of government. were funded by these television companies and more. including mitt cole. lucas supports c-span, as a public service, along with these television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. house committee heard recommendations on modernizing how the house operates. they discuss having adding more members to the house and using artificial technology.

the chair is authorized to declare a recess for at any given time. i recognize myself for five minutes to give opening statements. no pressure on our witnesses today. i've been looking forward to this hearing for three. years when this committee was formed in 2019. we were given when your to do artwork. i want to make sure we found a good way to showcase some out of the box waste to fix congress. -- that is the end of the year approach, the committee received an extension through 2020. so we decided to put the big ideas meeting back. then a few months into 2020

covid get along and upended everything. big ideas was put on hold while the committee focused on more pressing issues -- fortunately, the committee was once again extended. this time through the end of the 117th congress. here we are at long last. i share that background because i want to be clear that this hearing has been part of the hearings plan since day one. let me explain. the big part of making congress work better for the american people, focusing on tangible solutions. we have felt 37 public hearings and passed 171 recommendations to end up doing just that. the committee structure requires bipartisan agreement. we worked hard to find common ground on tough issues. instead of focusing on what seems doable, we need to think big. we should be open to creative problem solving, considering ideas that fall out of our comfort zone. i say this because congress is not a static institution. the legislative branch is supposed to reflect the diversity of this country. as our society in politics involved, so should our

willingness to resolve the problems that affect congress -- new problems demand new solutions. our founding fathers have designed an amazing system of government that has landed lasted over 200 years. but if it was perfect there would be no need for -- none of those amendments would've passed if citizens and policy makers were willing to think they can take risks. the good news is not all that big ideas required constitutional amendments. they're pretty of innovative solutions to the big and small problems congress faces. today we have a panel of big thinkers -- the committee will use its rules that allow for more flexible hearing format that encourages-ing discussion and a civil exchange of ideas and opinions. in accordance with the clause -- we will allow up to 30 minutes of extended questioning for witnesses. -- would not be strictly segregated between witnesses, which will allow for --

back and forth between the witnesses. -- additionally members who wish to claim their decisional five minutes -- will be permitted to do so following a period of extended questioning. all. right with that. i would like to invite vice timmins to share his opening remarks. >> thank you mister chairman. i'm looking forward to today's discussion on out of the box of approaching how congress works with the american people. as you mentioned, this is been on the agenda for quite awhile. i am glad we are finally getting to. it we're had six months, left i'm hoping we get some more done. allow me to quote the chairman, who often likes to say, there are no bad ideas in the ideas room. it is entirely in the spirit that we invite our witnesses here today. a lot of work on this committee has rightly been focused on improving the nuts and bolts occupation operations of congress. there's a lot of work to be done there. we can also spent time today exploring bigger, bolder ideas to reforming congress for the

american people. i want to thank the witnesses for joining. us i know this committee has heard from several of you before another issues. we appreciate the work and thought all of you continue to put in to improve the institution. today we will hear about five different ideas facing congress. some of them, expanding the size of the, house -- asked us to grapple with some of the same arguments our founders. i will hear is a conservative, the founders knew exactly what they were doing. our system is self governing. their constitutional checks and balances of federalism is the best the world's diversity. we must read very close -- and examining any ideas that i'm in the consular. shun -- will and willingness to explore every idea to strengthen congress. which the founders saw the first among coequal branches, so we can improve the way we serve the american people. if we are going to assess what's best for the future of our republic, we first can do a better job to understand where

the system we have today came from. hopefully our witnesses will provide helpful historical context on the founders vision to help inform discussions. another topic we will be discussing today is a machine learning. in the legislative process, this is a big idea that we should prepare for. as they say, the future is now. we should do everything we can to prepare for it. and to ensure congress is at the forefront of technology. i would particularly like to talk about the calendar in the schedule and how machine learning an ai can solve all the problems we've been grappling with for the last couple of years. i really appreciate you all being here. i look forward to the conversation. mister chairman, i yield back. >> i would like to welcome our five expert witnesses, including one of our colleagues, because we have a bigger panel than usual, last witnesses to keep their or marks to three minutes. they will have plenty of time to discuss all the testimony when we move through and a period of extended questions.

those written statements will be made part of the record. let's kick things off with dr. drummond. he is a senior fellow -- poll a regular contributor 5:38. prior to new america, he was a senior fellow at the sunlight foundation. he's the author of breaking the two party doom loop. -- is bachelors and political science from brown and his ph.d. from the university of cal berkeley. you are recognized for three minutes. >> well, thank you. what a great honor to be here. chairman kilmer, vice chair timmins, members of the select committee on the modernization of congress, i really appreciate this opportunity to participate in the big ideas hearing. so, one big idea is increasing the size of the house of representatives and making it bigger. maybe it's not that big of an idea. it's something that we did in this country for the first 120

years. so, let's get into that history. in 1790, when the u.s. house of representatives first met, there are only 65 members, each with approximately 30,000 consist ruins. of course, the u.s. only had 13 states. the country was much smaller population wise. because this was to be the people's house, framers envisioned representatives close connections to the constituents. district small enough to make that representative representation meaningful. obviously this country has grown considerably since that. as the country grew, for the first hundred and 20, years after -- congress that motor seats to reflect the glowing population. after the expansion in 1911, the house settled on 435, no good reason there, other than they couldn't agree on how to add more seats. it was somewhat divisive and polarized time. --

since 1911, the population of the country has more than triple, and with women suffrage and [inaudible] the eligible voting population has increased sixfold. but the number 4:35 has not budged. -- 760,000. it's hard to feel heard when you are one in three fourths of 1 million. we know the larger the district, the more distant constituents feels from the representatives. and vice versa. distance priests distrust and frustration and inadequate representation. it was not the way framers intended the house to operate. it is just bad for a reform of representative republican democracy. -- report that i coauthored. nicely printed here of course. -- which i'm submitting for the record. recommends increasing the house by 150 members to a total of

585. this would correspond to the number of seats that have shifted between the states, even as their population has grown, since that 435 cap was stack up on. we this doesn't have to happen right now. probably the ideal timing will be after the 2030 census. once instituted, the number would continue to expand as the population grows. in addition to bringing constituents and representatives closer to each other, and expansion will have some other benefits. one is it would bring new faces and new ideas to washington. incumbency reelection rates are extremely high. i guess constituents love you all. i can't blame them. but, overtime, that could make washington start to feel a little to washington. and keep some pressure perspectives out. the peoples house should be close to the people. all this could shake things up for sure. given how stuck and dysfunctional things seem to be

right now, a little shake up could be good. it could bring some new energy, some new creativity to congress. it could help short-circuit some of the destructive, hyper part is a polarization undermining our system of government. on that front, i do think pairing this with an increase increased house with another of the academy's recommendations, proportional multi member districts, which would go a long way. proportional multi member districts, you have much more diversity of perspectives in congress, and would really expand beyond the highly polarized them -- and that would create even more possibilities for new creative problem solving. i think also a more committee or into congress. more broadly, as a scholar of political science and history, i see that this decade ahead is actually likely to be a real moment of transformative change in our democracy. i think it's clear that the

status quo is broken. and, there are those who want to bring it all to the ground. i at least, and i think you, all want to restore and renew the promise of liberal republican democracy in america. we i am 100 percent convinced we are going to need some big, bold ideas to make that work. to innovate and modernize towards a brighter future for this country. i look forward to working with you all to achieve some of these innovations. ,. . ,,. . . she is the author, among other things, from voice to influence, from understanding citizenship in the digital age. dr. alan earned her first ph.d.

from the university of cambridge and her second from harvard university. you are now recognized for three minutes. >> that is what you get for that. good morning chair kilmer. thank you for the invitation. vice chair timmins, representative, and honor to be with you and all of you, thank you so much for your commitment to self government. you have heard my background. i also have the honor of being a co-chair for the american committee arts on the practice citizenship. i want to share a little bit more about myself for context. where my views come from. i grew up in celdran california in a family that prized civic engagement. and my mom side my great grandparents helped fight for women's right to vote. my great grandmother was president of the legal voters in michigan in the 30s. on my dad side might grant and have found the first and double cpp chapters in northern florida. as a matter of both families

inheritance and personal conviction i bring a deep belief to this hearing. in the value to all people of the chance to participate in self government, as free and equal citizens. i speak, therefore, from personal conviction. but also, i speak today on behalf of the committee shuns -- the american academy of arts and scientists was founded in 1780. that is before the constitution. but the same people who led the revolution. it was founded to secure, for the new nation, the knowledge resources needed to dare the experiment and self government. in 2018 the academy convened a bipartisan commission. it was widespread sense for the crisis. in 2020 we issued our report. our common purpose. you heard about it, a fair bit, i bet. the report makes the case but the turn of sympathetic culture and institutions must go hand in hand. and we are going to secured the health of our constitutional

democracy. my core message is that tweaking how congress operates is not enough to restore the strength of the first branch of government. a healthy congress can grow only out of the soil of a healthy civic culture. investment in our civic well-being through suffolk infrastructure is investment in the health of congress. suffolk enforced instructor consists of places, programs, and people that encourage all residents of municipalities and regions to interact, find common ground, and solve problems together. we currently under invest in this infrastructure. under investment shows up in isolation, disengagement, mistrust, and contention. instead of participation, and collaboration. against this backdrop, residents and local communities, like my great grandparents, are seeking to turn the tide. in south carolina local governments, business people,

and community residents have collaborated on this downtown with a new public library. physical infrastructure, to better support connections among residents and visitors. in lexington kentucky the nonprofit civil bell, and civil health through accessible coverage, of local government meetings for people, and relationship building, and resident engaging in local government. citizens campaign from new jersey. educate local residents with techniques of no blame program solving. participants platform civic trucks, as they call them. nonpartisan civic associations that search for successful policies at work and other communities that might be adopted on their own. local communities need a vote of confidence from national investment. in our report we recommend the trust for civic infrastructure. a new national organization for great making, knowledge sharing, public education, and research and evaluation to strengthen civic communication and local communities.

a pilot trust is currently forming with private support. the scope and scale of median investments means civic infrastructure should also be a priority for the national budget. future members of your body need a chance to learn the practices of democratic citizenship enrich schools of democracy at the local level. when local communities know how to bridge divides and engage residents with productive collaboration's, we will be on our way to securing healthy political culture naturally. this will improve your working conditions. only with innovations can be passed on to -- constitutional democracy in better shape than we currently find it. a gain. we thank you for your willingness to renovate our constitutional democracy. >> thank you doctor ellen. our next is joe marianne e. did i get that right? all right, mr. marianne e is

the center of government insights and delivery services. his research focuses on the intersection of culture and innovation in both commercial businesses and government organizations. previously, he worked as a science teacher at st. john's home. he served as an intelligence officer with the u.s. marine corps. mr. mary army urged his bachelor of arts from the -- dartmouth college. mr. mary adi, you are now recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, thank you for the opportunity to testify today as i am joe mariani. i need -- i have come to that role with a broad range of experience. i'm an intelligence officer to high school teacher. from consulting to government. from commercial to technological researcher. today's task of mining the industry and academia for the big ideas that can help transform government is exactly what gets me out a bed in the morning. so, for the past five years we have been looking at the potential impact, artificial intelligence, or a i could have on government. from that research we have

identified two ways which we think can help transform the legislative process. the first is ai as a microscope. using ai to assess the impact that existing legislation has. machine learning or emily models can accurately find patterns and data without having to specify, ahead of time, but those patterns should be. so, just as a microscope can look at a leaf, for example, and find a structure, or pattern, or visible to the human eye, these machine learning models can look at programs and crime programs and their outcomes that may be invisible to humans, just because of the size, scope, or even each of the data. for example, machine learning models have found that patterns in governments r&d investments during world war ii have impacted the location of innovation hubs, even till today. you can use these machine learning models on more recent policy problems, as well. in allegany county, pennsylvania, researchers is machine learning to help understand which interventions are most effective at reducing infant mortality. it is that ability of machine learning models to predict

policy outcomes. it begs next question. which is, what if we did something differently? what would change? answering that question is exactly our second use of ai. ai is simulated. creating an ally simulator for problems can help cause leaguer test different approaches. much the same way that flight simulator allows pilots to test different ways of flying an entirely new airplane. researchers in ireland have recently taken advantage of this to simulate parts of their economy. they used data from patents, knowledge flows, other economic trends, to simulate how individual companies and investors might react to different policies. so, for example, researchers could examine if different tax incentives or funding methods would support the creation of new, high tech, small businesses. in certain specific parts of the country. using air and this way to assimilate the complex systems that congress deals with every day can actually improve the quality of debate and do so in three key ways. first, it can articulate the often unspoken assumptions and values that we all bring to these issues.

second, it can uncovered the drivers a particular problems. and third, you can help us understand which interventions will be the most effective, and at what cost. ultimately, the simulations can help members agree on what they disagree on. in fact, there is even evidence that it is just experimenting with these models, alone, that will help drive consensus on emotionally charged issues. now, using air and legislative process is certainly going to uncover some unique challenges. new skills, new security requirements and business processes, and they were likely be required. examples are already at work. other industry show that with the right human machine teaming ai can help provide common foundations for many, and encouraged conciseness, and produce meaningful results for the american people. thank you. i look forward to your questions. >> thanks mister mariani. next we have dr. costar. he is working at the american institute and studies the congress, electoral reform, and as part of ai. he was the vice president of research partnerships at the institute, and the cofounder of

the capacity working group and also served for more than many years as a researcher -- he is the co-offer of the book, congress overall, the decline of congressional capacity and prospects for reform. doctor kosak earned his bachelor from ohio state university and a master of arts in phd. dr., welcome back, you are recognized for three minutes. >> thank you so much. members of the select committee, for having me here. i appreciate the set up you gave my topic in your introduction. we referenced rule 11, clause two, j two. it kind of gets to my point. i think it is also interesting that this room is located right next to the energy committees room. and above that is a portrait of the late john dingell, who had many famous clips. one was that you could write the bill. if i write the rules i will win. but, being john dingell, the language was much more salty.

the importance of rules in the legislative process, rules, or the waiving of the rules, ultimately, can be very alternative outputs. it is a little appreciated out of capitol hill. and so, it is only when you get here and you start to see how the wheels turn that you realize how impactful they are. so, yes, i am here, and i was called to talk about excessive complexity of house rules for moving legislation. you know, your staff lines a committee waiting for the hill where i decried excessive complicity. citing the process by which the debt limit was raised by something like 400 billion dollars or more. it was baffling to even long term congress watchers who follow this stuff. it is baffling to us. my goodness, how can anybody else in this country understand what occurred? now, i want to say, of course, there is nothing inherently

wrong with complex rules. you are dealing with humans, they are interacting, legislator chambers, there are a lot of things that can go wrong. of course, we want to create rules and have them work towards a productive and. i think what we have seen is, overtime, the number of rules have built up. this is not a phenomenon you mean in congress. all organizations often face this plate. we often describe red tape and government agencies. what is red tape? it is a surface of rules. it is rules being laid it on and aggregating year, after year, after year. ultimately, creating an uncooperative jumble which is exceedingly difficult to navigate, and often, makes it difficult for the organization to do what is expected of them. you know, ultimately, the rules governing any human interaction needs to serve the interactions of the institution. they should embody the institution, and be readily understandable by people in the enterprise. i think that i am not a rules nerd and there are those who work in the congressional

richer surface, we're used to work. you can nerd out on this, split as someone who has been watching congress for 20 years in this town it seems to me that there are clear signs that the reels have grown overly complex. you know, the committee here has committed a deep dive on the process, which is one slice of legislative process. it is ripe with pay go, for your to be, and it goes on, and, on and on. there are whole fields of expertise. nerds who devote their lives to budget process. it is that complex. and then, you consider, that is part of the whole. i mean, my goodness. how is a legislator supposed to operate in this environment? the rules, setting aside the budget, the rules governing legislative process are pro lacks, but mildly. they began on page 3:53 of the house rules and manual. they conclude 700 pages later. the manual holds rules on 130

devoted to committee procedures. like you have cited. 56 pages address motions and amendments. 86 pages, really to the aforementioned budget process. and so forth. you know, as a point of contrast, the great state of ohio, it's legislative ruled book has only 200 pages. not all 200 devoted to rules of moving legislation. they are devoted to other stuff. member conduct, and such things. do we really need that many rules here compared to state of ohio? or perhaps, other states? i think it is a fair question to ask. i think when you talk about rules piling up, they ultimately are going to come with a cost. not least, as alluded to, the more rules and organization has, the fewer people who can understand them. and, of course, that is going to create a power imbalance. you know, i referenced the iron law oligarchies. there is almost one at the top of the organization who knows

more things than other people. therefore, they are able to get their way. let's inherently here that is problematic. it is taken to extremes for a representative legislator where you are all supposed to be equal. you all have constituencies and states to take care of. when i conducted the study with timothy, the professor, and he surveyed congressional staff, some years ago, we saw some clear evidence that staff whose job it is to help you guys do your work were struggling to understand the rules. we were asking them, not just our cana, but pretty straightforward stuff. the percentage of folks who understood it was not especially high. another cost of the complexity of rules is that regular orders starts to erode. no longer can you get into the schoolhouse rock thing and say, okay, i will introduce the bill. it will go to committee. it will go to multiple committees. there will be a process. we will emerge from it.

it will go to the floor. etcetera, nope, not so much. it does not work like that. it is exceedingly complex. as you all know, and have experience, frequently, if something does not go to a committee, all the rules get waived. suddenly, it goes into rules committee land. special rules are written. the thing is handled in ways that are often surprising, and confusing, and bungled down with other stuff. so, i suggest that, it sounds pretty rich but, select committee considers establishing a select committee to study the rules and bipartisan way to think about ways of simplifying them, and making them better valued, by values that you all one for the institution. i think this is legislator participation in a meaningful way. it will not be easy. rules tend to change slowly here. the process for changing them, inevitably, is a majority vote, by the majority party, at the start of each congress. and so, that naturally drifts the rules to be partisan and arcane. but, if nothing is done than the institution is going to

continue to get bogged down. it is the equivalent of red tape. thank you. >> thanks doctor nick kosar. our final witness, john larson. mr. larson has represented connecticut's first district since 1999. he serves on the house committee on ways and means. he is the chair of the subcommittee on social security. mr. larson is also the former chair of the house democratic caucus kiss. welcome. you are now recognized. >> thank you mister chairman. mr. timmins, great to be here. i applaud you for the big ideas that are coming forth. i think they are essential to a democracy. there are many that i would like to explore. i apologize, i got here a little late. i am very interested in the testimony. what kevin was just alluding to, i think, part of the problem, whether it is a member, or

staff, it is getting acclimated to congress. especially for the first time. even if you have had state legislative backgrounds, or interest in understanding, or having a grasp of the legislative process. but, it is different here. it is compounded by the distance that a number of people have to travel. not everybody has a short trip like you do, representative kilmer. but, it is stress that that creates. both on the individual, and i dare say, families, as well. we could spend the day talking about the impact on spouses, and families, and how little congress does with regard to that to the ongoing, i think, atrocity that people have to sleep in their own buildings

because of the cost of living and sleep in the house, and shower down in the locker room. in a country where public opinion is about what happens to congressional members. some time ago, and i think it was on house administration at the time, i had introduced a bill that said one of the ways we could correct this was to have four-year terms for members of congress. not dissimilar to what the senate did. the four year terms, and then stagger those terms so that they are still would be an election cycle, every two years, but only half of the 435 members would be up for election. why? so that you would have an opportunity, first and foremost, to learn and acclimate with regard to the practice. two former presidents, president eisenhower, and president johnson, both felt

and were astounded at the enormous amount of pressure that is placed on a member in the house of representatives. and, as all of you know, too well, you know senator here, and you know that the first thing you are doing before you are sworn in is down at your respective dccc, or the republican committee to reelect. raising money. everyone that you meet in their first days that you are here will all tell you the same thing. when you have to do is make sure that you go down and raise money. and so, the brief acclamation that people half, and most of it is off campus. i remember the trip off to harvard where we had, you know, spent a day and a half. i think it requires far more time than that. people ought to be, a lot of the time, able to make sure that they, and their families,

get to adjust to the very rigorous schedule that congress has, and most people do not understand. the day is not done for a member of congress after voting is through. for a number of people, when they are here, the fundraising continues. there is always your constituent work back at your district, as well it is. a 20 47 job and to have that election cycle, every two years, only compounds the problem. our colleagues in the senate, as you all know, they have six year terms. they are staggered so that only a third of the body is up. why should the house not have a similar system? keeping with the tradition of having an election every two years, but only half the body. and after the first election it

would work it to honor, even, numbers. however, it would be determined by the house. people would then have that opportunity and therefore i believe people would be able to focus more clearly on the task in front of them and to familiarize themselves with the process. including, as kevin said, their staff, as well, having that opportunity to fully appreciate, understand, both their colleagues, the process, and, fundamentally, how a bill really becomes law, up here. with that, mister chairman, i yield back. i am happy to answer any questions, especially from the person who voted on congress. i do not know how many people know that. i just wanted that for the record. >> really bringing my a game. thank you chairman larson.

i now want to recognize myself after a period of extended questioning of the witnesses. a number of people signaled vice chair timmins. i want to start, actually, with doctor drought men. i want to think through what the pros and cons of adding more members to the house are. last hearing we focused on constituent services and i think it is probably undeniably so that your capacity to do case work and to address constituent concerns is probably easier with a smaller district. you know, at the same time, over the course of the hearings that we have had it is striking how many witnesses we have had that spoke about the importance of relationships within a legislative body. i can see, probably, some downside. if you substantially increased suicide is already hard to have relationships if you include the delegates 440, other than

yourself. that is tricky. and so, i am just curious, can you talk a little bit about what is achieved couldn't be number of numbers? if you have a sense of what it takes? >> like everything there are pros and cons. so, certainly, it does bring numbers closer to the constituents in the districts if they are smaller. i think it has the potential to make congress more representative of the people, as a whole, if there are more members. it is more members for you all to interact with. i guess the question is at the proposal that we have put forward in this report. it is to add 150 members, and go from 4 to 55, to 585. that is more people to get to

know. you know, i think, the house has gotten to a point where it is just hard to get to know everybody. especially if you are only here for two years, potentially, and then you find out that most people are here for longer. constantly, running for reelection. and so, in terms of members getting to know each other, to your point, congressman larson, if people spend less time having to go into their fund raising dance, and more time hanging out, if folks were here, more not just flying in on tuesday, and flying in on thursday, and folks actually it would help. there is certainly a trade-off with size. it is harder to, you know, get to know everybody. on the other hand, one was the last time the house deliberated, as a whole?

so, yeah >> i was just thinking about and committees, it is already a little tricky. we are lucky we have 12 people on this committee. our capacity to actually have dialogue is all right. you know? if you look behind you, the services committee, it is really bag. >> so, one thing to think about, it is also the committee structure. i mean, kevin, you are talking about the complexity and, there are some things that can be done with simplification. but, there are a lot of things that congress has called on to legislate, and to think about, and to oversee. i think if you had larger congress you might have the potential for more committees and subcommittees that have to have a level of specialization among members of congress, now. it is really hard to be a generalist given all of the things that you need to be

thinking about. so, having a larger member, having more members might allow for more potential for people to really focus on the particular subcommittees. which, you can develop certain expertise and you have to trust each other, and delegate to each other, to really solve some very hard and tricky problems. >> doctor allen, did you want to weigh in on this? >> a small footnote. both the uk parliament and the german are larger than our congress. their populations are smaller, of course. i think would be very productive if your committee were to reach out to them and asked that question about what it means to operate in a body of that scale. >> go on doctor kosar. just to riff off leaves point, with respect to oversight, i mean, 435 members have to go overseas and see a six trillion dollars worth of spending. there are approximately 180 executive agencies.

as the executive branch has grown in size and complexity the number of members of congress has not. the size of staff has declined since the 19 80s in the house. and so, think about the information and cemeteries there. obviously, adding more members. >> that is fair. doctor, and i want to bring timmins in the conversation. can you explain a little bit about how this will work doctor drutman? how this re-apportionment will work, and you made a passing reference to not using single member districts, but having a different approach. could you say a little more about that? >> yes, so, i think that in addition to increasing the size of the house we ought to think about increasing the size of districts. going to single member to proportional member districts from 3 to 5 numbers per district. i think one of the challenges in this moment of our politics

is things have become so deeply divided, hyperpartisan polarization, it is real. it is a tremendous problem. it is a tremendous amount of gamesmanship that is going on and it is trying to crash the other side. i am watching it as i see the dccc putting money to elect the most extreme republicans. but, within the single member district, with the zero sum winner take all election, you win by disqualifying the other side. and, one way to disqualify the other side is to have their side be the most extreme. now, that is an incredibly dangerous and dumb game. but, it is the logic of a single member system. and, it is the binary choice that it's voices. now, imagine, three or five member districts. you have to have zero sum.

it is not winner take all, anymore. you have a diversity of representatives. who represent the larger diversity of the district. you all represent these and i know that you have worked very hard to try and represent all of your constituents. ideologically, values wise, demographically, there are some constituents who it is hard for them to represent. even if we did increase the size of the house and this reduce the size of the district. i think we had proportional districts where three or five members represented districts and we split up the districts and represent to different constituents in different perspectives, we would have less of this binary zero sum that is, really, destroying the ability of congress and our government to work, and see more conservative democrats, more liberal republicans, maybe some new parties, new

perspectives representatives. you combine that with increasing the size of the house and i think that you come and create a congress that is much more representative of the diversity and pluralism in the country. i think, much better able to work out some complex compromises. everything is not, and of course, we have to crush the other side. they are evil. that is the mindset that i think is really overwhelming. the ability of this congress to function. it is terrifying where this is leading. >> vice chair timmons? did you want to wait and? >> i just wanted to make a comment about that. i think the biggest threat that we face and our democratic republic and, i apologize for not catching this earlier in the testimony, but when the mr.

kosar was talking about rules the house has already passed over 400 pass bills that's in the senate. they have not voted on any one of them. that was a practice both under harry reid and is still a practice, i would say, which is far more successful. for a member of the house and whether you are a democrat, or republican, the committee chairs and that whole process has been neutered by a senate rule. nothing in the constitution says that you need 60 votes to pass a bill. nothing in the constitution says that a filibuster is a constitutional it authorized thing. it might be what some might argue as a tradition. but this is not mr. smith goes to washington. this is simply people in the room saying let's call a culture vote.

no house bill moves in the united states senate. you can argue that even the last two bills that the house has voted on from the senate, major bells, the infrastructure bill, and most recently, the so-called gun violence build, never went through a public hearing in the house. it was never vetted. and it came from the other body. and, it is alarming how much this has happened, and is becoming part of the norm instead of what is called regular order. these things used to be sorted out in what is called a conference committee. there are very few people in congress, today, that can even recall what a conference committee is. but, that is where the so-called issue of hyper bipartisanship got resolved within those committees of conference when there was disagreement. but, the house is now at an

enormous disadvantage. i and because of senegal, frankly, the media plays no attention to it. 70% of the bills that passed the house and sit over in the senate or bipartisan lee passed. this notion that we are bipartisanly, always at one another's throats, simply is not true. on the major issues, there are philosophical ideological, and regional differences. that has always been the way it has been. throughout history, and rightfully so. but, a democratic majority, whether it is republican, or, democrat, it means to govern. it cannot be minority rule it, and ruled by culture vote, or what they call, ruled 22. it we are standing and i would like to submit for the record, and not bet on, the new catch 22. it is rule 22.

>> thank you. vice chair timmons go on. >> rené representative larson. i like your idea of the four-year term. i want to give you something to think about. i do not know the answer to it. how would you deal with redistricting? >> that is a great question. i mean, it gets really tricky. it's a petty, of course, on how it is left up to the states. >> but if half the members of a four-year term is alternating, then someone would be in the middle of their term. i mean, i guess you can do it state-by-state. so certain states would get reelected. anyway, it is something to think about. >> well in terms, have you asked, what would that mean? i get the question. what would it mean if you went, say, two on an even districts. how would that breakdown? in terms of who is up for election during that two-year cycle. >> when you redraw the lines of what gets tricky. something to think about.

i'm going to talk about the calendar and schedule. you are going to fix this, i feel it. so, the variables are this. 45 members of congress. an average of subcommittees, with 27 standing committees. five slot committees, around, 75 subcommittees. there are 100 people who have the authority to schedule hearings and markets. we just run around all the time. in 2019 we had 65 full days. generally speaking, we do not have hearings or markups. outside of 9 am to 5 pm, it is 520 hours. so, in this 520 hours we have to have conference and caucus meetings, constituent meetings, four votes, subcommittee meetings. and fund-raisers. so, we have to be here more. we need more time. but, we are only getting, like, the best schedule i can come up with, which is not going to get adopted, is that of 104 days. full days, which is not going to happen. if we get av we will be lucky.

can a i fix this? to where we just deconflict it a little bit? >> i will not promise that i can fix. and good news is, what you are explaining isn't optimization problem. there is a ton of data. we need, within these to find parameters, to find the optimal solution. the good news is, that is exactly the type of thing that ai is really good at. right? we talk about human machine teaming. because, ai strengths are exactly what humans are we kept. humans friends are exactly what ai as we get. this problem that you are facing of, we have so much data, and so many variables, and we cannot just crunch all those numbers. that is exactly where i can help. when we start to talk about conceptual variability, and emotion, and value judgments, that is where humans are significantly better. we need to bring them together. scheduling, ai can help. >> the biggest challenges committee, and subcommittee meetings are generally left to the chair. and, they do not want to be told what to do. and, floor votes are left to the majority leader.

and, he, he is not going to listen to anybody. that is what he gets to do. so, how do you factor that in? how do you factor it in with an optimization without being directive? can we make suggestive optimization's? >> yes, absolutely. the way to do it is with the second model we talked about. it is like a i simulator. you can set the parameters of the system. you know, here are all the rules that are in play. here is what we want to accomplish. and then you allow people to play around with this. there are different other things that you need to play around with that. from that, you can create one, two, three, maybe a few models. then human judgment can choose between, hey, we do not want to work on christmas eve, or something. so, absolutely. >> what business would be hired to help with that. ? we have been trying to create a

committee calendar, a unified calamity calendar, so people can see. we are not trying to use ai to think anything. we are trying to tell what you are doing when you are doing it as opposed to taking time out of the air and how interesting 90% of the subcommittee's, and they actually have another committee meeting at the same time. that is not great. let's maybe do an an hour earlier or later. we cannot even figure out a way to get a unified committee calendar, no less, optimize it. so, do you know anybody that does this? >> i think the good thing is, these types of optimization problems, you know, as we talked about, they can be found kind of a cross government, and industries. there are lots of folks that have expertise in applying these, creating them, and feeding them into the context. to your point, the challenges, hey, everyone out there has experienced adopting a eye --

-- it has a personal assistant gets kind of weird. members can ask questions. it will automatically respond back without, here is the content in a bill, or, here is the time or conference room you need to get to in the next two minutes. so, those types of things are already out there. they are discovering some of those unique challenges of using ai and legislative context. really, to your question, i think the challenge is learning for most. learning from those examples and industries where they are already doing the stuff. how do you do this at scale? and then learning from the small scale proofs of concepts that are out there in south africa, the netherlands, brazil, about what the unique requirements to do this are in the legislative context. >> thank you. >> again, small footnote. every college and university has this problem. and, we have methods for solving it.

so, i would recommend calling a major public university and asking them how they do it. >> middle schools also did pretty well. >> but the scale, the relevant scale you need, you know, yes, there are optimization tools. i think we can easily find something usable. >> one real quick follow-up. doctor drutman, ignoring the policy considerations around having another 150 members of congress, and staff, and all that stuff, my biggest question is space. where do they go? like, we cannot put another 150 people on the floor. we can, i guess, build another house office building. >> right, you have the parking lot cells of their. and some really beautiful parks. >> it is overwhelming to think about adding another 150 members. >> right, but, also, people work from home more now. i mean, it is post pandemic. we have sort of figured out remote work a little bit. i mean, not that it can all be remote, but, i mean, i think

you can build another office. there is space south of the three existing office buildings. i mean, i would hate to lose the beautiful parks, but, you know. >> it is interesting. her first year, one of her early hearing someone suggested moving the capital to nebraska. so, we could maybe couple moving the capital to nebraska, like that. i am just kidding. >> i am sure there is plenty of land there. i mean, it would be in the middle of the country. >> i think the chairman would appreciate that. >> but, thank you, i yield back. >> thanks for that, mister chairman. and mr. vice president for today's hearing. and to the witnesses, it is interesting the hearing we are having today. first, of people are agreeing with me. first off, i will make this very simple. we always talk about schedules. we did not know how legislators

worked. this is not rocket science. on tuesday, wednesday, thursday, that is when we had session. we started at a certain time in the sun. if they say we are starting at 11:30, we started 11:30. the next day, we are going to be on the floor 1:00. the next day 1:30. the other thing is, you are not allowed to run community numbers during session. so, very simple. so, i advocate these things. it is good to hear the scenes come. up the other thing is, it is also good to hear about our committee sizes that are too large. we have, another thing. if you go back 50 or 60 years ago members did not serve for two or three or four committees. you served on one. we became an expert on that committee. so, you can simplify things by people having always been broken up to where they need to be, at a certain time. but, you can simplify the process. so, i will just throw my two cents there, real quick. one of the things that i think

you mentioned about the executive branch and how large it has gotten, and congress has not kept up, i think part of the problem is congress has abdicated its work as an executive, so you do not have to get the blame. it is like, we have done it, you guys take care of it, it is out of our hands now. so, how do we pull that back in to start saying, we are going to start bringing that power back to the house? back to the senate? so, the executive does not. because again, i remember, as a kid, my dad was here from 59 to 89. i remember driving down independents avenue where these office buildings are today. they are consul cats. they are left over from world war ii. look at the photographs. that is what we had. it is amazing that this government operated at a much smaller scale than we have today. but how do we bring that back? >> as a person on the right i would suggest that congress consider something to do to pay

back the executive branch. and we all need all these agencies? it has been a long time since i have seen any sort of concerted effort to do some sort of, like, let's put together a bipartisan less and start zeroing things out. maybe we will vote at the start of each congress, and hold hands, and jim together. it can be done through legislative procedure or an expedited one or something like that that would put us in the right direction. you know, make the job a little more manageable. i think that there is, also, the information and the symmetry is so advanced. i do not think the house did itself any favors in growing government. they reduce the number of staff over the past 40 years. i think technology can help make up for it. i think this is where ai is very interesting. you know, when committees get together and study a problem, you know, three or four, years later, very few people on the committee are still there. many of the staff have left. when you have is a bunch of printed hearing volumes. that technology is fading from

memory. you guys are all working on new stuff. and, being able to manage that knowledge, especially as new members come in and get speed fast, and get a sense of what really are the options, and what should be done, about these problems, i think that is part of the mix. the basic incentive, like, it was thought that the legislation would be the most powerful energy of all in the three branches. you know, the ability to exercise power, power over the law, he thought that would be absolutely irresistible to members. i thought he would be baffled by the fact that members, as you note, frequently just delegate authority. the delegate authority up towards the ship. the delegate authority over towards the executive branch. therefore, they have grown this massive administrate of state. some of this is going to be an attitude change. i think, also, the difficulty that the individual member has in exerting his or her will, like, why put in the work to try and rain in an agency or change policy? your bill is not going to get

out of committee if it is not going to get called for a vote. if the senate is going to sit on it, empowering members to get stuff done, i think it has to be part of the equation. >> just a really quick follow-up for you. let me follow up for you. you're talking about all these procedures, it's gotten pretty well out of hand. you just go back to jefferson mainly. >> no, i think we have to go a bit beyond that. i think there are some -- some of these specializations i think are valuable. when you are talking about a trade treaty or certain others specified areas, having an expedited procedure can be valuable. but certainly the whole corpus needs to be paired back. you have rules that are on the book and not even used. calendar wednesday has been along for how long? when's the last time there's been a vote? 50 years ago?

but it's in the book. -- congress picked up a new rule at the start of last january. and they waved the rule. >> that's the problem. quick question -- communications technology right across the hearing and energy and commerce. we were talking about all the things, we've had a lot of questions in the past about how -- especially talking about a. how do you make sure those algorithms are correct? and that they are not biased toward one or the other? >> sure, absolutely. the short answer is, i think everyone involved in every step of the process has a role in ensuring that those ai models are accurate and equitable. that starts before the models are made. that starts with selecting and collating the data to make sure it's accurate and clean. most important for equity as well. if it for purpose, because you

can gather when data set in one context and it could be representative, not biased one way or the other. but use it to answer a different question, a different context, all of sudden it can accidentally introduced bias. those types of controls and governance processes need to extend into the next stage when you are making the model and using it. focusing on transparency and in those steps it's probably most important because you can identify what are the modern waves, what are the variables, what are the assumptions we are using? even to members yourself, to make sure when you are using the outputs, that you have the literacy of how those models work so you can understand their left and right lateral limits. ai is a powerful tool. it's not an infallible oracle. it's more of a decision age for yourself. probably also unique to the legislative concept, having enough knowledge to communicate to constituents how those models are being used. you can build their trust in confidence and how ai is being used as well. >> two more questions if i could, mister chairman. thank you very much. and doctor owen, and your

testimony you are talking about -- we are trying to figure out at home, across the whole country, how to get people back engaged. a lot of people are pulling themselves in. they stay home, they are in front, it's just like years ago, when -- i'm not going to date myself -- when you could go to the corner store and pick up a cassette tape. you are going to take it home and watch a movie. the theaters said, no one will do that, no one will watch it on their own tv. well, they were all proven wrong. we've seen more and more, people just keep pulling things back. they are not getting out communicating with one another. a lot of neighbors, you never see them until spring. everybody disappears for six months. my question is, we want to get people actively involved in the process which our founders

wanted us all to be. how do we get people reengaged, disengaging themselves from your phones? it's a different piece of legislation. 94% of all accidents on the road today our driver era. most of it, i rode with the highway patrol not too long ago in ohio, people driving with their phones. how to get people reengaged in this? >> i really appreciate the question. i think we all have direct experiences of this sort of disconnection that people are living with. the negative psychological and behavioral consequences that flow from that. the good news is that there really are people in communities across the country who know how to pull people back. at the end of the day, social connection is rewarding. it's empowering. it supports mental health and well-being. people have an opportunity to participate again, they tend to

come back. they don't just participate wants. in order for that to work, you need those, in effect, civic entrepreneurs who are going to put in the time and energy to build the context, issue the invitation to follow up with people and so forth. that's what we have historically have a habit of it -- that have it has fallen away. if you look at the earliest history of the country take, massachusetts in the colonial period, 16 hundreds even, the state government, such as it was, the colonial assembly, assisted every town put resources into a school. that's the beginning of public school. you can think of that as the first example of specific infrastructure. the purposes were civic -- but suffolk first. and then throughout the late 19th surgery, early 20th century, we had these extraordinary philanthropists. andrew carnegie, and so forth, who built libraries all over the country. he was not alone. our contemporary billionaires do not invest in civic infrastructure in the same kind of way, and that is something that we should all recognize.

and even the question of, what can congress do to incentivize private philanthropy back into supporting these local level civic entrepreneurs is really important. so the short messages, the people are out there who know how to pull people back into connection, but they are not getting support in the way that they have historically gotten it in this country. >> thank you, mister chairman, i know i've got over my time but i have so many other questions. but thank you so much for your indulgence. >> i want to follow up with mr. larson. i don't think that there is anything magic about two years. i think that there is a sense, though, that maybe the intent of the founders was to make sure that we are closer to our constituents, more accountable to our constituents. i imagine that might be a push back against extending the length of the term. i just want to get your sense of how you would respond to that. >> you are absolutely right.

the founding fathers had a major debate over this because they thought it should be one year. and the idea was that in a democracy they wanted to make sure you had one chamber that was close to that people and that the people elected every year. and that is the concept that i think eisenhower and johnson used almost the exact same phrase that you did. there is nothing magic about two years. but the idea of staggering them what i think also creates opportunities to unity upstream for those who are in the house but don't have to necessarily give up a seat in order to run for a governorship or run for the united states senate. but the primary goal here is, i think both guys johnson and eisenhower recognized, people really need to understand the

responsibility and role. and to do that in a two-year period and obviously it has been done. but when you complicate that with both the need to raise money and the family concerns that that has on spouses and children, it just seems to me to be a bar more humane way to go about this business that we are in and allow both for greater understanding, camaraderie, and i think a better legislation in the final run. >> doctor costar, i want to get your sons. i've been struck over the course of this committee's existence that, i guess by two dynamics to the roles. we have a bunch of rules that we don't actually follow. there is a ton of under brush. i've been here nearly ten years,

i don't think we have done calendar wednesday. but it is in the rules. there are all of these rules that we consistently waive and lord knows that the budget and appropriations process we have, in that instance there are laws that govern that process o'brien large we don't follow either. i guess i'm just curious your sense of, can you point to an example of either another parliament or a state legislature that has done this process that you are suggesting that it successfully kind of cleared this under brush and control alt delete on the rules and refreshed it? >> unfortunately, no. and i think, you know, in part when you look at state legislatures, i don't think that they have had the same kind of kadri problem that the house has had where things have gotten so out of control so rapidly. their pairings, i, think are more modest incremental changes. but things in get out of control. things got out of control here

and that we have each congress, little tweaks of the rules, but no fundamental re-visiting because it is just not part of the process of but i certainly would love to see, and again this is maybe where our friends at the research service or ncs out, national council of state legislatures could partner up and work together, unjustly the house rules next to the rules of four states where we have well functioning legislatures and just compare.. >> well i, also i find myself thinking your recommendation of whether it be another select committee or continuing the work of the select committee, to do a deeper dive into this, i'm just curious how much you think that actually fixes stuff. we had a year of people testifying in front of this committee and we're just getting back to regular order. i came out of a state

legislature where everybody is taken up under an open rule where if you had an amendment that was that all germane to the bill, you could offer it. it would be debated. and it would be voted on. in my experience in the state legislature, that was abused five maybe six times for gotcha politics. the notion of doing that here is laughable. it would be used for gotcha politics at every angle, and that is not a rules problem, that is a culture problem. so i'm just curious how much you think that we should invest into a deep dive into rules change in light of that dynamic. >> yeah. well there is a sikh kind of relationship between the rules and the behavior and there has been this process where when it comes to the floor, some bad behavior crops up so the rules could tighten more. bad behavior springs up elsewhere. it is almost like dealing with a rebellious child or something like. that i'm gonna put more rules on you to stop you from doing it and then the bunkers figures out a way to get around. it they are extremely effective so you keep ratcheting and ratcheting and that is the dynamic. and i

think no, it is going to require larger conversations amongst members to get people to say, do we want to keep living this way? is this how we want to be legislatures or do we want to change the rules and away? and we had a bit of that in the class of 74 when they came in and took over congress, they said we are not playing by these rules. and we have had enough of them making a cultural demand change and the rules were changed so that they could do what they can do. >> doctor alan, one of the values of my long commute that mr. larson mentioned is a lot of time to read. so i read the our comic purpose report, and i thought was really thoughtful. my recollection of chapter four was that the civic bridge building chapter. you spoke to this dynamic. that part of the division that you see in congress is driven by division in our communities. i had this crazy experiences last fall, where two things happen. one we had a series of attacks on

religious institutions into coma. there was an endless lawmaker center they got burned to the ground. to buddhist faith leaders got exulted outside of their temple and a church got vandalized all within the span of three weeks. and in the spirit of something good coming out of something bad, we actually saw an inter faith alliance spring up and say, we are going to pull together. everybody get in the same room and say that is not what we are about in this community. and it was actually a great event. afterwards one of the faith leaders came out to me and said, that was really powerful but if we are going to do this right, this wouldn't just be a 90 minute exercise, this would be something that we do on an ongoing basis. and i, said out of curiosity, any federal response for something like that? and i said not really. and then a bit later i visited a ymca thinking that they were going to talk to me about my quickly socks because we're building gymnasiums. that's all they want to talk about. they said all the polarization that you see in d. c. and washington d. c. are

shown up in our why. we've literally had arguments and fights break out over pick your red or blue issue. and they said it's been so bad that we have hired a consultant that's been training our staff and board and conflict resolution. and we are gonna host, as you suggested, we're gonna host bridge building discussions where we get people to talk to each other and listen to each other rather than have the jerry springer show show up in our ymca. and they, said any special support for that? and i said not really. at least not. currently and, you know, there are common purpose report acknowledges that we do support this kind of civic infrastructure investment through the national endowment for democracy. but that supporters to other countries to strengthen democracy in other countries. so i see i absolutely see value in this. in fact, western simmons and i, we have ten democrats and ten republicans on a bill to, maybe not create a trust but set up a pilot program that could except private philanthropy and to do this grand making two local

organizations. i think the question that most commonly comes up is, one how do you measure success, and to, why is this an innately federal obligation? you mentioned that there are philanthropists who are supporting this endeavor already. as i have spoken with colleagues on the floor and said, hey do you want to sign on to this? probably the most common question i get is, why is this something the federal government ought to do? so can you respond to both of those. >> absolutely. >> sorry for the long wind. up but i wanted to give you a sense of. i think you are on to something because we're seeing it in our communities. >> absolutely. we are seeing it all over and i want to lift up your bill. i think that the building civic bridges act, i think it is very important. so i'm happy to lend my voice and supports events and whatever appropriate points. but in brief, i think there are three really important points and i will admit that as our commission conversations on this started, i was a skeptic

about the interest for civic infrastructure for exactly the reason that you just articulated. the question of, well should the federal government be doing this? should this really be what we do at a local level anyway? and i change my view, basically. and i came to try views for a number of reasons. the first is just recognizing our practice of investing in infrastructure democracy and other countries came at a time historically when we were really building a strong wall of defense against a challenge of communism. and we have to be honest that, at this point in time, the greatest challenge for democracy on the globe right now is our weakening democracy. and we need to civic strength here at home. and we need it as a matter of defending democracy for the globe. so, in that, regard the same motivation that led to this national investments in the past. pertain but they pertain here at home. now the challenge of course is the question of, what

do you think the federal government should be involved, you sort of worry we'll, will that become very partisan in terms of what kinds of investments are? so in that regard, i think that a way to avoid that problem is really to focus on a project of seeking to match other investments of local communities. so the investments, there should be a broad set of principles design principles for the kinds of investments, but not a kind of blueprint of like here is everything everybody must do. because local communities need to be able to provide definition to give us the diversity and flexibility across the country are finding precisely what this infrastructure should look like. so, than one might be some of those broad design principles that congress might be sort of interested in in the matching grant program? one i think is the idea that civic infrastructure should help ensure that self government is operational. and so, what does that mean exactly? we expect that with more investments in

civic infrastructure we should see higher trust, higher volunteer-ism, and more effective community problem solving. those are all measurable things. we have some existing data. approaches the do you measure them, we would improve and then it would need to. and one of the things that the trust would do would be to improve precisely the sets of indicators being used to measure whether or not self government is operational at that local level. second design principle is for all. self government, for all. we have another challenge which is that, in so far as our civic infrastructure investments have historically been, i refer to the colonial period were sort of massachusetts required talents to invest in schools. we had philanthropist and soap fourth. we have a situation now where well resourced communities are able to invest inside of a structure and those with lower property tax bases are just not in the same sort of way. so there is a need for congress's investments to sort of illicit investment in those communities where the issue of support is more challenged. but again, i do think it is really important that this be about

drawing out philanthropic dollars as well, and ensuring that community foundations are fully activated against the hull of the community. and then what congress can also assist in is helping people build bridges across jurisdictional and regional lines, which is a major challenge right now for people who are trying to support investments in this space. and the last design principle i would point to is connectedness. another version of bridge building. we have been able for decades to measure increases in residential ideological polarization. worsening dynamics of hyper subject segregation for low income communities of color, and increasing experiences of loneliness and disconnection across demographic groups. and honestly, we see those data points showing up and also in things like mass shootings and so forth. so this is connected to a lot of big stuff in our society. so just as we can measure all of the ways in which those have been worse, and those, reversing those dynamics would be indicators of success for investments and civic infrastructure around

that design principle of connectedness. >> that's great. west or timmins? >> i guess i am going to throw at another big idea and just get y'all's feedback on it. i think one of the biggest challenges that our society is facing is right here. technology, interconnectedness, our inability to interact with one another. we often talk about whether the hyperpartisan in congress is a congress problem or a society problem. and it is probably a little bit of both. but i think one of the biggest challenges is our inability to, i guess, digest information. because, you get a lot of information that previously humans just wouldn't get because the journalism would weed it out before it got

that far. and i think screen posted on social media anonymously, just by crazy people. and so how do we grow past the challenges that technology, interconnectedness are creating? anybody? >> i am happy to speak to that if. so, i think your question gets to the deepest issues we are all facing. the question that's all of these suggestions relate to, which is, we are facing a crisis of representation. of the activity, and practice of representation. and it is not a crisis of any particular individuals making, it is a crisis that, at the end of the day has been finally driven all of the way home by the invention of social media. and i just want to be very clear about why and how, and

therefore why your committee is so important. basically, we all know the federalist papers. we all know federalists ten. the argument of federalist tennis that the design of the constitution, among other, things its job was to mitigate the problems a faction. and the answer of how it was supposed to medicate was delivered and federalist ten. it is a two part answer. we only teach one part of the answer. we do see part of the answer that, it is about representative government. the notion that you don't have direct democracy. you have representatives who are gonna filter and synthesize opinion from around the country. but there was a second part to madison's answer and it was literally that the breath of the country, being a broad republic, would make it hard for people with extreme views to find each other and coordinate. so, geographic dispersal was literally a pillar of the original design. so, facebook, knocked that pillar out from under us. and so all of the work that we are trying to do in terms of thinking about the future of congress is answering the

question of how to have affective representation when we no longer have the pillar of the geographic dispersal supporting the information ecosystem that supports healthy deliberation. so, yes you need rules changes. in order to improve the process of deliberation, recognizing that circumstantial change. yes we need a bigger house to be connected to the hole of the country, and yes we need investment civic infrastructure that helps people navigate it completely changed information ecosystem. we need all of these things in order to have a healthy congress. >> yeah, i mean i guess a quick camp would be just members should get off twitter. but, no. it is a long-standing problem that elites in the country have always had a greater voice in the ears of congress. this is political science in the four days that complains that the problem of

pluralism is that it always, this chorus always things with an upper class tone. so it is embedded in the system. some people are going to be better connected, some are gonna have the means to get here communicate, et cetera. but certainly technology has exacerbates it. it has as you noted mediated things. and we have also seen since the 70s a massive uptick in the number of interest groups. not for profit, trade, otherwise, here in washington d. c.. so you guys are getting hit from 1 million directions with a lot of voices. but interestingly enough, most of those are very self interested voice of. their voice views don't necessarily jive with those of the public. but when you are constantly hearing that sort of stuff, it naturally is going to try to pull your brain towards those issues and those solutions and that sort of thing. so how do you counteracted? it is not easy. turning off twitter is one part of it but you are still going to have people beating their way to your front

doors and trying to come to your fund-raisers and do all sorts of stuff like that. so, we have to think about new tools for helping you guys better get a sense of the communities and what their views are of things. one of the interesting experiments that was being done, i heard about it a few years ago, was steve kerr all of, a social scientist, was working on something called voice of the people. he put together these really deep focus groups, postal reform and other stuff, regular americans. and they would come up with solutions. about how you can get something done, but they were coming up with solutions that just never got a voice on the hill. you all have been put in a position of, you go back to your district, you try to do a town hall, but guess what elites will hijack. those interest groups wilson people because they want to create a twitter moment or a youtube moment. they wrecked that too. and so, it is really a tough position. and i don't know if there are technological tools that can help you kind of separate the kind of elite noise and get a better sense of what the irish community can make, other than just the shoe leisure leather that you all put in so much. but it is a real thing.

>> i just want to address your question as, well because it is a crucially important question. i mean, social media has done a lot of good things in connecting a lot of people and it has also done a lot of bad things in connecting other people, i think. the business incentives and social media of course are to drive what gets the most clicks, what is the most emotional, and that is the stuff that people want to read which is how terrible the other side is. there's a lot of confirmation bias when you look at studies like why do people share stuff on social media, it is because it makes them feel good. it makes them feel like they are right, they have it all figured out, and it reinforces that kind of emotional charge that they get by hating on the people that they like to hate on, essentially. and that's is a real problem. but a lot of these trends of division

started with cable news, with talk radio before social media. took over. it in fact it is interesting. i look at some studies. it is really older americans who are most victimized by this fake news because they haven't grown up in this environment of social media and facebook and all of that where they can easily more easily distinguish. and also they are most sat in their views and most likely to believe the worst things about the other side. so a lot of it is really coming from political leadership and, it is a reinforcing dynamic because political leaders say, well, i what i'm just going to say what my angry followers are saying. i should amplify that. as the expression goes, twitter is not the real world. but it is a

representative sample of people who are the most engaged in politics., now one thing that gives me some hope is that, well social media is obviously everywhere throughout western democracies and the world, not every country that has social media is as polarized and divided as the u.s.. so it makes me think that there is something distinct about what is happening in the united states. and i think that distinct thing is the endless demonization of the other side that is coming from leadership. and political leads and media waits and that filters down and that is where most people get their opinions from it and then they want to paint on the other side. also the geographical sorting that a lot of the polarization is really that people live in communities that are very solidly, our or very

solidly d. and when you are surrounded by people who are like-minded, and you tend to become more extreme. and when people on the other side are far away and distant, they become scarier and it is easier to demagoguery and fearmonger about who they really are. so some of this bridge building is important. people are more polarized in real life, actually, than they are on social media. which is something that i don't think that we really appreciate. so i think social media amplifies a lot of what is happening. but it is an amplifier not a root cause of a lot of the division. and it is true, peoples attention spans are shorter but. believe in conspiracy, there's an interesting paper lately, believing confused conspiracy theories hasn't increased but it is just consolidated more on a few that

become more amplified. so i mean, the lack of people's understanding about policy, and this is political scientists of always kind of said. american people don't know anything about politics. american people are so dominant, right? but like, that's not really fair because most people know what they need to know. from shortcuts, and they depend on political leaders to represent them and helping to figure out what they know. and when political leaders don't do that responsibly, it is very hard for people who really depends on the leadership. leadership matters. >> go ahead, mr. larson, and then mr. marin. >> well i just wanted to, these are all good questions and i enjoy listening. but representative coal and delauro have a bill in history and civics. and, frankly it is not

being taught the way that it should be. within our school systems. some do better than others but across this nation the lack of civic understanding and responsibility, which is critical for a republic, isn't tops. between that and financial literacy, congress is loathe to mandate educational instruction on the states. that is the responsibility of the state. but especially in this day and age where you are bombarded with information and it is hard to distinguish the difference between the two. and frankly, anyone can produce a scientist or an economist or something that supports their point of view and there really isn't a nation that has been grounded in its civic responsibility. there is another notion, an idea, also that we should have to go along

with that wettest really a does with a hunted percent voting. and having voting as a requirement. and making sure that civic instruction, in order to get out of high school that you understand how that works and how we apply that. >> go ahead. >> yeah, i will just strike an optimistic note on the technological side which is, technology certainly has created some of these challenges but it is ultimately a tool. so it's's value agnostic, it does what we tell it. and to dr. costar's point, there are there are some platforms which just tweaking the rules you can drive towards consensus. so the taiwan is a social platform that tyrant the taiwanese government uses to drive towards some of these things. consensus uneven fraud issues like internet regulation. but dr. allen's point about trust in government, you can see that one of the things that we have been looking at and our research is, one of the factors that can drive that is this kind of idea

that, psychic distance. how close you feel to that is kind of how much you trust it. so the public's trust local government more than states, state more than federal, and so. on so by creating distance technology, you don't have to go to your county clerk anymore. you don't need to meet in person with the representative. by creating that distance, it can feed that distrust. but we've also seen the opposite begin to take place. so if you can create a good customer experience for the public, that actually goes a long way. even if it is a digital customer experience that goes a long way to building trust. so we have seen this high correlation between the customer experience of government services and public trust in government. so we kind of have the mindset shift that everyone is describing, we can actually use a psychological tool to actually build some of the trust we are looking for. >> okay. i feel like this was well worth waiting three years for this hearing. this was really meeting. i want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today, and thank our committee members who were able to attend. i also want to thank

our staff were putting together another great hearing with such outstanding witnesses, and i want to acknowledge the armed services committee for letting us go out in their room. without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit additional questions for the witnesses to the chair which will be afforded to the witnesses for their response. i ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you are able. without objection, all members of the five legislative days within which to x submit extraneous materials to the chair for inclusion in the record. and with, that our hearing is adjourned. thanks everybody.

[inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible]

>> book tv, every sunday on c-span two, features authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. 8 pm eastern, jon o'neil and sarah nguyen talk about the soviet union and china's development of bioweapons in their book the dancer and the devil. i 10 pm on afterward, dallas maverick ceo, sent marshall, shares her more, even chosen, about her life and career as the first black ceo of the nba. she's interviewed by the

washington post michael layton. watch book tv every sunday on c-span two. the full schedule under program guide, or watch online at book tv dot org. >> the senate banking committee took a look at infrastructure investment and the economic impact of climate change. witnesses also discuss the importance of clean energy to counteract the monetary impact felt by vulnerable communities during natural disasters. this hearing was -- climate change legislation. >> [inaudible]