pm eastern on c-span's q&as. you can listen to all our podcasts at our free c-span now app. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? no, it's way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers create wi-fi enabled lift services so studentsrom low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast support c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> the house select committee on the modernization of congress held a hearing to discuss ways the body can become more effective in its operations. committee members and witnesses offer suggestions such as better coordination and

scheduling, congressional activities, and ideas for implementing improvements. this is about an hour and 45 minutes. on how congress can be more effective in its operations. lawmakers heard testimony from the house chief administrative officer and government affairs expert. the hearing was held by the house select committee on the modernization of congress. it is an hour and 45 minutes. >> the committee will come to order without objection. >> the committee will come to order. without objection, the chair has authorized a recess -- i now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. back in march of 2019 this committee held its very first hearing. the hearing focused on past reform efforts. it is only fitting that, as we meet today for the committee's

last hearing, our focus is on future reform efforts. we have come full circle. it is hard to believe this committee will soon be one of those past reform efforts that we look to for guidance and inspiration just three and a half years ago. my hope is that we have given future reformers plenty to think about, not only in terms of the recommendations that we've passed but in terms of how we have worked. i can't emphasize enough how the processes and norms we have developed along the way have been key to our success as a committee, that our work methods to serve just as much attention as our work product. i hope future reformers take note of that because we are recognizing it's possible for democrats and republicans to find areas of -- produce results on behalf of the american people. the better. one of the biggest lessons i've learned over the past three and a half years is that if you want things to work differently, you have to be willing to do things differently. i know it is hard to try new things in a tradition bound institution like congress, but experimenting is absolutely

essential if we are going to change things. we did not know if some of the things our committee tried would work -- the fact that we are sitting here today at a roundtable format where we can look each other in the eye and engage in substantive discussion is because the committee tried to do something new. we had no idea how we -- have now returned to the diocese except when we had technical difficulties one-time. modernization requires a willingness to innovate. that is what this committee has done from day one. i recall being at a dinner in my district with naval officers, he said how is it going in congress. i said, man, it feels like a battleship. he said, i used to captain a battleship. here's what i can tell, you strategic course correction overtime makes a big difference. i say that because change does not happen overnight, especially in a place like congress. i think the small changes overtime can lead to the kind of cultural shifts that make a big difference. that one year spring for this committee turned into a

four-year marathon and i'm grateful that you were given the time to do the work necessary to create long term change. in fact, we already -- we are already seeing our hardware payoff as more than half our recommendations have either been fully or personally implemented. the success is due in no small part to the hard work of the committee that worked and our partners including the ceo who is with us today. working closely with the ceo, the house clerk, the architect of the capital among others, the committee was able to draft workable recommendations. our partners could successfully implement them. this unique approach to developing and implementing recommendations as another community innovation. some of our successes are already, aren't there's a lot of work ahead. it won't always be easy to determine whether some of our recommendations -- measuring success is tough. when we lacked the hard data we need to confidently claim that something actually did what it was supposed to do. it's not impossible and one of our witnesses today is going to help us think creatively about how to gauge the impact of our work overtime. i made the point that modernization should happen as a matter of course. this isn't an organizations

build innovation and process improvement into their operations because they understand evolving with the times is necessary in order to remain relevant. by really getting reforms to something that it does every few decades or so, congress has consistently -- outdated technology and processes that slow the institution done, that is a disservice to the american people. there are ways congress can make modernization and ongoing rather than occasional effort. one of our witnesses today will present us with a few potential options for continuing the work this committee started. the committee will use -- this is the wonky part -- of the committee will use its rules that allow for more flexible hearing formats, that encourage discussion and a civil exchange of ideas and opinions. in accordance with clause two jay of house rule 11, we will allow up to 30 minutes of extended questions for the witness. without -- time will not be segregated between the witnesses which will allow for extended back and forth exchanges between members and witnesses. chair timmins and i will make sure that every member has equal opportunity to participate.

members who would like to claim their five minutes, pursuant to the laws of rule of 11, we are recommending to do so following the period. that out of the, way i would like to invite vice chair timmins to share some opening remarks as we. >> thank, you mr.. chairman good morning for being with us. it has been a wild ride. three and a half years ago, i was appointed as the freshman on this committee. i remember how happy i was when leader mccarthy's office called and told me that. tom graves had been a friend and mentor. i was so fortunate to spend a year and then two years under his leadership and under the chairman's leadership. i watched them work together, i watched them show me that republicans or democrats can be civil, can work together, and can try to make positive impact on the institution everyone loves. it has such a huge impact on the lives of the american people. it is so important that we do everything we can to make this process functional as possible. i was very pleased when the

leader told me i was going to be the vice chair. he didn't have a lot of options. everybody on the committee that was republican had left. rodney cannot have more committee assignments. it would be ridiculous to have his fifth or sixth. i have done everything i can to step into the issues of tom graves. i always remark his hair is so great that i knew i could never live up to that. he has the best head of hair. you know, i did my best to continue the leadership of this committee has had. we were so fortunate to get a full two years. i think we have made the most of it. we have four months left. we will continue to work hard. obviously, this hearing is about what's next. how do we make sure the recommendations that we have made and will make will be fully implemented. while we won't be here in january, how can we maximize the likelihood that all these recommendations are implemented. i know we all have some ideas

on the. that's what we will be talking about. i definitely think this should happen every couple decades. i definitely think we should not stop in january. i look forward to hearing y'all 's's thoughts on that. i will also remark, the congressional -- brussels to london. we have -- it was remarkable, i actually think we are doing okay after that trip. and now that the eu and the uk are not doing a great job in their own way, but everyone has their dysfunction. everyone has their challenges. the eu takes a week a month and goes four and a half hours away by trying to a different location to conduct their business. i was just like, wow. i thought we had a tough in d.c.. we learned a lot as well. we learned a lot and we are hopefully going to make recommendations from what we learned from our parliament in london and brussels.

it was a very productive trip. i just want to say how this is the last hearing. i want to say it has been an honor to work alongside the chair. we've become friends. i feel like we have made an impact. we will continue to work hard for the next four months. i can assure you i will work until every one of these recommendations has been fully implemented. we agree on that. so, mister chairman, i will say it has been an honor. i look forward to the next four months and look forward to hearing you today. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. i appreciate your remarks. i appreciate the partnership. i will wait till we get to our final market before i say any valedictory remarks. i want to welcome our guests. before i do, i want to welcome to particularly important guests today. honk in charlie are with us. they are the kids of one of our witnesses today. they are two of the most well a tired and will behave kids i've ever seen. thank you for being with us,

hunk and charlie. i told them that if things got boring, they should make a birdie noise and i will try to pick it up a little bit. that was a joke, though, charlie. don't actually make a bird noise, okay? all right. she gave me the knot. i now would like to welcome our three witnesses who will share their thoughts on the future modernization within the institution, witnesses are reminded that your statements will be a part of the record. the first witness is a frequent fighter with the committee. i think you have now qualified for the free latte as well. we are grateful for her service with the committee. kathryn szpindor is the chief of the -- she serves as the cio of the house in her role, she is responsible for providing support services and business solutions to a country of 10,000 house members, officers, and staff. miss we szpindor, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much,

chairman comer, vice chair timmins, and the -- modernization of congress. thank you for this opportunity today and many opportunities we've had previously to meet for the good of the's to shun. we thank you for trusting the cio as a partner and making lasting positive changes so that congress can run more effectively and efficiently. the mission of the nearly 800 cio staffers is very simple. it is to make it easier for members and staff to do their job as they serve the american people. we refer to this as member focus, members driven. i wear varied and highly staff work, as one cio, to perform our services so you, the members of congress, can focus on your constitutional duties.

since january 2022, we have launched many new projects. i am highlighting a few of those today. the very successful co program is addressing the need for more relevant and efficient training for house staff by hosting in-person and virtual courses and providing one-on-one consultations to staff in washington, d.c., and the district. in total, see ioka hosted 2600 house staffers in the sections. the coaches and advocates launched the first ever bipartisan orientation program for new staff in february and developed the 2022 district office conference program, also bipartisan, providing specialty training to over 800 district staff by position. we train staff on specific

skills you need for the house. we plan on continuing these offerings in the coming year. this team serves as an effective method in communicating ca of services and products and how to access them. we continue to update and add new products to the house human resources hub which is quickly becoming an essential resource for managing office operations. the house résumé bank is providing offices and easier and quicker ways to -- effective use of the resume bank has led to requests from chiefs of staff from more effective methods to attract diverse and talented applicants. we will deliver. the house digital service -- is committed to a build with and not built for philosophy, for stakeholders to ensure our

products meet customer criteria, they are researching member committee office needs. this includes improvements to constituent services, legislative tools, office operational functions, such as a tracking software for member offices, we options for a legislative branch wide staff directory, and a common committee calendar portal to help reduce schedule conflicts. the ceo is conducting research on replacement options and cost estimates for a new house payroll system since the current system is nearing its life. through this project, we will modernize antiquated processes, automate manual procedures, and improve the payroll experience. this will be an opportunity to consider transitioning to a more frequent pay cycle for house employees and recommendation by the select committee. the office of finance's

piloting an application employing electronic signatures to automate many of our administrative forms. the new system launches soon and provides house we -- ability to electronically prepare, approve, and submit payroll transactions. these transactions are validated in realtime against house rules and regulations by considerable time savings to that office. to keep our promise to be member focused, service driven, the ceo adopted a new strategic plan that was focused on understanding the needs of the members and staff. continuously improving our services and processes to meet those needs and effectively analyzing and prioritizing our budgeted funds and resources to provide quality solutions. additionally, the modernization

account, the select committee champion provides significant opportunity for the house to continue to transform services. chairman kilmer and vice chairman timmins, we modernization momentum you created propels us forward. our future is clear. the cao has integrated modernization into our overall operations. we are enthusiastic and deliberate in our plan to continue to meet the evolving needs of the members and staff. i am grateful for your support. the great working relationship that we have with your staff, and look forward to responding to any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you, miss szpindor, for your testimony in partnership. our next witness is doctor casey burgat, in addition to being the father of hook and charlie, doctor burgat is the

director of the legislative affairs program, an assistant professor at political management and george washington university, previously served as senior governance fellow at the institute with an analyst -- executive branch operations and congress judiciary sections. dr. burgat, welcome. you are now recognized for five minutes. >> chair kilmer, vice chair timmins, and members of the select committee, thank you for the invitation to testify this morning. i, like everyone here, can imagine all the work your committee since its inception. i know i speak for many in the reform community, diane will echo this, i'm sure, that we apply all your leadership on all these topics, especially in these political circumstances we applied not only the committees robust proactively, but maybe even more importantly the example it's set about how it has gone about its work. it has been civil, it has been first fully bipartisan, and it has been thorough.

thank you all for sending this example. huck and charlie. i was asked to focus my testimony on two primary questions. first, how my current and future congressional reform researchers measure the effectiveness of this committee 's work, especially over time. including the impacts of your nearly 200 recommendations. second, given that i have regularly tasked my students to research and propose recommendations for the select committee to consider, what common themes typically have come up in their proposals? starting with the first question regarding your effectiveness, some of your recommendations and resulting progress are quantifiable and this can be studied as such. that part is easy. the impacts of increasing staff they, diversity, internship accessibility, for example, can be measured and compared with congresses that came before these changes. other recommendations, however, are much more difficult to quantify.

goal such a encouraging civility within congress, modernizing technology, improving constituent service processes that don't come with clear measures, or, and this is the important part, publicly accessible data. on many issues the causal train between the committee's recommendations and typical outcomes will be long and precise unconditional on an infinite number of areas. academics are allergic to those qualities. with that said, there are a host of types of measures scholars may use to gauge the committee's effectiveness overtime. those who focus on legislative productivity and outcomes may look for changes in amendment and drafting activities. and this co-sponsor action differs in numbers and networks, potentially across party counts, thanks to the electronic cosponsor recommendation and your civility efforts. our members more able to insert legislative text into bills because of the collaborative

legislative drafting recommendations? do members in offices work together more often after attending bipartisan on born day and new member orientation? so these are things we can get out with proxy measures, though there aren't easily quantifiable data attached. researchers can study whether more bipartisan oversight efforts, including identifiers like letter signed by the chair and ranking member, our -- should certain panels follow this light committees lead and deliberations, such as this round table format, the bipartisan seating, or going the five minute rule, studies can analyze differences and outcomes on a variety of deliberation measures. things like what witnesses are called to testify? . using text analysis and hearing transcripts to study what types of questions are asked. there are infinite types -- we have different questions to be asked. and how you all use your allotted time.

precisely because members will be in part measures will be hard to come by. it's key researchers do not discount the importance of the qualitative studies as well. to fully understand how certain outcomes divert, there is no substitute for hearing directly from the source, member or staff, of your thinking, motivations, and observations. this does mean, though, that you all make yourselves available, your data is available as possible so that we, the academics who work on these questions, can get answers without having to bug you too much. the second question about when's a signing my students to reform proposals, what common themes have developed? many students, unsurprisingly, want to focus on improving collaboration and civility between members, staffers and offices. half want to use sticks like fines and decreased resources for offenders, the others want to use carrots, like access to the floor, or maybe a civility plaque in the capital hallways. almost all required members to

judge each other on their behavior, which history has shown us over and over, brings a whole host of challenges. students commonly's submit proposals to reform the budget process. their reform ideas tend to lessen the reliance on continue -- we improving budgetary oversight, minimizing deficits bending, and doing away with high debt, high drama debt ceiling fights. i bet you all would sign on to those things as well. by far, by far the most common theme of student reform speaks to the overwhelming centralization of legislating power in leadership offices. this -- ranking file members are commonly not involved in the legislative process. sometimes completely in the dark on policy negotiations and even legislative text until the final moments prior to those. they cannot understand why bills that were surely passed of the chamber will not get debated, let alone receive attention on the floor.

after must the shattered and they decided to -- enough interest enough members. they hate it. they don't understand it. they don't accept it. to them, many of the current processes are in fact antithetical to how a legislature is supposed to work. there are solutions to the problem. they are unbelievably varied, the. from pie in the sky pledges that every member read every bill before granting access and, to granting floor access to every member at least once per session. increasingly, student reform ideas attempt to tackle the zoom loop felt by many members. particularly within the minority party. they think, if i don't see a reasonable path as a member to the floor for my issue, and if leadership decides everything anyway, why would i spend my time, my energy, my staff resources legislating? aren't i better off messaging and performing constituent services? their incentive structure is

hard to argue with. to address this, the proposal advanced alternating house rules and instituting automatic threshold that guarantee -- like a markup within committee or a vote on the floor. ideas like reworking the discharge position, identifying a certain magic number of cosponsors, bipartisan cosponsors that would automatically trigger the policy making process, including access to the floor. nearly all these thoughts, students are quick to point out leadership cannot be given a veto. you cannot give them access to it. if the specific threshold is met, the member receives the reward. i assume you have questions about this. i will save the rest for later. thank you all again for the invitation to testify and i would be remiss if i did not take this opportunity to implore you to do everything possible to make those -- this committee, in whatever format it can take, permit. it matters. thank you very much. >> thank you, dr. burgat.

the final witness is diane hill, a senior man -- she served as a presidential management fellow at the department of housing and urban development as a program analyst with the environmental -- congresswoman lindsey boggs, pat williams, pat kerry. you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, check your mom. churchill moore, vice chair timmins, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here tonight to testify. determining a future for the modernization of this committee has created is necessary and important. as chair kilmer said, my name is diane hill. i am senior manager of the public service. i am privileged to be the coordinator for the fixed conduit board, a community of 45 civil society organizations who rely on a common purpose to strengthen congress and make it more effective. we have been thankful and privileged to be able to work with this committee and want to thank you for all the hard work

you have done. as you can imagine, being the coordinator for 45 civil society organizations wanting to make a significant change in the world and make a difference is not easy to come up with a consensus about where we should go next with the modernization effort. our recommendations today have a framework. our first thing that we all do agree on is we want to make sure that the recommendations, almost 200 of them that you have worked so hard to put together, are implemented. while also identifying new areas for reform. second, we begin to believe that we need to continue efforts to bring the senate into the modernization work. what you will hear from me today -- thank you. that's a hard one. we are committed to it. with that in mind, i would make the following recommendations. as i stated, it's not easy to get consensus. our first two recommendations are alternatives of where the modernization should be housed. recommendation rawness to place

modernization work within the committee on house administration, either by establishing a new subcommittee or commission. it makes it permanent home with the committee that has significant jurisdiction over most of the recommendations that have come out of this committee. it also provides a space where hearings can occur and we can find exploring develop new recommendations. there are two options we can do that within the committee on house administration. one is to create a subcommittee on modernization at the beginning of the next congress. the makeup of that subcommittee would be house administration members. the second is to establish a modernization commission, modeled on the structure of the communications standard commission. while both are strong options, and you will see all the disadvantages and advantages of both in my written testimony, the commission has the potential to be truly bipartisan. you could have members of both parties in equal numbers and

also has the possibility of membership for the entire house of representatives, as does the commission on communications standards, the communication standards commission. the second recommendation, and you will remember that this is an alternative to the first, is that we reauthorized and we sucked committee on modernization in congress. as i agree with my colleague, it would -- this committee has done such stellar work, it would be nice to have a permanent organization just like. it it has provided a model, a pathway for other committees to see how authority issues can be explored by members who don't necessarily agree but are seeking ways to find common solutions. the makeup of this bipartisan committee puts together members of the committees who have direct jurisdiction over house operations. the committee on house administration, appropriations, and the rules committee could collaborate in communication between these three committees

needs to continue and will fully support the modernization. our third recommendation is to create a permanent modernization task force. in addition to a member of a solution. this would be an add on. it would be formed using the data task force as a model, made up of nonpartisan, professional staff from across legislative agencies, including the government accountability office, the office of the chief administrative officer, the office of diversity and inclusion of the clerks office and the -- by pulling together professional staff who are able to serve across congresses, members would have an expert resource on modernization to both implement existing recommendations and develop new recommendations on an ongoing basis. the fourth recommendation is to pursue a joint committee for the modernization of congress. ideally, modernization of congress would include all of congress --

i'm still there, okay. i must have -- my apologies. for that reason, the court supports in the creation of a joint committee on the modernization of congress. while it appears the senate is not ready to take that step right now, we should be exploring that goal in the long term. that way we can take on larger issues like budget reform, which would help congress regain its strength and -- as the first branch of government. we want to thank you again for inviting me to testify. i also want to thank you most entirely for allowing this community of civil society organizations to be instrumental in the modernization effort. we applaud the strong leadership, service, and results of the work of this committee. we are grateful this committee has been willing to stand by congress as an institution. we wholeheartedly support that effort. thank you again.

i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, miss hill. i think you not just for your testimony about partnership and the cohorts partnership. thank you for that. i recognize myself and vice chair timmins to begin a period of questioning of witnesses. any member wishing to speak should signal their request to either me or vice chair timmins. i will be here the whole time. i'm going to go first if suing folks will have to leave. i know chairman lofgren is on by a zoom again. i saw rodney's hand go up first, so go ahead. >> right, they're german kilmer, is just great leadership. he's going to be here the entire time. we like to come in and out, which makes congress very functional. [laughter] he recognized i raised my hand first. i want to appreciate your leadership in that. >> i would like to appreciate

your speed. >> in all seriousness, somebody who has been on the select committee since its inception and somebody who also has a role on house administration, what derek has done over the last two congresses it is miraculous. he's been able to really drive bipartisan message to success. we've had tremendous successes last congress and this congress, recommendations being implemented through this process. and have the leadership of derek had in the majority to give and then vice chair graves, now vice chair timmins, somewhat equal status is unheard of. this is the stuff that your students think congress is about. and that's why it is great to use this select committee as an example. as we all know, it's not the rest of congress.

there is really due to your leadership and -- what an exceptional job as the chair. william, you know, exceptionally mediocre job. i do want to say, in all seriousness, the list of recommendations that were implemented throughout this committee's process cannot be overstated. i will say and argue that most of them happened before -- he got on the committee. we have slowly moved ahead. we cannot stop that. i'm really interested in the recommendations of how to extend this process. jerry kilmer, vice chair timmins, and everybody on this committee knows where i stand. as a member of the house administration committee, we should be tasked with implementing a lot more of these recommendations. that is the most logical place to me for a proven subcommittee on the committee on house

administration. to focus solely on making this institution better. that is the standing committee in the house that should be focused on making the institution better. we hear what some may say guy discussions about how do we get the senate -- you know, what we can do that through joint interaction with in the senate rules committee. but let's make sure we highlight the fact that the discussions and debates we have here and the successes, they've got to continue. i will not continue. ed is not going to continue. it's going to be up to those of you who are here in this institution to make sure that the great work these folks have put in and the staffers have put in is not forgotten. i would like to see -- as we plan ahead, what we call our roadmap to majority, i lay out my priorities to my hopeful successors that would create a subcommittee of modernization

within the committee on house administration. i certainly hope we would be able to populate the subcommittee with members on house administration. then house administration has got to do its job. that means we have to have continued focus on -- from members on this committee who may want to engage. the members of the house administration committee, that's where you can actually get a lot of these recommendations that are waiting to be implemented. low hanging fruit is gone. it's going to be more contentious. the committee process is the place to work it out. i certainly hope it is done in a bipartisan way. catherine, i want to thank you and your team for implementing a lot of our recommendations over the last three and a half years. i have worked with you as a staffer. i worked with your operation as a staffer years ago. you know i have my opinions on where things should be technologically.

i know you are moving in that direction, in spite of having -- as part of your team. hi, john. >> he's taking a shot at everybody today. >> i would not say if i did not love you, bud. in all seriousness, you know better than most how difficult it can be to have a house administration committee and your team in a different direction. i want to ask you, let's say there is a subcommittee on modernization of house administration, is it easier than to have a single point of contact through that committee to be able to focus on it for many recommendations? or do you think a better setup exists? >> i think that is certainly beneficial to us, as long as everyone is supporting the recommendations being made.

i think there has to be some type of instruction there. i agree. because we have to know where to take our direction from overall. i work closely with the house administration. we worked closely with you. i think, going forward, the most important thing that you have done, quite frankly, is given us an ability to get the information, the direction that we need on some of these recommendations, to be able to implement them. one of the primary things in any type of project that you try to do it is making sure that your stakeholders are actively engaged in what you are doing.

if you don't have that, and it is very hard to get anything done. quite frankly, i believe one of the reasons, over the years, we have sometimes not always proved successful in delivering solutions is because we did not have that contact. we didn't have individuals they are behind us helping us, championing us to move forward with that. however it is organized, we need that support. going forward. >> you need that support. that's my point. i will end with this. this place is set up to have a structure for final decisions. this committee is great at recommendations. the problem is, there is a next step. this house administration has to approve those

recommendations. so, to me, let us get that finality in place that allows you and your teams and the other officers to be able to know what their final direction is. we can have the discussion and debates on what is going to work on that subcommittee of modernization. we can do the exact same things here. we also -- when it comes time for a vote, when that voters had, the decision is final, you and your team know what direction you have. that, to me, is the best way that we can move this institution forward and get some of these great ideas into house operations. i want to say thanks. it has been a pleasure to serve with each and every single one of you. i am humbled by the opportunity to play a small role in making this place better. i certainly know that as we move on, there is going to be a tremendous amount of activity by folks who are more interested in making congress

work because of the work all of you are doing. but even, i want to say to my colleagues who have been a part of this, you guys are the future. you are the ones that will have to continue what we started here. i am always here to offer advice. but we will be watching. i'm proud of all of you. thank you for giving me the opportunity to serve with you. >> thank you. i know we have got chair lofgren on via zoom. we can call her next. >> thank you very much, mister chairman. i just had a few comments. first, i think the committee has performed a useful function for our democracy by suggesting ways to systematically improve the way congress functions, that we've done that in a collaborative fashion, in a bipartisan fashion makes it even better. i would also like to thank our

staff, the staff of the house administration committee and the modernization committee have worked together very collaboratively. it has really been seamless throughout this process. as the chair and the committee know, as we have made recommendations in modernization committee, we've been able to implement them and waited for a final report. we have gone ahead to implement many of the recommendations. in fact, some of them were in the works as our organization committee was looking at them. obviously, the house administration committee has in the primary jurisdiction over the operations of the house. but it's not the only committee that could have jurisdiction over some of the things that we are looking at. obviously, the budget committee comes to mind. that is a very large challenge to see how that might be improved as well as the appropriations committee, where

the chairman serves. i would like to say that i am eager to work with you and all of the members to make sure that the work that we have achieved this year does not get lost. and that we continue our effort, whether in the house administration committee or some other format, obviously we need to have a discussion on this committee, but in the broader body, what is the best way to proceed? but it is valuable. i think the leadership shown by yourselves and the ranking really stands out has helping the whole committee be successful. with that, i don't have additional questions, mr. chairman. i do thank you for recognizing me and for the service that you have provided along with all the other members. i yield back. >> thank, you chair lofgren. next up, miss van damme. go for, miss williams. thanks.

>> see how cooperative we are in this committee? good, morning everyone. miss szpindor, i know mr. timmins will probably talk with you a lot about this when he gets to his questions. this calendar you talked about ruling out, the digitized calendar that could deconflict the schedules of congress, like right now, i have a financial services full committee hearing and i'm sure my chairwoman is wondering where i am not there as well. we also had this committee hearing and it never fails every week that we have committee hearings. i either have this hearing along with tni, along with financial services. it was music to my ears reading your remarks and seeing there was a plan to roll out a calendar that could deconflict some of the committee schedules. i'm wondering what that roulette looks like and what is the timeline for something like that. >> well, i will tell you, it's

one of our to do lists to do. our digital service group, which is taking that over to develop, is looking into it. but they don't have their project plan together or what they think is going to be the way in which they will do that. the digital service team was kicked off in february. we have spent a number of months pulling together a team that can concentrate on having that one-on-one relationship with those individuals who are interested in that particular initiative, along with a number of others, they are looking into it. i can certainly provide a -- we are excited about it. it is something that -- >> so am i. >> mr. davis brought up to me

sometime ago. we think there is an opportunity. we are using some new developmental's and code bases that we believe will make this much easier to do. -- looking into what this means. they are going to need to work with the clerics organization as well. it gives us a chance to work with them to be able to get some of the information and everything that they need. we have a very good working relationship with them. we're not not quite at a rollout whatever phase yet, what i'm hearing? >> i wish we could see and we were. but we are in the early i'm hearing in which we were stages of coming together with what that is going to look like. how it is going to work, and then we are using agile part process is, which allows you to go in and start early

development on it, and do some small steps to get something up and working. and have individuals working with your staff, and others, to get individuals to look at what we are doing. and then develop it. but we will get to a schedule, as soon as we have one that is prepared. and we are prepared to tell you about it. it is one of the ones that we are moving forward with. >> thank you. >> i'm going to call on miss vandyne. i think it was a bipartisan policy centers that had a draft example of what the block scheduling could look like. i don't think that the conflicts everything, if you go that direction. but inevitably, some committees will balk if you told them when they can and can't do their hearings. but i think it will be better, i think it's a start. because right now, everything depends on everything.

so as your office looks into that, i commend you to look at that, just as a starting point. miss van duyne? >> i appreciate the fact that you have freshman on this committee. because we really get thrown. that sounds bad. when we have the number of committees that were on the subcommittees, because very few of us are on a committee. so we are on multiple committees, select committees, caucuses, how many committees are there? and then how many subcommittees are there? i'm asking you because i have no clue. we have counted but there seems to be once we don't know about. is there an official number of committees and subcommittees? >> i'm sure there is an official number. i don't know, i have looked through, the website, and our

house.gov, and i am looking at all of the listings of all the committees, and everything. with this, subcommittee's i can't tell you. >> that's how far off we are actually rolling this out i look at it from a college perspective, and if we can have colleges that have tens of thousands of students, and probably an equal number of classes, and they're able to figure it out so there is not overlap, we should be able to get in congress. not only are we fighting the scheduling, but orientation is also really important. we are somewhat fresh off of that, i know it's been a year and a half, we have another class that is going to be coming. we came in on a unique year. it was covid, we were separated. everyone wear masks, we didn't have events. but we also were separated from the beginning. you had a republican orientation, you had your democrat orientation. it would have been nice, i think, if we could have

actually met all members that were coming in. and have done events together, that would have been really great. your point on not having bills and being rank and file, and not knowing what we're voting on, it's not just rank and file. a lot of times, we are not getting bills until literally hours before explore expected to vote on them. and they are multiple hundred-page bills. i don't think a business could work that way, a government should absolutely not work that way. you are going to have fights with leaders on that. because a lot of times, they are adding details up until the very moment that they come out. how we can fix it, i don't know. i know we have tried to fix in the past. 24 hour, 48-hour, 72-hour marks. but it takes a very small handful to be able to override those rules. so having not just suggestions or ideas, but hard and fast rules that we can count on,

regardless of what party you are in or the majority or minority, would be very helpful. i've got a question on ca oh, how many resumes are we getting? have you seen it decrease, the number of resumes of the last couple of years? or have you seen an increase? how is that worked? >> for -- >> for staff. for capitol hill staff. >> well, we have just started the resume bank that would allow staffers and anyone interested in a staff position to be sent to us, to be added to the resume bank. within the ceo, most of our recruiting is within the ca o, and for -- we assessed our hr department. and also, for the clerk, if they need any assistance. but i really -- i know for the c a o, the

number of resumes we get in, but for the number of offices, i could not tell you. >> amassing the question, because across the board, in every sector, labor shortages have been an issue. talking with my colleagues, it hasn't been an issue getting resumes into the office. so to your point, that you have to pay more and keep people, the fact is that we will never, nor should we ever strive to compete with the private sector on pay. i think what we are able to give in experience, on being a more forget differentiator on a resume is incredibly valuable. but when we look at everything as being, how much are you paying? i think we start running into problems. but have my colleagues had problems with people applying for positions in our office? district, without a doubt. but i mean, on capitol hill.

>> when we started the resume bank, which was our opportunity to give the member offices a chance, to review resumes and -- and staff positions within the offices, within the first week, we head over 2000 submitted. and i know that in subsequent weeks, we got more thousands of resumes. so we hope that that is at least an opportunity for people to provide a resume's, that they can go through, have access to the resume bank and look at it to see if there is someone there that would be a really good candidate for their office. >> all right, thank you very much. speaking of scheduling conflicts, i know mr. cleavers in the market right now. i will call on him. >> thank you, mister chairman. yeah, in financial services,

homeland security, and modernization right now, we have -- and i gave them my phone number so they could text me. when they needed me to come upstairs. and i don't think that is -- that is embarrassing for the night states of america to have a political body, we are all of the committees can be scheduled at the same time, and so i want to add my comments with those that were made earlier. but the college analogy made some sense. it does make sense, but in the

college system, you enroll. and you go there to make sure that you've enrolled into classes, and you meet at the same time. and maybe, it's going to take a lot more time, but maybe that's what we need to do. during a certain period of time, the leadership and the bodies that make the recommendations on which committee is set up, maybe that needs to be done early on, like the first couple of days when we are here. because we just accept the fact. and i think it's bad for our image. for example, let's say rodney davis is leaving. and -- but somebody in the public just as want to be on the committee. or when we leave, we have to leave early.

people are watching c-span, or in the committee hearing. they don't know. they don't know how dumb this joint is. and so i think one of the things that we need to flirt with, with the brainpower like you have, is there ought to be some kind of period when we first get here at the beginning of the session, where we enroll, or you can figure that out. i can't do that part. i do know that part needs to be done. my final comment i will make, mr. davies left. it may have been luck, mr. chairman, mr. timmins, it may have been luck that they put a group of people on here who actually want to make the place run better and smoothly and who, i don't know if we could have

gotten better than timmins as vice vice chair. i have said to the chairman publicly and behind his back that i thought this has been amazing. i'm upset even that mr. perlman is leaving. i can get over that. [laughter] the other parts of this are really troublesome. anyway, thank you, mister chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. for those watching on c-span, when mr. -- leaves, it's not that easy. he does not care about the work of our committee. he has to go work on homeland security. i hope you are watching. i know vice chair timmins -- >> before mr. cleaver leaves, i want to point something out real quick. he has three hearings right now because it is likely we will not be here on friday.

because of the, that makes tomorrow -- we flew in last night, we got here at 6:30. we very well could be leaving tomorrow. we, might we might not. but the committees know that. they are scheduling everything right now. i always talk about the 2019 calendar. you were here for 65 folders and 66 travel days. 65 full days over 32 weeks. an average of two days a week. when you are here two days a week and you might be losing that day because something happens on the calendar and you fly out early, you will have conflict. while we are thinking about the calendar and the conflicting everything, having more days here and more predictable schedule as when we are here is a very important part, if not the most important, part of the

equation. i have more thoughts on everything else. i will yield back. >> mr. phillips, and then mr. -- >> thank, you mister chair. it only takes a few days of joining this institution to recognize there is a distinct bias in cooperation and improvement. i will offer that i believe it's not just a competitive risk to the united states of america about a national security risk. that's why i believe this group, this work we are doing, is the most important work in the united states congress. i believe this committee is the most important. frankly, it saddens me that it is somewhat of a metaphor for what is going on more broadly in our country and around the world. at the most important work is ignored or dismissed, under appreciated, and some of the most trivial, an is elevated in inappropriate ways. i want to celebrate both our chairs, my colleagues, the staff of this extraordinary

committee, and our individual staff who made this possible and eventually made some meaningful change in an institution that surely needs it and frankly has restored some of my own faith in the u.s. congress and i want to celebrate all of us for that. that is my thank you. my proposition is to somehow encourage us to work together and make some propositions for the next house rules package is with. some of this can go through regular order. we know how complicated that is. we also know there is an absence of regular order in this institution. we should work together some recommendations, whoever might leave the house in the next session of congress, and actually revise the house rules to implement some of these. try to embed a culture of modernization. i say that is someone who has great appreciation for conserving the things that work and progressing on the issues in areas that we can do better. i think that starts with changing the house rules

package. i also encourage all of us to speak with leadership on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we elevate -- mindful and bring that ethos to the institution. with that leadership, i don't think any of this will become successful. my question do you, doctor, and to you, miss hill, is just a simple one. if you can wave a magic wand, if you could wave a magic wand based on this conversation and your own recommendations, what is your most important of all your propositions? miss hill, with a variety of them. what do you think we should use regularly do take the next step? i will start with you, doctor. >> i wanted that want for a long time. and your lead-up is exactly where i would start in this discussion about how this committee can continue and whatever format is important. there are pros and cons to each. the house rules package is the ticket.

it is a singular vote at the beginning of congress that not many people pay attention to. which for a lot of you, is an opportunity. and you can make serious institutional lasting, substantive changes with a single vote. that is important in an attractive vehicle for this vehicle, in particular. and so, going back to the idea of house administration, i get the logic of using that as the most logical place for these recommendations. i urge you to think, about though, the substantive changes you will be limited in putting in a place like that. including the things you are frustrated with on a leadership basis. so the downsides of house -- is you are limited to leadership. access to the floor will be limited, the same way it is in a lot of other subcommittees. and so, to me, it seems like

the administration idea is to implement what has already been recommended. a great place, for it that is where the jurisdiction lies, it makes sense. that is implementation that is already passed the recommendations. for the big, substantive, calendar specific, all of the things that are the non-low hanging fruit, to mr. davis's point. those big, institutional changes, i'm a huge fan of using the rules package to create something bigger. and again, there's a lack of attention to something like that in a rules package that big. i think it's an opportunity that nominee people take advantage of. there's a way you could set this up in something like the permanent select committee on intelligence, where you create this independents, and that is the key point. funding independents, procedural independents that you won't get in a typical standing subcommittee. it just won't be available to you, so the magic wand there opens up the opportunity for institutional change.

and then, it comes down to members. it just does. and it always will, in an institution like this. a lot of these things aren't member led decisions. the idea that chairman kilmer can take a step back and recognize someone four seats down, of the republican party, you can't write that into house roles. you can't write that into procedure, you can't legislate behavior. there is leadership by example that is all too often forgotten, in just simple, small things. something he remembered to point out that the feedback loop is infinite. so the rules package is a magic wand. i think it opens the opportunity for big, institutional changes. not to discuss the recommendations have been made, there's plenty more left to do. that is the best place to do it. >> thank you, dr.. miss hale? >> i have to say that i'm grateful for our member of the cohort. he has the expertise on these issues that i don't have. if i had a magic wand, what i would do, is i would start with probably the last point he

made. i would renew this select committee. and i would renew it with the spirit which it started with, 40 years ago, to provide the energy, the drive, take all the things that have been done so far, now. have the recommendations be implemented. i would give the select committee more teeth, and i would open the ears of the senate, quite honestly. the work that we have to do over there, for modernization, the whole difference we could make, if both chambers could work together would go a long ways, i think, in renewing congress and giving us a stronger footing. i don't pretend to be an expert on all of the rules. my goal is bringing people together, but i do know this. people matter, and how they behave matters. and this committee works well, in part. what a treat to see all the members here today, everyone working together. cher kilmer, vice chair timmins,

both bring such a strong leadership this effort, and you open the door for the committees. we need to see more of that, and if we could have a committee exactly modeled on this behavior. one of the reasons that is so important is that committees don't have that option now. they don't see that model, they don't have anywhere else to go to know that it works. you can see from my bio that i started -- years ago, right? in the 80s. i was on the hill, i started in 1989 with congress. so from that time, she would not allow us to have computers. we had electronic typewriters. until today, when we are looking at how we stream events in town hall meetings. it makes an incredible difference. we need some members that can lean into that, love, it and embrace us in the way that you do. >> thank you. and as a freshman in 2019, when i was handed a pager.

i kept that on my curtains as a metaphor. i want to thank, you and let me just close by thanking our chairs and staff. because it's not just the work that we are doing, i think most importantly, it's how we are doing it. and that starts with leadership. i'm grateful to all. thank you. >> i want to call on mr. pearl hunter. but before you do, at more teeth. can you just expand on that quickly. >> yes. i think one of the things that you've done admirably, and worked so hard on is rolling out recommendations to have them available. if this select committee had more teeth and, a stronger way to do some of the implementation, i'm thinking of some kind of mechanism. i listen to --

needing strong direction, in terms of what they can accomplish at the ceos office. and this strong direction can come from the select committee working hand in hand with the committee and has administration. if there is a mechanism built in to help do that. and i think the energy to make the change has come from the select committee, that's been my review. right? because i know the excellent professional staff on the house administration, and the members. it's not that they don't want to make change. it's that sometimes, other issues that they are having to deal with overshadow that. so if there is a way to influence those two, i would think that will be a really good idea. >> thank you. get on their. first, i want to thank the committee and derek for allowing us to visit the

european union yesterday. mr. timmins and i had a fantastic trip. and i think it will bring a lot of fruit to bear, in terms of suggestions that we had. and have about modernizing and improving the way this place functions. by looking at other interesting parliament and legislative bodies. legislature is a tension between traditions that you have from the beginning of time. we met with parliament, which basically is from the beginning of time. then we come into existence, the eu much later. sort of on the -- and we learned a lot. what we learned was that we're not doing things too badly, but we can do a lot better. by taking some of their ideas and suggestions, and to your

point, doctor, the rules package is the place you start. probably in 2020, for me, the three most important votes i've ever taken my career, and i've been doing this. it is between legislature and congress, it was the election of the speaker, the passage of the rules package, and the certification of the presidential election. those are the three votes i take, out of thousands of votes, that i consider to be the most important votes. but that rules package face of this thing is key to how we manage our affairs. at least for two years. as you said, administration implemented, with the rules package can establish where you're going. luckily, we had the vice chair leading the strip. we had a member of the rules committee, and we had staff from the house administration, to be able to really look at

what things can be done. so this committee has been looking in for areas. technology, personnel, and member relationships, and how we relate to the institution. i agree with mr. phillips, and i disagree -- i agree with miss vandyne and a lot of things, but i disagree with her on a couple things. we need to make sure that this house is as equal to the other branches of government, if not more equal. in this sector, and to other countries. we don't need to just hamstring ourselves. for whatever reason, and one other place that i disagree, and i want to talk about one recommendation i've got. i gave you 14, from my trip. but one other place i disagree with her, and i think that it

is very important. as a body, we should be competitive with the private sector. that just because i can go hire somebody, doesn't mean that they provide services to the community. that need to be done, and people learn that. if you were working for -- in 1989, you start off, you don't know anything. but you are there, you are hired. then you learn. and then, if you stay, you provide good services to the people that you represent. i think retention is key, and i want to thank the vice chair here. because he knew that we've been so focused on making sure that we have good personnel and good staff, and we retain good staff. the last thing i will say, where i do agree, and it was beth van duyne, along with

andré from the house committee, they gave me an idea of an orientation. so one of the things that we were talking about, but you talked about, doctor, is the rank and file members, we feel a little disenfranchised, or we've lost -- we want to be more empowered. the individual want and remember once the more empowered. we have some ideas about that. one of the places as a freshman coming in, he just won an election. you've got 1 million things going on. people coming at you from all directions. and you go to orientation, even if we had a joint orientation, it lasts for three days, you don't have the questions to ask. so maybe split into the parties. and operate, really, as -- other than that three-day orientation, or two days, or whatever. a suggestion that i am going to

make, that i think is a good one is that later on, maybe nine months out. a year out, as a freshman class, to have your feet under them. and start having an idea of the questions to ask, that there be a second orientation. where again, it builds across the party lines, kind of a class identity. as well as being able to answer questions. you didn't know what questions to ask in the first place, now you have a better idea. and that came from beth, from aubrey, but also the woman who runs the house of commons. they suffered under covid, just as we did. and their new members coming in couldn't really be oriented in the way that allowed them to really understand when votes were going to be, and all that. so we've made improvements, i think a lot the technology

side. we've made a lot of improvements on personnel. he should have been on this trip, because he could have seen some changes to campus that would have made things more member and user friendly. that these other parliaments had. member colleagues, scheduling things, all of that. empowering members, i will leave that to smarter people than me. but i want to thank you, derek, for allowing me to be part of this. >> thank you. and thanks for all you contribute to our committee. vice chair timmins? >> mister chairman. i want to point out vice chair timmins is going to hit on all the questions i want to ask you. or most of them. >> he said we've been working together to long. we spent too much time together. he's probably sick and tired of me.

so while i would -- i can see arguments to try to extend the committee. but i think we were extremely fortunate to get four years. we were only supposed to get 12 months, which was really like eight months. given the fact that between the calendar, and we didn't really get up and running until march. so i think we've made a lot of great recommendations with a lot of progress. i do think that there is a lot of consensus around the subcommittee on house administration. and i'm not sure there is consensus on the side of the aisle. i will run through a couple things and ask for your feedback. right now, there is only one republican on each of the subcommittees. and i don't think this subcommittee should have a

disparate number. i think of it's -- i think that will be good. it will ultimately be focused on implementation of previous recommendations from the select committee. preparation for the next select committee, and it would work closely with partners and such. so the question then becomes, how often do we need a select committee? not every 30 years, so that is every three? is it every four? is it every five congresses? i'm not sure the answer for that, but i think we can fought probably find some consensus for it. i think the beauty of the structure of the subcommittee would be focusing on implementation and preparation. so when the next select committee comes around, we hit the ground running with this. we are ready to go, most of the staff is already hired. usually really been a lot of -- i'm not sure if you call it a

hearing, but they are ranking material. they could operate within two years, and get it done. this is another weird idea. space shows value, so if this is something we're serious about, i think it should have its own office space. it should go from a subcommittee to -- and it could be its own space and maybe we can get a roundtable. in the eu, and the uk, literally, everybody is -- the eu has round tables. and the uk had a much better setup than this that was a much more productive set up. but again, if this is something that is important enough, i think finding a way to create continuity has value. yeah, i really do think that having that set up, going from a subcommittee to a select committee, back and forth with

three or four or five congresses what allow planning to occur prior to the select committee, so we can hit the ground running and maximize the use of time. so i will just put that back. what thoughts do you have on all of that? who do you think? >> i think you have some very good ideas. from my perspective, i just want to make sure that for myself and my staff, we are able to work through, however this committee will evolve, to be able to do our job, based on what you're asking us. understanding what you ask us. having the ability to sit down and talk with you about options, about how we are going to move

forward with things. that is what i need, and my department has -- so, however it's structured, whether it's going through the house committee administration, to someone, or some other way, we have to be able to sit down and have constructive conversations with whomever is making recommendations. and whoever is going to help us prioritize the work that we do. or at least review our suggestions for prioritization. we do a lot of the prioritization ourselves. we have traditionally been sitting down with both sides of the house committee on the administration, after talking to you. and reviewing those initiatives that we are going to be moving forward with. so, we just need the assistance

and information. and i do agree that to make it a full recommendation, that we can understand, having the bipartisan perspectives, having enough of the bipartisan individuals providing us information. from a data gallery perspective, and the planning of our projects. it's extremely beneficial. so thank you. >> thank you for that. >> as was almost everything here, i think it's important to answer your question the question. what are your goals for the select committee? historically, there has been several types. from minimally successful to overwhelmingly successful. and their goals differed from the outset. i think that's important. your point about the membership being important, just to have

one minority representative of the subcommittee, you can imagine, if they're not even present, how overrun they can be. but even then, they are still subject to the full committees limitations and access to the floor, and things like that. it will still be limiting what you can do. in terms of the question of how often the select committee or some version of this committee is necessary, i think it's important to point out that this committee started kind of behind the eight ball and a couple different ways. it had been a long time, since the previous one. and the previous one was one of the minimally successful ones. you had a bunch of legwork to do to catch up to what had been missing then. and then, just the time period, this subject of the time period since that previous select committee and now has been the biggest change we've ever seen across almost every area you can think of. technology, included. so you had more to do, because

more had changed. and that pace of change doesn't slow down anytime soon. so to try to systematize five congresses from now, each period of those five congresses are not going to be equal. you are going to try to fix what the last committee left behind, and try to make up for it. if your goal is to proactively change the institution, it's got to be permanent. if your goal is to retroactively change what was left over, then the space is stigmatized -- just as you mentioned that space equals value, that is true. from parking spaces committee room spaces. so it is permanence. it sets a, tone it sends a message that this is not interval-y important to us. that we can just wait for the next one. i think we're at a point now with some of the most important institutional questions, in a way we haven't been in a long, long time. that permanent speaks to the

moment of that. that only then, can you start to talk about the non low hanging fruit. the civility, the ones that are tearing us out or seems. the permanence of a committee like that. to say nothing of the independents you can set up to make those changes. the teeth that you talk about, access to the floor. permanence and stature that we don't just have to wait you out, but get your recommendations out. the independent funding streams, permanent office space, all of those speak to the important of the moment. there is no more important moment than now to get at the kinds of questions i think you all are trying to get it. >> i would agree with dr. burr got. again, no surprise on that. and what i've heard from you today, from members here, is that -- modernization, as a matter of waiting for extended periods isn't an option. that is one thing. and it is the most important

work going on in congress today. making sure that you are up to date, you are modernized, you've got the best staff. it will lead everything else. my organization, the partnership for public service, our genesis and the reason we came about was to help the executive branch. the reason we are here today is because we understand how vitally important congress is to making the executive branch healthy. and that is why i spent the last four years in partnership, working on this very issue. i speak for myself, i have not put this question out to the cohort or received any kind of -- how often should be. but if you think it is a periodic time, every two years, every four years, i can see a cycle, vice chair timmins. where we now have almost 200 recommendations. right? so to take --

and that's why i framed the testimony the way i did. to take the next two years and put a primary focus on implementing those reputations makes a good deal of sense. but in that timeframe, you need to still be looking at what needs to be changed next. we look at all of the changes that can occur in a two-year period, and you guys have worked through the most difficult of those times. there is just so much more coming at us today than ever before, i think we need to be prepared for the change. so we might cycle in that way, to implement for a couple of years while still looking at possible modernization, and what we need to do. and then two years after, that we can go hard at making new recommendations. >> i think there's a country song that uses the lyric, how i miss you when you won't go away.

and i'm conscious that there's a little bit of that dynamic with this committee it. it was established for a year, and here we still are. if you had asked me prior to this, during what i would do, i think i would set of a subcommittee. and i checked with the house leaders on how they feel about that. that is probably what i would do, and i'll probably make it equal members. and have them focus on important issues. i would have our committee make a recommendation, in that regard. i would have us make a recommendation to say, every three or four congresses, there ought to be something established to look at ongoing institutional -- i think i make a decent point for getting it rolling. having said that, though, i think it begs the question, other than focusing on implementation, which is probably warehouse admin and

house rules, the bulk of the work is going to happen through them. what other -- doctor bergen, you said that your students want us to focus on the power of rank and file members. i would argue some of the recommendations we've may have been in that spirit, so let me ask you. if you are sitting a work plan for a select committee they got reviewed next congress, what would you work on? >> incentive eyes english insulating. and with legislating, incentivizing bipartisan oversight. the problem there is that now you are involving incentive structures fully outside the chamber. if i'm going to have elections, to how districts are drawn, to the types of members are going to get here, including this freshman class. there are going to be ones that ran diametrically opposed to

the institution. and not only are you going to be trying to welcome them into the conversation, they are going to be incentivized to stay out of it. that's impossible, that is sincerely impossible. and better you than me to try to help with that. but in terms of getting -- not everyone is like that, not everyone is the flame thrower. and i think that in conversations, you can't discern who has some sort of issue. that they want to get advanced, and the problem is that if they are told from the day they get here that access is only through a very few types of ways to get implemented, not every member cares but the bill nor should they. but there should be a reasonable path, a reasonable path that you know that your work will pay off. it may not include a lobbying pass, but just vote. just a mark or an amendment.

those are ways that you will think twice about burning the bridge might otherwise have done. and i think that anything you can do to incentivize that through rules, and it's always committees. it always has been committees. it always starts with the chair and ranking member, setting the standards. offering those paths to legislative productivity is the be all and end all for me. >> emiliano? thank you for your question. i think one of the things i would look at, i would look at the staffing issues we are currently looking at. because i was listening to bergeron's testimony, i think the students in his classes that want those changes are our future. right? and they're not just our future as staffers and staffing, but there are future as members. and when they enter that, the institution, as we know it's going to happen. demographics are on their side.

we need to be prepared for that. and those are some of the issues we need to be considering. how do we make sure that is members enter, they are prepared to serve their constituents. they are prepared to reach out in the ways they need to, to be able to do that. and again, i think that one of the recommendations i would urge you to make is that we do begin to have talks with the senate, not even begin, but before the select committee, so we know and send a signal to our friends in the other chamber. we need to do something here. so i think the work is still yet to be done. i, to, chair kilmer, i agree with you. about the committee on house administration. it may be a very good place to be doing that now. and i have to say that i speak for myself, individually. because it seems like the timing is right, my fear in

that is that we don't come back to the serious modernization issues, in a real manner weekly. >> would you do every three congresses? you would make it permanent? >> every other. every other. >> do you agree with that? >> i'm fine with that. i think you can set the floor a minimum of every x number. as conditions arise, you jump to it. necessary conditions arise. >> yeah. it's funny. i thought about this a lot. thank you for being here, he asked, what did the committee not take up that we should've had? i spent a lot of time thinking about. this a lot of it is things outside our jurisdiction where it's tricky to get two thirds of the vote. if you ask me some of the things that are broken in congress, i would say, the role of money, the way district boundaries are drawn, and the way members are selected through primaries, probably

drive a lot of the conflict entrepreneurship you see within the institution. i'm not too sure the select committee now, next year, or in the future is likely to take up those issues. probably on cable news and social media also contributing. i don't know where to start on that. i'm certain it's something the committee like this could work on. maybe it could. i don't know. it is certainly something i've been chewing on as we sprint to the last four months of this. i also think that one of the things that makes tricky this issue around the schedule is the difference between where we are and where colleges. people are already enrolled in their class. you've got members already in committee. d. conflicting, even the challenge of block scheduling your either putting someone in a position of having conflict or having to give something up. nobody wants to give something

up when they have seniority. that makes it a little bit tricky. i think we can deconflict it more than it is right now. i'm really pleased to hear that the cao is working on that. the sooner the better, because as we roll into the next congress, we are going to have the exact same dynamic as we saw in this committee where members -- at the same time. i think that's really important. i want to give you a sense of how you and your office tracks implementation of the recommendation that fall under your jurisdiction. you can have a checklist you work or is it more ad hoc as to members of your team prioritize the front burner. give us direction -- i think we -- i'm going to make a statement, you may disagree with it. i think we have got better at working with your office over time because trying to that

things in terms of what we are thinking, about how could we were this in a way that's more implementable. give us direction as we make recommendations to future reform efforts. how might we best work with you on implementation? >> the answer is, i have many lists. those of my staff watching no, i am a very bold project manager from many days back. i believe in planning and then executing the plan and having expectations that you meet. we do have a list. we use a product called -- to track our projects. we have regular meetings on a monthly basis where i sit down with my staff and others to review the projects and the status of the projects we have.

the modernization initiatives we are working on our part of that. i ask questions about where we are. it tracks the tool, it tracks the -- any issues that we are finding with that particular initiative. it tracks who the primary person is for that initiative. it is built into me to have tools that i can use to understand at any point in time where the initiative may not be doing too well. maybe we need to talk about. it maybe we need to add additional resources. maybe we need to look at what the funds are that we are actually allowing that individual to use to bring in some additional help. we have a list, it is maintained, it is reviewed, it is the list that i review with the chiefs of staff and other

members of the c h a. we have all your projects that you've requested, that i have talked about, in my testimony, was listed there. and do you mind if i ask you a question, chairman? >> sure. >> i'm. >> we are a weird committee. >> we are trying to be more informal here. i'm listening to a lot of the things about the timing and the -- how often some type of committee and in some form should meet and everything. and being in technology, i know how rapidly everything changes. and i just want to make sure that -- nobody -- we all know how things have changed in the past couple years.

how do we really maintain this momentum? i mean, we have all these initiatives, as you all have brilliantly come up with and we are working with you on. but it could be tomorrow, next week or next month, something significant will come up that would require us to focus on that and maybe have to push some of these things to the background. it's almost like every month there is something else coming out. how do we stay current with things, is the question i'm asking, given the rapid change in our environment. in technology, in staffing, in everything going on in this role, without there being some consistency along the road if

we are looking at extending anything with this committee? >> i think each of you testify to the value of having these topics sit somewhere permanently. i think a subcommittee on the house, particularly in terms of engagement with your office is probably a good place to do it. i say that without having talked to he has been pretty vocal about that but i do think there is value in having some subcommittee or committee going to bed every night thinking about how are we working on implementation, focused on implementation. i also take to heart the comments that i've made about the need to continue engaging on these issues as they come up. my sense is particularly the sense of the select committee

was extended four times the length it was initially envisioned. i'm just not sure it's likely that it would be made permanent. some, the next next thing is our committee making a recommendation to saying no more more or less frequently than every three or four congresses. the other thing at thought about, miss hill, i'm curious what the future of the cohort looks like, particularly if this committee expires. one thought i've had also, we have not talked about this but, again, we are informal. you could establish a congress caucus. people will self select, getting back to the people proposition, it's a lot easier to engage on these issues with people who actually want to improve the institution. you could set up something, there are caucuses dealing with all kinds of issues. in the interim between the

expiration of this committee and the new committee popping up, you could do that. now the challenge is, that's only who does the members of the caucus committed to work at the caucus. you want to make sure that there's -- you either want to stop it, you either want to have members actually put some go up to higher someone to run the show. or dedicate a certain amount of their time to the work of that. i don't know your reaction to that. again, i am curious, if we set up something like, that does that make more likely they continued engagement of the cohort? >> i think, let me just take a step back for a minute. the cohort is an interesting mix of the 45 board organizations they are some who can lobby, some who can. some of those who cannot

provide -- i want to give you this background -- some of those who cannot provide expertise and guidance, they feel very strongly -- and we all, do i think -- it's important to keep the cohort strong, right? we are in the process of determining how best to do that as this committee sunsets. my impression, as we've gone through this, year because we started talking about early on, just like my testimony today, we started to talk about this process way back in february, at which point we went through some discussions, and thank you to vice chair timmons, in your stated purpose of waiting around to the wire, you put that on the back shelf. however, we have not put on the back shelf the idea of do we stay together. four years ago there was -- there were members who were a smaller cohort and they came together two years ago when we

were not sure the select committee would be extended. it was a wonderful moment, i think, for the entire cohort, as we were then able to sit around the table, to gauge the closeness and that we had an address we had in each other and how we have grown. that has only increased over the last two years. what happens for us is you've witnessed with the civility and collaboration working group we had and the civic engagement working group, we not only pulled members of the cohort to work on those issues to come up with recommendations for this committee, but we also pulled from other groups outside the cohort. whether that is the bridging community or others extremely interested in the same issues. i don't see the cohort going away. i see the cohort as continuing. and i am not sure what that -- how we will set that up, we are working on that now. i think it is important that you know whoever is working on

this issue of modernization, that there is a strong contingent outside congress that is very engaged on these issues and they care deeply about them. >> i really appreciate that. that's probably a good point on which to and this discussion, unless someone has anything burning they didn't share that they want to say? with that, i would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. i would like to thank our committee members for their participation. i would like to thank c-span for being here. thank you. and for the rest, thank you for following up. following the work of our committee. we are clearly a viral phenomenon at this point. i also want to shout out to the staff of our committee for the great work they do setting up amazing hearings, this being our last one, i want to applaud their excellent work in setting this up. i can literally applaud them, if you are up for.

we are not done, we've got a bunch of recommendations we still have to make. i'm going to save my vicious attacks on rodney davis until we get through those -- that markup. my gratitude to the rest of the committee, i reserve it for that. without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit additional written questions for the witnesses -- forwarded to the witnesses for their responses. i ask you to please respond as promptly as you are able. without objection, all members will have five legislative days to come -- with that, this hearing is adjourned. thanks, everybody.

>> three order your copy of the congressional directory from the 118th congress. it's your access to the federal government, with bio and contact information for every house and senate member. important information on congressional committees, the presidents cabinetral agencies, and state governors. scan a code at the right to preorder your copy today for early spring delivery. it's 29 95 plus shipping and handling. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations at c-span shop dot org. fridays at 8 pm eastern, c-span brings you afterwards from book tv, a program where nonfiction authors are interviewed by journalists, legislators, and others, on their latest books. this week, maya corn brook

shares her book, inside congressional committees, which looks at the functions of these committees and examines their strengths and weaknesses. she's interviewed by american enterprise institute senior fellow, kevin gosar. watch afterwards every friday at 8 pm eastern on c-span. >> book tv every sunday on c-span two featur leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8 pm eastern, following access to president biden and top advisers, chris gives an insider account of presidency in progress with his book the fight of his life, inside joe biden's white house. a 10 pm eastern on after words, maya corn brook shares her book inside congressional committees which looks at the functions of these committees and examines strengths and witnesses. shis interviewed by senior fellow kevin costar. watch about tv every sunday on

c-span two and watch the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> c-span use your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> homework can be hard. but squatting in a diner for internet work is even harder. that's why we are providing lower incometudents access to affordable ternet, so homework can just beomework. cox connect to compete. >> cox, supports he spent as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> up next, a group of historians and journalists discussed at the presidential records act, the search of former president trump's home at mar-a-lago, and the role the act has played throughout history. this is hosted by new york un