Could a congressional dorm bring legislators together?

Not long ago I was chatting with a long-time Hill staffer about the state of Congress. Our conversation hit upon troubles familiar to just about any American, like the broken budget process. We also spoke of less salient drags on legislative productivity, such as the high turnover of the staff who help legislators get things done. 

One of the staffer’s comments, however, keeps recurring to me. “I think a real problem is that legislators don’t hang out with one another nearly enough.” He observed that legislators are in Washington, D.C. for, perhaps, four days a week when chambers are in session. Their days in D.C. are heavily scheduled: They attend political party meetings, fundraisers, committee and subcommittee hearings, visits with supporters and constituents and other events.  

All this running hither and thither leave legislators with little time to get to know one another. That is a problem, and it is not difficult to understand why.  

The basic concept of Congress is that voters from diverse parts of the nation send 535 people to gather in a beautiful, domed building. There these strangers to one another are expected to cooperate on matters of national importance. But how are they supposed to do that if they do not trust one another? How can an individual legislator get a bill through a chamber unless others feel inclined to give their precious votes in support? 

Yet, too often today, majorities are built through party affiliation alone. The majority’s leaders declare to their co-partisans, “These bills are our party’s bills. You are members of our party. Vote for them.” Legislators feel discouraged from trying to partner with members of the other party on some of the nation’s biggest issues, like immigration. 

It is no secret this partisan model for building majorities has problems. It reduces legislating and congressional oversight into a red shirts vs. blue shirts battle royale.  

Worse, trying to govern it is not particularly successful since partisan majorities are exceedingly slim and have been narrow more often than not for 20 years. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has a nine-vote majority; Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has a two-vote majority. Things were nearly the same in the previous Congress for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).  

Happily, there are signs Congress is trying to get out of this partisan unilateralism. In recent years, legislators have revived the practice of traveling together. Earlier this year, for example, Democratic and Republican senators traveled to Ukraine, and a bipartisan delegation visited the heads of big tech companies to discuss trade and security issues relating to China. Some committees have reinstituted field hearings outside Washington, D.C. The House of Representatives also has moved to create bipartisan workplaces for members and biennial bipartisan retreats. 

Unfortunately, neither chamber has much increased the number of days that legislators spend in Washington, D.C., a key factor that limits the time legislators have to spend together. Legislators stay in D.C. a little over half the days per year. Not least, they are dissuaded from staying longer due to the high cost of housing. It costs a median of $677,000 to buy a two-bedroom house here. Studio apartments average $2,050 a month and in 2017, staying at even one of the dowdier hotels in town cost an average of $269 a night. 

So let me make a modest proposal that would increase the time for legislators to get to know one another: build a congressional dormitory for legislators. 

Until about 50 years ago, it was not uncommon for legislators to bunk under the same roof. In the 19th century, they often stayed in boarding houses; in the 20th century, they shifted to long-stay hotels. For a time, the House of Representatives owned the Hotel Congressional, a seven-story pile erected in 1948 on New Jersey Ave. SE across from the Cannon Building. (It was demolished in 2002.) 

Living in the same building provided ample opportunities to hang out with one another over a meal or drinks. As a result, elected officials developed friendships and trust that facilitated dealmaking between members of different political parties.  

Establishing a residence for legislators would have the additional benefit of curbing the habit of cash-strapped legislators sleeping in their offices and creeping out the nightly cleaning crews. It would curb elected officials from getting sweetheart rent deals from lobbyists and using their personal office funds to pay for hotel rooms. (These dollars should go to their underpaid staffers.) 

The House of Representatives already owns a site it could build upon — 501 1st St SE, where the old page building sits crumbling. Legislators could knock it down and replace it with a building with Spartan lodgings available to legislators at $50 a night payable only from their salaries. And if after a decade there’s no discernible improvement in congressional bipartisanship, the building could be sold off and the proceeds returned to the U.S. Treasury. 

What have we to lose? 

Kevin R. Kosar (@kevinrkosar) is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the co-editor of “Congress Overwhelmed: Congressional Capacity and Prospects for Reform” (University of Chicago Press, 2020). He hosts the Understanding Congress podcast.