRA”)