>> next, a hearing 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 reason we are sitting here today in a roundtable format where we can look each other in the eye and engaged in discussion is because the committee decided to try something new. over one year ago when the committee held its first roundtable hearing, -- when we had technical difficulties one time. what a nice agent requires a

willingness to innovate and that is what the committee has done from day one. i recall seeing that with a senior naval officer. i said if you look amount of battleship. he said i used to captain a battleship and has what i can can tell you, targeting course correction over time can make a big difference. change does not happen overnight especially in a place like congress but the small changes over time can lead to the cultural shifts that make a big difference. the one year spread for this committee turned into a four-year marathon and i'm grateful we were given the time to do the work necessary to create long-term change. we are already seeing our hard work pay off with more than half of our recommendations fully or partially fermented. their success is due in no small part to the hard work of our committee implementation partners, including the cio who was with us today, among others the committee was able to draft workable recommendations so our

partners could successfully and commended. this is another committee intuition -- innovation. there is a lot of work to head and it will not always be easy to determine whether our rhythm editions a difference. success is tough. we lacked the data we need to claim that something did what it is supposed to do, but it is not impossible and one of our witnesses today is going to help us think about how to engage the impact over time. modernization happens as a matter of course. businesses and organizations do this in operations because they understand it is necessary to remain relevant. this is something they do it every few decades or so, congress is consistently playing catch-up. updated technology slows the institution down and that is a disservice to the wreck and people. there are ways that congress can make modernization and ongoing rather than an occasional effort and one of our witnesses today present us with the option for

committing -- continuing the work that it started. the committee will use its rules that allow for a more flexible hearing format. house rule 11, we will allow up to 30 minutes of extended question for the witness and time will not be strictly segregated between the witnesses which will allow for back and forth the changes between members and the witness. we will ensure every member has opportunity to purchase paid. members who wish to claim their individual five minutes to question needs witness, pursuant to clause two point j to of the amendment -- that out of the way, i would like to invite vice chair to share remarks. >> good morning and thank you for being with us. it has been a lot. three and a half years ago i was appointed as a freshman on this committee and i remember how happy i was when they called and told me that. he has been a friend and mentor

and i have been so fortunate to spend the year and then two beers under his leadership and the chairman's leadership. i watched them work together and show me that republicans and democrats can be civil, can work together and can try to make a positive impact on the institution that everyone loves. it has such a huge impact on the lives of the american people. it is so important that we do every thing we can to make this place as functional as possible. i was very pleased when the leader told me i was going to be the vice chair. he did not have a lot of options. everybody that was on the committee that was a republican had left and he can't have more committee assignments, it would be ridiculous. i don't know what number it would be. but i have done everything i can to step into the shoes, he is so great that i knew i could never live up to that. he just has the best head of hair.

i did my best to continue that leadership of the committee and we were so for -- fortunate to get a full two years. i think we have made the most of it. we have four months left and we will continue to work hard. obviously this hearing is about what is next and how do we make sure that the recommendations that we have made and that we will make will be fully up lamented? we will not be here in january, how can we maximize the likelihood that all of these recommendations -- i know that we all have some ideas on that and that is what we will be talking about. but i think this should not be every couple of decades and i think we should not stop in january. i look forward to hearing from you on that. on -- we went on a congressional delegation trip to london. it was remarkable, i think we are doing ok after that trip.

not the eu and the u.k. are not doing a great job, but everyone has their dysfunction. everyone has their challenges. the eu takes a week, a month and goes 4.5 hours away by returning to a different location to conduct their business, wow, i thought we had it tough in d.c.. but we learned a lot too. we are hopefully going to learn -- maximum editions are what we learned for our promise in london and it was a very productive trip. i want to say -- it has been an honor to work alongside the chair. we have a couple of friends and we are going to continue to work hard for the next four months. i will ensure congress, i will work to make sure these are fully implanted and we agree on that. i look forward to the next four

months and hearing you today. i yield back. >> thank you, i appreciate your remarks and i appreciate the partnership. wait until we get that final -- any remarks. i want to welcome our guest but two particularly important guests today, huck and charlie are with us, they are the kids come out one of our witnesses today. they are two of the most well attired and well behaved kids i have ever seen. so thank you for being with us, huck and charlie. i told him if things got boring, but should make a bird noise and i will try to pick it up a little bit. that was a joke though, so don't actually make a bird noise. [laughter] >> he gave me a nod. i would like to welcome our witnesses who want to share their thoughts on the future of the institution. the written statements will be

part of the record. our first witness was a frequent flyer for the committee, qualify for the free latte as well. we are grateful for her service and work with the committee. the chief ministers officer for the house of representatives, she served in this role in 2020, she was in the cio and how senator role. she's as possible from -- providing -- to more than 10,000 officers and staff. your recognize for 10 minutes. >> thank you very much. chairman, vice chairman and members of the select committee on the modernization of congress, thank you for this opportunity today. and many opportunities we had previously to meet for the good of the institution. we thank you for trusting the cao as a partner in making lasting positive changes so that congress can run more

effectively and efficiently. the mission of the nearly 800 staffers is actually very simple. it is to make it easier for members and staff to do their job if they have served the american people. we refer to this as member focused, service driven. our varied and highly skilled staff work as one cao to perform our services so you the members of congress can focus on your duty. since january we have launched many new projects. i'm highlighting a few of those today. the very successful ci -- cao coach program is addressing the need for more relevant and efficient training for housestaff by hosting in person and virtual courses and providing one-on-one consultations to staff in washington, d.c. and the district.

in total, cao coach hosted 2600 staffers. the coaches and customer advocates launched the first ever bipartisan orientation program for new staff in february and develop the 2022 district office conference program, also bipartisan, writing specialty training to over 800 district staff by position. we train staff on specific skills for the house. and we plan on continuing these offerings in the coming year. this team serves as an effective method in communicating cao 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 operations.

the house resume bank is providing offices and easier and quicker way to find jobs candidates. the use of this resume bank has led to requests from chief of staff for more effective methods to attract diverse and talented applicants and we will deliver. the house digital service team is committed to a build with and not billed for philosophy. for stakeholders to ensure products meet customer criteria, they are researching number committee office needs. this includes improvements to constituent services, all the operational functions such as the software from members offices, options for legislative blend -- legislative branch for a fast directory and a common committee calendar portal to help reduce schedule conflicts. the cao is conducting research

on replacement options and assessment for a new house payroll system since they current system is nearing end of life. through does a lead tracking soe , options for legislative branch wide staff directory and a comment committee calendar portal to help reduce schedule conflicts. the cao is conducting research on a replacement option and cost estimates for a new house payroll system. our administrative forms, the new system launches soon and provides the ability to file electronically and prepare, approve routes and submit payroll transactions. these transactions are validated in real time against house rules and regulations responding --

given considerable time savings to the office. they have adopted a new strategic plan that is focused on understanding the needs of the members and staff. continuously improving our services and processes to meet those needs and attentively analyze and prioritize the entire budget funds and resources to provide quality solutions. the modernization account of the select committee champions provides a significant opportunity for the house to continue to transform services. the chairman and vice chairman, the modernization of momentum proposals for. our future is clear. the cao has integrated

modernization into our overall operations and we are enthusiastic and deliberate in our plans to continue to meet to resolve the needs of the members and staff. i'm grateful for your support. the great working relationship we have with your staff, we look forward to responding to any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. our next witness is dr. casey berg us in addition to being a father, he is the directive of the legislative affair programs and a graduate of washington university, he served as a senior governance fellow at the institute and by the executive branch operations and congress and judiciary section. you are now recognized. >> thank you for the invitation to testify this morning.

i would like -- i would say i followed this closely since its inception. we have applied all of your leadership on all of these topics and especially in these political circumstances. we applaud not only the robust productivity and maybe even more importantly, the example about how it has gone about it work. it has been civil, it has been -- purposely bipartisan and purposeful. i have to focus my testimony on two primary questions. how my current and future congressional reform researchers measure the effectiveness of this committee's work, especially over time. including the impact of your nearly 200 recommendations and second, given i have regularly passed my students to propose

recommendations, 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 can be studied as such. that is easy. the impacts of increasing staff pay and diversity and internships and accessibility can be measured and compared with congress that came before. other recommendations are much more difficult to modify. goals such encouraging civility within congress, modernizing technology and improving constituent service processes do not come without clear measures or publicly accessible data. the change between the recommendations and intangible outcomes will be long and precise and conditional on an infinite number of variables. academics are allergic to those qualities.

with that said, there are a host of types of measures that scholars may use to gauge the committee's effectiveness over time. those who focus on legislative productivity and outcomes may look for changes in drafting activity. the co-responder action had a number and network and cross party count thanks to the electronic cosponsor recommendation and your civility efforts. our members are more able to insert legislative tests into bills because of the elaborative legislation -- collaborative legislation? new member orientations are things we can get at with boxy measures so that there are not quantifiable data attached. mr bipartisan oversight effort including identifiers like s designed by the chair and ranking member and then certain

panels follow the committee's lead and deliberations such as roundtable formats, foregoing 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 transcripts to study what kind of questions are asked. how you all use your allotted time. will that change? members will be -- measure will be hard to come by, we do not discount the importance of quantitative study as well. to fully understand why outcomes differ, hearing directly from the source, member or staff, your motivations and observations, this does mean that you make yourself available and stuff available and your data is available as possible so that we and we academics work on

these questions can get some answers without having to bug you too much. the second question about when assigning my students to submit reform proposals, what common themes have developed. many students want to focus on improving collaboration and civility between members and offices. have want to use sticks like decreasing resources and the other half want to use carrots. -- half want to use sticks like decreasing resources and the other half want to use carrots. grading a whole host of challenges and implications. students also commonly submit proposals to the reform budget process and they were from idea to lessen the reliance on continued resolutions and reinvigorating authorized committees and improving budgetary oversight and minimizing deficit spending and doing away with high debt, high drama and debt ceiling cycles he would sign onto all of those things as well.

by far, the most common theme of student reform proposal speaks to the overwhelming centralization of legislating power and leadership offices. it does not compute my students their rank-and-file members are commonly not involved in a legislative process and some are in the dark on policy negotiations and legislative text to the final moments prior to about. i cannot understand why bills that would pass a chamber will not get debated let alone receive attention on the floor. after discussion they begin to theoretically understand how the current balance of power serves enough interests of another members -- enough members. they hated. to them, many other processes are antithetical to how a legislature is supposed to work. their solutions are unbelievably varied. from pie-in-the-sky pledges of every member read every bill before granting access.

granting for access to every member at least once per session. increasingly, students reform ideas attended to tackle the doom felt by many members, within the minority party. they think if i do not see a reasonable pass as a member to the floor for my issue and if leadership decides everything is over anyway, why spend my energy and staff resources legislating? am i better off messaging and performing constituent services? it is hard to argue with. they have offered instituting automatic thresholds of guaranteed action. a markup within committee or a vote on the floor. ideas like reworking the discharge position and identifying magic number of cosponsors and bipartisan cosponsors automatically trigger a definite pass to the policymaking process including access to the four. nearly all of these thoughts,

stews are quick to point out that leadership cannot be given access. the specific threshold is met, the member receives a reward. i assume you have questions about this, i will save the rest for later. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i would be remit to say i implore you to do everything to make everything possible permanent. in matters. thank you. >> thank you. our final witness is diane hill. she previously served as a presidential management fellow at the department and how's of urban development -- the department of housing and urban development. you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today

to testify. determining a future for modernization movement at this committee has created is necessary and important. my name is diane halide i am a senior manager at the partnership for public service and i am privileged to be the coordinator for the six congress cohort of 45 civil society organizations who align in a common purpose to strengthen congress and make it more effective. we have been thankful and privilege to be able to work with this committee and we thank you for all of the hard work you have done. as you can imagine, being the coordinator for 45 civil society organizations who want to make a significant change, it is not easy to come up with a consensus about where we should go next for modernization efforts. our recommendations have a framework, our first thing we all have agreed on is make sure that the recommendations, almost 200 of them you have put

together are implemented. we need to continue efforts to bring the senate into the modernization work. what you will hear from me today -- [laughter] that is a hard one! we are committed to it! we make the following recommendations. it is not easy to get consensus. our first recommendations are alternative of where the modernization efforts should be housed. place it in house administration either by establishing a new subcommittee or a commission. giving the work to the house administration makes a permanent home with the committees that have significant jurisdictions 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 and explore and develop new recommendations. there are two options we can do

that within the committee. one is to create a subcommittee on modernization at the beginning of the next congress. the makeup of the subcommittee would be all hausa administration members. the second is to establish a modernization commission modeled on the structure of the communication standard commission. both are strong options, there are disadvantages and advantages to both, the commission has the potential to be truly bipartisan. you could have members of both parties pulling numbers and also have the possibility of membership from the entire house of representatives. the commission on communication standards. the communication standards commission. the second recommendation and you will remember this is an alternative to the first is that we have a select committee on the modernization congress. i agree with my colleague's

committee has done such a stellar work and it would be nice to have a permanent organization does like it. provide a model and pathway for other committees to see when he issues explore by members who do not agree but are speaking to find common solutions. the makeup of this bipartisan committee brings together key committees will have directors over operations. -- which have directors over operations. this needs to continue and will support a modernization effort. my third recommendation is to create a permanent task force in addition to a member-based solution. an add-on. using the data task force as a model, made up of non-partisan staff. the office of the chief

administrative officer, the office of diversity and inclusion, the clerk's office and others, by pulling together professional staff were able to step across congresses, members would have an expert resource on modernization to vote and implement existing recommendations and develop new recommendations on an ongoing basis. the fourth recommendation is to pursue a joint committee on modernization of congress. ideally, modernization of congress would include all of congress. [inaudible] >> sorry. my apologies. the cohort supports creation of a joint committee on the modernization of congress. we should be exploring that goal in the long term and we can take on larger issues like budget

reform which would help congress regain its strength and footing as the first branch of government. i want to thank you again for inviting me to testify and i also want to thank you most sincerely for allowing this community of civil society organizations to be instrumental in the modernization efforts. we applaud the strong leadership , service, a result of the work of this committee and we are grateful that this committee has been willing to stand by congress and this institution and we wholeheartedly support that effort. thank you again and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you ms. hill and dui for your partnership and the partnership of the cohort -- thank you for your partnership and the partnership of the cohort. any member who wishes to speak should signal their intent. i will be here the whole time. i will let you go first. both may have to leave.

i do not know if our members have been elevated to participant on zoom. ms. williams,? -- ms. williams? >>, is great leadership. he will be here the entire time. we like to come in and out which makes congress functional, of course. [laughter] i raise my hand first. i appreciate your leadership. >> i appreciate your speed! >> in all seriousness, as somebody who has been on this select committee sent its inception -- since its inception and positive role in house administration. what derek has done over the last two congresses is miraculous. you have been able to really drive bipartisan message of success. we have tremendous success.

in the last congress and this congress, recommendations being implemented through this process. you have the leadership derek had in the majority give the vice chair and the vice chair timmons equal status. it is unheard of. it is your students, that is what they think congress is about. as we all know, it is not congress. that is due to your leadership, it would have been driven by a chair. i would have done an exceptionally mediocre job. i do want to say, the recommendations and plummeted throughout the committee process cannot be overstated. -- the recommendations recommended throughout the

committee process cannot be overstated. we have slowly moved ahead. we cannot stop. i am interested in the recommendations of how to extend this process. joe kilmer -- derek kilmer knows chair kilmer knows where i stand. they permanent subcommittee -- a permanent subcommittee on making this institution better. that is the standing committee, the house that should be focused on making this institution better. we hear what our pie in the sky discussions. we could do that through joint interaction with the senate rules committee. let us make sure that we highlight the fact that they

discussions and the debates we have here have got to continue. i not going to continue. -- i am not going to continue. it will be up to you in the institution to make sure that the great work these folks have put in and the staff have put in is not forgotten. i would like to see and look as we plan ahead to the majority and i laid out my priorities to my folks and my successors. that would create a subcommittee. a modernization within the committee of house administration. i hope to populate massive committee. -- populate that house committee. that means we have to have continued focus on members on this subcommittee who may want to engage. members of the house administration. you can actually get a lot of

these recommendations. sitting, waiting to be implemented. walking through is gone. this will be more contentious. the committee process is a place to work it out. catherine, want to thank you and your team in implementing a lot of our recommendations over the last 3.5 years. i have worked with you as a staffer and i worked with your operation as a staffer years ago. you know i have my opinions on where things should be technologically. you are moving in that direction. in spite of having john in the corner as part of your team, hello john! >> he is taking a shot at everybody! >> i would not say that if i did not love you! in all seriousness. you know better than most, how difficult it can be to have a house administration committee. pulling your team in different

directions. let us say there is a subcommittee of modernization in house administration. is it easier than having a single point of contact through the committee to be able to focus on committee recommendations? do you think a better set up could exist? >> i think that certainly is beneficial to us. as long as everyone is supporting the recommendations that are being made. i think that there has to be some type of structure there great i agree with you. we have to know where to take our direction from overall. i worked closely with the house committee on administration, we work fully with you. i think going forward, the most

important thing you have done quite frankly is given us the ability to get the information and direction that we need on some of these recommendations. to be able to implement them. one of the primary things and any type of project you have tried to do is making sure that your stakeholders are actively engaged in what you are doing. if you do not have that, it is very hard to get anything done. quite frankly, i believe one of the regions over the years -- reasons over the years we have had not always proved successful in delivering solutions is because we did not have that contact. we did not have individuals

behind us, helping us, championing us to move forward. however it is organized, we need that support. going forward. >> you need that support and i will end with this. this place set up to have a structure for final decisions. this committee is great and the problem is there is a next step. of the house administration has to prove those recommendations . it allows you and your teams to be able to know what their final direction is. we can have a discussion and debate on what will work on the committee modernization. we can do the same things here. when it comes time for a vote, when the boat is had, the decision is final, you and your

team know which direction you have. that is the best way we can move this institution forward and get the right ideas into house operations. i want to say thanks, it has been a pleasure. i am humbled by the opportunity to be able to play a small role in making this place better. i know that as we move on, there will be a tremendous amount of activity of people who are more interested in making congress work, although the work you are doing and even -- i want to say to my colleagues, who have been a part of this, you guys are the future, the ones who have to continue what we started here and i am always here to offer advice. we are watching. i am proud of each and every one of you and thank you for giving me the opportunity to serve with you. >> we have a member on by zoom.

>> thank you very much. i had a few comments. i think the committee has performed a useful function for our democracy by suggesting ways to systematically improve the way that congress functions. we have done that in a collaborative fashion, in a bipartisan fashion, it makes us even better. i would also like to thank our staff, the staff of the housing demonstration committee and the modernization committee have worked together very collaboratively. it has been seamless. throughout this process. as the chair in the committee knows we have made recommendations in the modernization committee, we have been able to implement and we have avoided a final report, we have gone ahead to implement any other recommendations and some

of them were in the works as modernization committee was working. obviously, the house administration committee has the primary jurisdiction over the operations of the house. is not the only committee that could have jurisdiction over some of the things that we are looking at. the budget committee, it comes to mind. a very large challenge to see how that may be approved 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 promising work we have achieved this year does not get lost. that we continue in our efforts whether it is in the house demonstration committee or other formats. we need to have a discussion not only on this committee but in the broader body. that is the best way to proceed.

it is valuable. i think the leadership shown by yourself and the ranking member really stands out as helping the whole community be successful and with that i do not have additional questions, but i do thank you for recognizing me and for the service you have provided along with all of the other members. i yield back. >> thank you. next up is ms. van dyck. >> thank you. >> see how cooperative we are? good morning. i know that mr. simmons is going to talk with you a lot about this when he gets to his questions but this calendar that you talked about rolling out, the digitized calendars, that would help with the conflicts in schedule in congress.

i am wondering why i'm not in this as well, we had this committee hearing and it never fails every week that we have committee hearings that i either had this hearing along with another hearing date it was music to my ears reading your remarks and saying that there was a plan to roll out calendars that could de-conflict the committee schedules. what is the timeline for something like that? >> i will tell you it is on our to do list. our digital service which is taking that over to develop is looking into it. they do not have the project plan together of what they think is going to be the way in which they will do that. the digital service team was kicked off in february and we

have spent a number of months pulling together a team that could concentrate on having that one-on-one relationship with those individuals who are interested in the particular initiative. along with a number of others. they are looking into it. i can certainly provide updates on ongoing basis, we are excited that is something that -- mr. davis brought up to me some time ago, we think there is an opportunity where we are using some new development tools and code bases that we think will make this much easier to do. -- [indiscernible] we are looking into what this means and they are going to need to work with the clerks organization as well to give us

a chance to work with them and be able to get some of the information and everything that they need. we have a good working relationship with them. >> we are not at a rollout stage yet is what i am hearing? >> i wish i could say that we were but we are in the early stages of coming together what that will look like and how it is going to work and then reusing agile processes which allows you to go in and start from early development on and do some small steps to get something up and working, have individuals working with your staff and others to get individuals to look at what we are doing and then develop it. we will get you a schedule as soon as we have one that is prepared, we are prepared to tell you about it. that is what we are moving

forward with. >> i want to call on ms. van dyck. i think it was the policy center who had a draft example of what a block scheduling would look like. i do not think thatde-conflicts everything -- that de-conflicts everything, but it is a start. your office looks into that. i commend you to look into that as a starting point. >> i appreciate the fact that you have a question on this committee. we -- i do not want to say we get the leftovers because that sounds bad but you know what i mean. we have a number of committees we are on, a number of subcommittees, we are on

multiple committees, the less committees, offices. how many committees are there? dominique subcommittees are there -- how many subcommittees are there? there seems to be once we do not know about, do we have the official number of committees and subcommittees? >> i am sure that there is an official number but i do not know. i looked through the cao website all of the time and health.gov and looking at all of the listings of the committees and everything but with the subcommittee, i cannot tell you. >> that is how far off we are from actually rolling this out? looking at this from a cost perspective, we could have colleges that have tens of thousands of students and probably equal number of classes and figure out they are not

overlap, we should be able to do it in congress. not only are we fighting with scheduling but orientation is ultimately important. we have another class coming in on. we came in a unique year, it was covid, we were separated and everybody wore masks. we do not have events. we also were separated from the beginning. you had the republicans with their orientation and it was a chance we could have met all members that were coming in. all of our class had done events together. it would have been really great. your point on not having bills and being rank-and-file and not knowing what we are voting on? not just rank-and-file. a lot of times we are not getting bills until literally hours before we are expected to vote on them. there are multiple hundred pages.

this could not work this way, the government should not work that way. you will have sites on leadership from that because they are adding details up until the very moment that they come out. how we can fix it, i do not know. 72 hour mark, it takes a small handful to override those rules. but eventually just suggesting ideas, but hard fast rules we can count on in regardless of the party you are in. it would be helpful. i have a question on cao. how many resumes are we getting? have you seen a decrease in the number of resumes? or an increase? how is that working? >> for staff? >> capitol hill staff? >> we have just started the resume bank that would allow

staffers and anyone interested in a staff decision to be sent to us to be added for the resume bank. it was in the cao, most of all of our recruiting is within the cao and sergeant bardsley. the hr department. also for the clerk, if they need anything. i really know for the cao, the number of resumes we get in, for the member offices, i could not tell you. >> i am asking that question because i'm across the board and every single sector, labor shortages have been an issue on my colleagues, that has been an issue in getting resumes into the office. you have to pay more and keep people. we will never or an should we

ever strive to compete with the private sector on pay. i think what we are able to give in experience and being a market differentiator on a resume is incredibly valuable. when we look at everything with how much are you paying on -- we are running into problems. my colleagues have problems with people applying for positions in their office? the district, without a doubt. on capitol hill? >> when we started the resume bank which was our opportunity to give the member offices a chance to review resumes of people who may be interested and staff decisions within the offices. within the first week we had over 2000 submitted. i know that subsequent weeks we got more than thousands of resumes. we hope that is at least an

opportunity for people to provide resumes that they can go through and have access to the resume bank and look at to see if there is someone there that would be a really good candidate for their office. >> thank you. >> i know mr. cleavers is in an markup. >> thank you mr. chairman. financial services, homeland security, is security which is on the floor of the run down here and there are some member stuff, members so that they can text me, when they need me to come upstairs for a vote. i think that is absolutely

embarrassing for the united states of america to have a political body where all of the committees and literally be scheduled at the same time and i want to add my comments to those who are here earlier. the college analogy may make some sense. , it does make sense. the difference in the congress is -- it does make sense, the difference is in congress is you enroll in two classes, you are at the same time. maybe it will take more time but that is what we need to do. during a certain period of time we ought to plan with the leadership and the bodies that make recommendations on which

committee we sit on, we may need to speak early on when we are here. we accept the fact and i think it is bad for our image, people see people leaving and -- i mean to the public, they do not see you at the meeting. having to leave early. watching c-span or in the committee hearing room, they do not know how dumb this is. i think one of the things we need to flirt with is something in the history, or are to be some kind of period when we first get here at the beginning of each session. we can enroll or you can figure

it out. i cannot do that part but i know that that part needs to be done. my final comment because i think we can live and love. when a group of people on here who actually want to make the place run better and smoothly and i do not know if we could have gotten better, vice chairs. as i said to the chairman publicly, this has been amazing. i have been told someone is leaving and i get over there. the other parts of this are really troublesome.

anyway, thank you mr. chairman, i will go back. >> thank you great for those watching c-span, what he means is not that he does not care about the work of our committees, but that he has two top with homeland security. i hope you are watching. >> i want to point something out really quick. he has three hearings right now because it is likely he will not be here on friday. because of that, that makes tomorrow the last day. he flew in last night and we got here at 6:30. we could be leaving tomorrow, who knows? the committees know that. they are scheduling everything right now. i was talk about the 2019 calendars -- i always talk about the 2019 calendar. 65 full days over 32 weeks.

an average of two days a week. when you are here two days a week, you may be losing a day because something happened on the calendar. you are going to have conflicts. we are thinking about the calendar and scheduling and the conflicting everything -- and de-conflicting, having a more set in stone schedule is the most important part of the equation. i have more thoughts and everything else but i will yield back. >>. . thank you. >> it only takes a few days that there is a bias against cooperation and improvement and i will offer it is not just a competitive risk to the united states of america but a financial security risk and that is why i believe this room and

the work we are doing being the most important work in the united states congress. i believe this committee is the most important and it saddens me that a metaphor for what is going on in our country and around the world and the most important work is ignored or dismissed or underappreciated as some of the most trivial and unimportant is elevated in appropriate ways. i want to celebrate both my tears and colleagues and the staff of this committee -- both my chairs and colleagues and the staff of this committee. it has restored some of my own faith in the u.s. congress and our country. want to celebrate all of this for a minute. that is why i thank you. my proposition is to encourage working together and making propositions for the next house rules package. some of this can go to regular

order, we know how complicated that is. there is an absence in regular order. we should put together recommendations to whoever will lead congress and provide health rules to implement some of these and the advantage of a of modernization is the great appreciation for house surveys and conservation of what works and progressing on the issues in the areas we can do better. restaurants with changing the house rules package. i would encourage all of us to speak with leadership to ensure that they elevate people who are mindful. without leadership, i do not think any of us will be successful. my question to you is a simple one, if you wave a magic wand, based on this conversation and your own recommendations, what

is your most important of all of the propositions, especially you, ms. hill, what do you think we should do singularly to take the next step? >> >> i have wanted that one for a long time. your lead up is exactly where i would start and have a discussion about how the committee continues, there is poster cons to each. the rules package is the ticket. at the beginning of congress, not many people pay attention to it, for a lot of you, it is an opportunity and you can make serious institutional changes with a singular boat at the beginning -- vote at the beginning. it is an effective vehicle for this committee in particular. going back to the idea of the house of administration, get the logic of using that as the most

logical place for these recommendations. i urge you to think about it. the subsidence -- the changes in putting it in a place like that. people who got frustrated with leadership centralization. the downside is that you are still subject to leadership practice that have access to the floor that is limited in the same way that a lot of other subcommittees are. to me, it seems like the house of administration idea is to implement what has already been recommended. a great place for it. it is where the jurisdiction lies and it is implementation of the recommendation. the big, substantive things you -- the non-low hanging fruit, the big institutional changes --, i am a huge champion of

using the rules package to make something bigger. the lack of attention, it is an opportunity that not many people take advantage of. there is a way to set this up likely permanent select committee. you create this independence. it is the key point, funding independence, procedural independence you will not get in a subcommittee. this will not be available to you. the management opens up the opportunity for institutional change and then it comes down to members. it does and always will in an institution. these are member lead decisions. the idea that chairman, it will take a step back and recognize someone four seats down, that is a decision. you cannot write that into procedure or legislate behavior, that is leadership by example. simple, small things.

the feedback loop of that is infinite. the rules package is my magic wand, it opens up the most opportunities for institutional change. there is way more to do. >> i have to say that i am grateful as a member of the cohort that i am a coordinator and i have the expertise in the issues i do not have, if i had a magic wand, what i would do is start with the last point he made, i would renew his select committee and i would renew it with the spirit which is started four years ago to provide the energy and drive and take all of the things that have been done so far and had the recommendations and implement it. i would give the committee more time and out open the ears of the senate quite honestly. the work we have to do over there from congress and the

difference we can make if both chambers work together would go a long way in renewing congress and giving us a stronger footing. i do not pretend to be an expert. michael is bringing people together -- my goal is bringing people together. how they behave matter out of this committee works well in part when it sees all of the members working together. you both bring such a strong leadership to this effort and you open the door across committees. we need to see more of that and if we could have a committee that kind of mottled and continue to model that behavior, one of the reasons that is so important is that committees do not have that option now. they do not see that model. they do not have anywhere else to go. you can see from my bio that i started years ago in the 80's.

i worked on the hill. i started with 1989 and a congresswoman. there would not allow us to have computers, we had electronic typewriters until today, how we can live stream and town hall meetings, incredible difference. we need members that can lean into that and love it and embrace it in a way that you do. >> in 20, i was handed a pager -- in 2019 i was handed a pager. i want to thank my chairs and my staff. it is how we are doing work. that start with leadership and i'm grateful to all of you. >> you said you have more? could you emphasize on that?

>> one of the things that you have done well and it worked so hard on is willing recommendations and i'll have them available -- and have them available and implementing them. the select committee had more and a stronger way to do implementation, i am thinking of some kind of mechanism, ms. spencer talks about needing strong direction in terms of what they can accomplish and the strong direction can come from select committee working hand-in-hand with the committee on house administration if there is a mechanism built in to help do that. i think the energy to make the change comes from the select committee. that is in my view. i know that the professional

staff and how administration and the members, not that they do not want to make change, it is that sometimes other issues they're having to deal with. there is a way to influx of those two, i would think that would be a really good idea. >> thank you. >> i want to thank the committee and you for allowing us to visit the european union and parliament last week. we had a fantastic trip. i think we will bring a lot of fruit to bear. in terms of suggestions that we had, and have, modernizing and improving the way that this place functions. i look at other contrasting parallels and legislative bodies. legislature is attention -- a

tension that you have between parents and tradition. there are a modulator spectrum. -- there is a modulator spectrum. we are not doing things wrong, we are taking their suggestions. the rules package is the place to start. probably in 2020, for me, the three most important takes in my career, the state 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 codes i have

taken out of thousands -- votes i have taken out of thousands of votes. as you said, administration has to implement it but the rules package can establish where you are going with it. luckily, we have a vice chair and leading the trip we had a member of the rules committee and we had a staff from the house administration to be able to look at what things can be done. this committee has been looking really in four areas. campus, member relationships, and how we relate to the institution. i agree with mr. phillips, i disagree -- i agree -- we need to make sure that this house is

as equal to the other branches of government, if not more equal, sector and two other countries, we do not need to just hamstring ourselves. for whatever reason. one other place i disagree and i want to talk about one recommendation, one other place it disagree with her and i will say it is very important and as a body, we are competitive with the private sector. just because i can go hire somebody does not mean that they provide services to the community that need to be done. people learn that if you are working for 1989, you do not know anything. you were there and you learn,

then, if you stay, you provide services to the people that you represent. the intention is key and we have a vice chair. he has been so focused on making sure that we have put personnel and staff and we retain staff. i do agree and it was van dyne along with the health administration that gave me an idea about orientation. one of the things we are talking about that he has talked about is rank-and-file members, we feel a little disenfranchised or we have lost. we want to be more empowered so that the individual member is more empowered. one of the places, a freshman

coming in, he just won an election. people are coming at you from all directions. you go to orientation and we had a joint orientation that lasted three days and you do not know have 50 questions to ask. -- half of the questions to ask. you split the parties, a three-day orientation or three days. the suggestion i will make that i think is a good one is that later on, maybe nine months out, or a year out, the freshman class has got their feet under them, they start having an idea of the questions to ask. there would be a second orientation. again, it builds across the party lines and a class identity. as well as being able to ask and answer questions.

you do not know what questions to ask. have a better idea. that came from aubrey and then also the woman who runs the house of congress. they suffered under covid just as we did and their new members cannot be oriented in a way that allowed them to really understand when votes would be. we made improvements in the technology side and we have made a lot of improvements on personnel. he could have been on the trip, he could have seen things that were more user-friendly that these other parliament and parts you had. the member colleagues scheduling things and all of that, empowering members. i will leave back to smarter

people from me and i thank you for allowing me to be a part of this. >> thank you. thank you for all you contribute to our committee. he will hit all the questions i will ask you to. or most of them. >> we have been working together too long. i am not leaving. >> sure you are not! >> you are probably sick and tired of me. i can see arguments to try to extend the select committee. . i think we were extremely fortunate to get four years. we were only supposed to get 12 months which was only eight months given the fact that between the calendar and we did not get up and running until march.

i think we have made a lot of great recommendations and a lot of progress. i do think that there is a lot of ground in the subcommittee. i do, i am not sure that there is consensus on this idea. we have run into a couple of things. right now, there is only one republican on each of the subcommittees. i do not think that the subcommittee should have disparate numbers. it ultimately focuses on implementation of previous recommendations of the select committee and separation of the neck committee it would work closely with next select committee in um it would work closely with partners cohort and and thus and such. so i mean, the question then

becomes how often do we need a select committee? i think everybody agrees. it's not every 30 years. um so then is it every three is every four is every five congresses. um you know, i'm not sure the answer for that but i think we can probably find some consensus for it. and i think the beauty of this structure, the subcommittee would be focusing on implementation and on preparation. so when the next select committee comes around we hit the ground running, the select committee is just ready to go. most of the staff has already hired. there's already been a lot of sudo here. i'm not sure if you call it a hearing but i mean they're they're readying material for the select committee and so it could ideally operate within two years and and get it done. this is another weird idea. um space shows value. so i mean if this is something we're serious about i think it should have its own office space and it should it should go from a subcommittee to the select committee and it could just be its own space. and we could actually maybe get a round table. and the eu and the uk literally

everybody is well the you had -- eu had roundtables of u.k. had a much better setup than this. um that was a much more productive set up. but again i mean if this is something that is important i think it is i think finding a way to create um continuity is has value. um yeah i really do think that having that set up going from a subcommittee to the select committee back and forth with three or four or five congresses in between would allow the planning to occur prior to the select committee to so the select committee can really just hit the ground running and and maximize its use of time. so i'll just put that back to what thoughts do you have on all of that. what do you think? >> i think you have some very good ideas about that.

um from my perspective, i just want to make sure that for my myself and my staff we are we're 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're going to move forward with things that is what is a need that my department has. so however, is structured as long whether it's going through the house committee on 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 because we do a lot of the prioritization ourselves. we have been traditionally sitting down with both sides of the house committee on administration. after talking to you and reviewing those initiatives that we're gonna be moving forward with. so we we just need the assistance and the information and i do agree that uh to make it a full recommendation that we can understand having the bipartisan perspectives of having enough of the bible, -- bipartisan individuals providing us information from a data gathering perspective and planning of our projects. it's extremely beneficial. so thank you.

>> as with almost everything here we have to answer your question with a question, depends on what your goals are. historically there has been several types from minimally successful to overwhelmingly successful. the goals are different from the outset. your point about the membership being imported, particularly on the minority side, one minority representative on the subcommittee. you can imagine, if they are not present how overrun they could be. even then you are still subject to the full committee presentation. it would still be limiting what you can do. in terms of the question of how often a select committee or some version of this committee is necessary. i think is important to point out that this committee started,

behind the eight ball in a couple of different ways. it had been a long time since the previous one was minimally successful. she had a bunch of leg work to do to catch up to what had been missing then. then the time period, the subject of the time period since that previous committee to now. it has the biggest change every scene most every single variable you can think of. technology included. so you had more to do because more had changed and that pace of change isn't slowing down anytime soon either. so to to try to systematize in five congresses from now, those each period of of those five congresses, those 10 year periods are not going to be equal, it's going you're going to basically trying to fix what the last committee left behind and try to make up for. so if your goal is to proactively change the institution, it's gotta be permanent. if your goal is to retroactively change what went wrong or what was left over then, the systematized every so often can

can serve that purpose. um just as you mentioned, the space equals value. that's absolutely true from parking spaces to to committee room space. so does permanence, so does permanence, it sets a tone, it sets a message, it sends a message that this is not um intervally 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 that we haven't been in a long, long time. that permanent speaks to the moment of now. um, that only then can you start to talk about the, the, the non low hanging fruit, the civility, the ones that are tearing us out at our seems the permanence of committee like that to say nothing of the independence that you can set up to, to make those those changes, the teeth that you talk about access to the floor permanence in stature that we don't just have to wait you out or wait your recommendations out. um, your independent funding streams, your permanent office space, all of those speak to the

importance of the moment. and i think there's no more important moment than now to get out the kinds of questions that i think you are trying to get at . >> i would agree with dr bergen again. um, no surprise on that. and what i've heard from you today from members here, um, is that uh, just modernization. as a matter of course, over time waiting for extended periods isn't an option, right? that's one thing. and that this is the most important work going on in congress today, making sure that everything 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 our genesis and the reason we came about was to help the executive branch. the reason that we're here today is because we understand how vitally important congresses to making the executive branch

healthy. um, and that's why i've spent the last four years at the partnership working on this very issue, i don't think. um, and i speak for myself, i have not put this question out to the cohort or received any kind of how often it should be. um, but if you think it's a periodic time every two years, every four years, i can see a cycle vice chair timmins um where we now have almost 200 recommendations. right? so to take and and that's why we i framed my testimony in the way that i did um to take the next two years and put a primary focus on implementing those recommendations makes a good deal of sense. but in that time frame you need to still be looking at what needs to be changed next. if we look at all the changes that can occur in a two year period and you guys have worked through the most difficult of those times, there's just so much more coming at us today than ever before. i think we need to be prepared

for the change. so i think we we might cycle in that way to implement for a couple of years while still looking um at possible modernization, waste things that we need to do. and then two years after that we go hard at making new recommendations on how to implement those. derek: i think there's a country song that uses the lyric. how can i miss you when you won't go away. um and i'm conscious that there's a little bit of that dynamic with this committee and that it was established for a year. and then here we still are. if you had asked me prior to this hearing, sort of what i would do, i think i would set up a subcommittee on house admin. haven't checked with the leaders of house admin about how they feel about that yet, but um that's probably what i would do and i would probably make it equal members and have them focus on implementation.

and i would probably have our committee make a recommendation in that regard. and i would probably have us make a recommendation to say every three or four congresses, there ought to be something established to look at ongoing uh institutional improvement. >> they make a decent point for keeping it rolling. having said that the outcome it begs the question, other than focusing on implementation, that is where house admin and house rules, the bulk of the work will happen through them. what other,, you said your deck -- doctor your students want to do focus on how you empower rank-and-file members. you are setting a work plan for select committee that got renewed next congress. what would you work on?

>> incentivizing legislating almost and with legislating incentivizing bipartisan oversight. um, the problem there is that now you're involving incentive structures fully outside the chamber, right from how elections are run to how districts are drawn to the types of members that you're gonna get here, including this next freshman clthere's going to be ones that ran diametrically opposed to the institution and one because of it. 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. um, but in terms of getting the ones, not everyone's like that, not everyone's the flamethrower. and i think that you in conversations, you can you can kind of discern who's, who has some sort of issue, um, that

they want to to get advanced. the problem is, is that if they are told from the day they get here, the access is only through a very few types of, of, of ways to get implemented your legislative text, not every member cares about every bill, nor should they, but there should be a reasonable path, including on the minority side, a reasonable path that you know, that your work will pay off. um, it may not include a lobbying past, but just a vote, just a mark up, just a debate, just an amendment. those are ways that you will think twice about burning the bridge that you might have otherwise done. and i think that anything that you can do to incentivize that through rules through and it's always committees always has been committees and it always starts with the chair and ranking member setting those standards offering those past two. -- path to legislative productivity. is is the be all end all for me?

>> am i on now. thank you for your question. um i think one of the things that i would look at, i would look at um continue to look at the staffing issues that we're currently looking at as i was listening to dr bernard's testimony. i think those students that are in his classes that want those changes are our future, right? and they're not just our future as staffers and staffing, but they're our future as members. and when they enter that the institution as we know is going to have to happen. right, demographics are on their side. um what we we need to be prepared for that. and those are some of the issues that we need to be considering. how how do we make sure that as members enter um they're prepared to serve their constituents, they're prepared to reach out in the ways that they need to be able to do that, right. and and again, i think one of the recommendations i would urge you to make is that we do um begin to have talks with the senate not even begin but before

a joint select committee. um so that 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. eye to eye cut -- i too chari -- chair kilmer agree with you about the committee on house administration may be a very good place to be doing that now. and i have to say that i 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 these serious modernization issues in a real manner quickly. >> would you do it every three congress? >> 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 and then as the conditions arise, jump to it and necessary conditions arise.

>> yeah. it's funny the i've thought a lot about this, right? and chris from roll call, thank you for being here that um he asked you know, so what did what did the committee not take up that you wish it had. and so i've spent a lot of time thinking about this and a lot of it's either things outside of our jurisdiction or things where it's tricky to get two thirds vote right? i mean if you ask me some of the things that are broken in congress, i would say, you know, the role of money, the, uh, way district boundaries are drawn and the way members are selected through primaries probably drive a lot of the kind of conflict entrepreneurship that you see within the institution. i'm not sure, but select committee now, next year in the future is likely to take up those issues. i probably argue. cable news and social media also contribute. i don't even know where to start on that and i'm not certain it's something that a committee like this could work on, but maybe it could, i don't know. um, but certainly something i've, i've been chewing on as this, you know, at least as, as

we sprint to the last four months of this. um, i actually also think that one of the things that makes tricky this issue around schedule is the difference between where we are and um, where colleges, people are already enrolled in their class, right? you've got members who are already on committee. and so deconflicting even the challenge of block scheduling is, you might ask you're either , putting someone in the position of having conflict or having to give something up. nobody wants to give something up when they've accrued seniority. and so that, that does make it a little bit tricky. um, i think we could deconflict it more than it is right now. and so i'm really pleased to hear that the ceo is working on that. i think we need some help and the sooner the better because as we roll into the next congress, we're just going to have the exact same dynamic as you saw in this committee where members are in three hearings at the same time. so i think that's really important. i also, miss bender, i wanted to get a just getting a sense of

how you and your office tracks implementation of the recommendations that fall under your jurisdiction. you know, do you have a checklist that you work off of? or is it more ad hoc based on what members of your team have sort of prioritized in front burnered. give us direction. i mean i actually think we i'm gonna make a statement and you may disagree with it. like i think we got better at working with your office over time just trying to vet things in terms of okay, here's what we're actually thinking about. how could we word this in a way that's more implemented. but give us some direction as we make recommendations to future reform efforts. how might we best work with you on implementation going forward? >> well, the answer is yes, i have many lists but and those of my staff that are watching no, i uh i am a very old project manager for many days back and i believe in planning and then

executing the plan and having expectations that you meet. so we do have a list. we we use a product called, click up to track our projects and 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 that we have, the modernization initiatives that we're working on. our part of that. i asked questions about where we are. it tracks this tool, tracks the the any issues that we're finding with that particular initiative. it tracks who the primary support person is for that initiative. so um is built into me to have um tools that i can use to

understand at any point in time where initiative may not be doing too well and maybe we need to talk about it. maybe we need to add additional resources. maybe we need to look at what we're, what the funds are that we're actually allowing that individual to use to bring in some additional help. so i have, we have a list, it's maintained, it's reviewed. it is the list that i review with the chiefs of staff and other members of the cha. so um we we have all of your projects that you have requested that i've talked about. my testimony uh listed there. do you mind if i ask you a question? >> sure. we are a weird committee. so sure. >> we are trying to be more informal.

i'm listening to a lot of the things about the timing and um how often some type of committee and some forms should meet and everything being in technology. i know how rapidly everything changes and i i just want to make sure that and it's things nobody, we all know how things have changed in the past couple of years. okay. so, how do we really maintain this momentum? we have all of these initiatives you have really only come up with and you are working on. it could be tomorrow, next week or next month. something significant could come up that would require us to focus on that.

maybe have to push some of these things to the background. it is almost like every month there is something else coming out. how do we, stay current? i think that is the question i am asking. given the rapid change in our environment. in technology, staffing, everything going on this world without there being some consistency along the road. if we are looking at extending anything with this committee. >> i think each of you testified to the value of having these topics sit somewhere permanently, right? and i think the subcommittee on house admin, particularly in terms of the engagement with your office is probably a good place to do it. i again say that without having talked to jerry lofgren about that, but i have talked to ranking member davis of the house admin committee. i think he thinks that's a good idea has been pretty vocal about that.

but i i do think there's value in having some subcommittee or committee going to bed every night, thinking about how are we working on implementation, waking up every morning focused on implementation. i also take to heart the comments that have made about, you know, the need to continue engaging on these issues as as issues come up. i just my senses, particularly since this um this select committee was extended 2 4 times the link that was initially -- the lenght it was initially patient. i'm just not sure it's like a likely outcome that would be made permanent. to me, catherine szpindor -- the next best thing is our committee making a recommendation to say no more than, you know, or or no less frequently than every three or four congress is the other thing i've thought about. and i don't know, miss hill, i'm actually kind of curious what

the future of the cohort looks like. um particularly if this committee expires. one thought that i've had also we haven't talked about this, but, again we are informal. you could establish a fix congress congress. people will self select. it is easier to engage on these issues when people want to improve the situation. in the interim between expiration of this committee and the new committee popping up. the challenges you know, that's , only as good as the members of the caucus are committed to the work of the caucus, right? so you almost want to make sure that there's either want to staff it. you know, either either want to have members actually put some go up to higher uh, someone to run the show or dedicate a certain amount of their staff time to the work of that. i don't know.

i don't know your reaction to that. and again, i am curious if we set up something like that. does that make more likely the continued engagement of the cohort? >> i think uh, let me just take , a step back for a minute because the cohort is an interesting mix of of the 45 organizations, there are some um who can lobby, there are some who can't, so um, some of those who can't provide. i just, i want to give you this background, some of those who can't provide expertise and guidance and they um feel very strongly that it's and we all do. i think it's important to keep the cohort strong right? and so we're in the process of determining how best to do that as this committee sunsets. um, but my impression as we've gone through this year because we've started to talk about it

early on in the year, just like my testimony today, we started to talk about this process way back in february. um at which point we went through some discussions and thank you to vice chair timmins. um and your stated purpose of we're gonna run to the wire. we put that on the back shelf, however, we haven't put on the back shelf the idea of, do we stay together. for years ago there were members of a smaller core hurt -- cohort. they came together two years ago um when we weren't sure that the select committee was going to be extended. it was a wonderful moment, i think for the entire cohort as we were then able to sit around a table um to gauge the closeness that we had and the trust that we had in each other and how we've grown. um and that only has increased over the last two years. and what happens for us is you've witnessed with the uh civility and collaboration

working group that we had and the civic engagement working group. we not only pull 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 of the cohort, whether that's the bridging community or others who are extremely interested in the same, same issues. so i don't see the cohort going away, i see the cohort as continuing. um and i am not sure what, that, you know, how we'll set that up. we're working on that now, but i think it's it's important that, you know, whoever is working on this issue of modernization, that there is a strong contingent outside of congress that's very engaged on these issues and they care deeply about them. >> i really appreciate that. that's probably a good point on which to end this discussion. unless anyone has anything burning that they didn't share that they want to. okay. uh with that, i'd like to thank our witnesses for their

testimony today, and i'd like to thank our committee members for their participation. um i'd like to thank c span for being here. thank you. um uh and for chris thank you for showing up and um following the work of our committee uh we are clearly a viral phenomenon at this point. >> i also just want to shout out the staff of our committee um for the great work that they do setting up amazing hearings. this being our last one. um i wanna just applaud their uh excellent work and setting this up, we can literally applaud them if you're up for it. [applause] we're not done. we've got a bunch of recommendations we still have to make. and so i'm gonna save my um vicious attacks on rodney davis until we get through those uh that mark up. um uh and my gratitude to the rest of the committee to i intend to uh reserve for that, but um so without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to

the chair, which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response. i ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you are able that objection. all members will have five legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials to the chair for inclusion in the record, and with that, this hearing is adjourned. thanks everybody. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]