[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CONGRESSIONAL MODERNIZATION: A ROADMAP
FOR THE FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-23
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Modernization of
Congress
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-592 WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS
DEREK KILMER, Washington, Chair
ZOE LOFGREN, California WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina,
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri Vice Chair
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado BOB LATTA, Ohio
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia DAVE JOYCE, Ohio
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
COMMITTEE STAFF
Yuri Beckelman, Staff Director
Derek Harley, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Chairman Derek Kilmer
Oral Statement............................................. 1
Vice Chairman William Timmons
Oral Statement............................................. 3
WITNESSES
The Honorable Catherine Szpindor, Chief Administrative Officer,
House of Representatives
Oral Statement............................................. 4
Written Statement.......................................... 7
Dr. Casey Burgat, Assistant Professor and Legislative Affairs
Program Director, The George Washington University
Oral Statement............................................. 14
Written Statement.......................................... 17
Ms. Diane Hill Senior Manager, Government Affairs, Partnership
for Public Service
Oral Statement............................................. 21
Written Statement.......................................... 24
Discussion....................................................... 29
CONGRESSIONAL MODERNIZATION: A ROADMAP FOR THE FUTURE
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress,
Washington, DC
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Derek Kilmer [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kilmer, Cleaver, Lofgren,
Perlmutter, Phillips, Williams, Timmons, Davis, Latta,
Reschenthaler, Van Duyne, and Joyce.
The Chairman. Okay. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess
of the committee at any time. I now recognize myself for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
So, back in March of 2019, this committee held its very
first hearing. The hearing's focus was on past reform efforts,
so 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 that this committee will soon be one
of those past reform efforts that we looked to for guidance and
inspiration just 3.5 years ago. My hope is that we have given
future reformers plenty to think about, not only in terms of
the recommendations that we have passed, but in terms of how we
have worked.
I can't emphasize enough how the processes and norms that
we have developed along the way have been key to our success as
a committee. I think that our work methods deserve just as much
attention as our work product. And I really hope future
reformers take note of that because more folks recognize that
it is possible for Democrats and Republicans to find areas of
agreement, to collaborate in good faith, and to produce results
on behalf of the American people the better.
One of the biggest lessons I have learned over the past 3.5
years is that if we want things to work differently, we 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
anything.
We didn't know if some of the things our committee tried
would work. We were willing to experiment and find out. In
fact, the reason that we are sitting here today in a roundtable
format where we can all look each other in the eye and engage
in substantive discussion is because the committee decided to
try something new.
Over 1 year ago, when the committee held its first
roundtable hearing, we had no idea how it would go, but we took
a chance and we haven't returned to the dais since, except when
we had technical difficulties one time.
Modernization requires the willingness to innovate, and
that is what this committee has done from day one. I recall
being at an Armed Forces Day dinner in my district a few years
back and sitting with a senior naval officer. And he said, how
is it going in Congress? And I said, man, it feels like trying
to turn a battleship. He said, well, Derek, I used to captain a
battleship. And he said, here is what I can tell you, targeted
and strategic course correction over time make a really big
difference.
I say that because change doesn't happen overnight,
especially in a place like Congress, but I think that the small
changes over time can lead to the kind of cultural shifts that
make a big difference. What started as a 1-year sprint for this
committee turned into a 4-year marathon, and I am grateful that
we were given the time to do the work necessary to create long-
term change. In fact, we are already seeing our hard work pay
off as more than half of our recommendations have either been
fully or partially implemented.
This success is due in no small part to the hard work of
the committee's implementation partners, including the CAO, who
is with us today. By working closely with the CAO, the House
Clerk, the Architect of the Capitol, among others, the
committee was able to draft workable recommendations that our
partners could successfully implement. This unique approach to
developing and implementing recommendations is another
committee innovation.
While some of our successes are already apparent, there is
a lot of work ahead, and it won't always be easy to determine
whether some of our recommendations made a difference.
Measuring success is tough when we lack the hard data we need
to confidently claim that something actually did what it was
supposed to do, but it is not impossible, and one of our
witnesses today is going to help us think creatively about how
to gauge the impact of our work over time.
I frequently made the point that modernization should
happen as a matter of course. Businesses and organizations
build innovation and process improvement into their operations
because they understand that evolving with the times is
necessary in order to remain relevant.
By relegating reform to something it does every few decades
or so, Congress is consistently playing catchup. Outdated
technology and processes slow the institution down, and that is
a disservice to the American people. There are, however, ways
Congress can make modernization an ongoing rather than
occasional effort, and one of our witnesses today is going to
present us with a few potential options for continuing the work
that this committee started.
The committee will use its--this is the wonky part. The
committee will use its rules that allow for a more flexible
hearing format that encourages discussion and the civil
exchange of ideas and opinions. So in accordance with clause
2(j) of House rule XI, we will allow up to 30 minutes of
extended questioning per witness and, without objection, time
will not be strictly segregated between the witnesses, which
will allow for extended back and forth exchanges between
members and the witnesses. Vice Chair Timmons and I will manage
the time to ensure that every member has a full opportunity to
participate.
Additionally, members who wish to claim their individual 5
minutes to question each witness pursuant to clause 2(j)(2) of
rule 11 will be permitted to do so following the period of----
Okay. With that out of the way, I would like to invite Vice
Chair Timmons to share some opening remarks as well.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, and thank you all for being with us. It
really has been a wild ride. Three and a half years ago, I was
appointed as the freshman on this committee, and I remember how
happy I was when Leader McCarthy's office called and told me
that. And Tom Graves had been a friend and mentor, and I was so
fortunate to spend a year and then 2 years under his leadership
and under the chairman's leadership.
And I watched them work together. I watched them 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 everything we
can to make this place as functional as possible.
So I was very pleased when the leader told me that I was
going to be the vice chair. He didn't really have a lot of
options. Everybody that was on the committee that was
Republican had left, and Rodney can't have more committee
assignments. It would be ridiculous to have his fifth or
sixth--I don't even know what number it would be. But I have
done everything I can to step into the shoes of Tom Graves. You
know, I always remark, his hair is so great that I knew I could
never live up to that. He just has the best head of hair.
But, you know, I did my best to continue the leadership
that this committee has had, and we were so fortunate to get a
full 2 years. And I think we have made the most of it. And we
have 4 months left, and we are going to 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 implemented. And while we will not
be here in January, how can we maximize the likelihood that all
of these recommendations get implemented.
I know that we all have some ideas on that, and that is
what we will be talking about, but I definitely think that this
shouldn't happen every couple decades, and I definitely think
that we shouldn't stop in January. So I look forward to hearing
you all's thoughts on that.
I will also remark, we just went on a congressional
delegation trip to Brussels and to London. And, you know, we
have--it was remarkable that--I actually think we are doing
okay after that trip. Not that the EU and the U.K. 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 4.5 hours away by
train to a different location to conduct their business, and I
just was like, wow. And I thought we had it tough in D.C.
But we learned a lot too. We learned a lot, and we are
hopefully going to make some recommendations from what we
learned from our parliaments in London and Brussels. So it was
a very productive trip.
I just want to say how--since this is the last hearing, I
just want to say that it has been an honor to work alongside
the chair. We have become friends, and I feel like we have made
an impact, and we are going to continue to work hard for the
next 4 months. And I can assure, as long as I am in Congress, I
will work until every one of these recommendations has been
fully implemented, and I think we agree on that.
So, Mr. Chairman, I just say, it has been an honor. Look
forward to the next 4 months, and I look forward to the hearing
here today.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. And appreciate your remarks and
appreciate the partnership. I will wait until we get to our
final markup before I say any valedictory remarks.
I want to welcome our guests, but before I do, I want to
welcome two particularly important guests today: Huck and
Charlie are with us. They are the kids of 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. And I told them, if things got boring, they should
just like make a bird noise and I will try to pick it up a
little bit. So--that was a joke though, Charlie, so don't
actually make a bird noise, okay?
All right. She gave me the nod.
So I now would like to welcome our three witnesses who are
here to share their thoughts on the future of modernization
within this institution. Witnesses are reminded that your
written statements will be made part of the record.
Our first witness is a frequent flyer with the committee. I
think you have now qualified for the free latte as well. We are
deeply grateful for her service and work with the committee.
Catherine Szpindor is the Chief Administrative Officer of
the House of Representatives. She has served in this role since
2020. Previously, she served as the CIO of the House.
In her role, Ms. Szpindor is responsible for providing
support services and business solutions to a community of
10,000 House Members, officers, and staff.
Ms. Szpindor, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE CATHERINE SZPINDOR, CHIEF
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WASHINGTON, DC; DR. CASEY BURGAT, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AND
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS PROGRAM DIRECTOR, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY; AND MS. DIANE HILL, SENIOR MANAGER, GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS, PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CATHERINE SZPINDOR
Ms. Szpindor. All right. Thank you very much.
Chairman Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons, and the members of the
Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, thank you
for this opportunity today and many opportunities we have 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 CAO staffers is actually 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 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 constitutional
duties.
Since January 2022, we have launched many new projects. I
am highlighting a few of those today.
The very successful CAO Coach 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, CAO Coach hosted 2,600 House staffers in
these sessions.
The CAO coaches and customer 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 unique to
the House and plan on continuing these offerings in the coming
year. This team serves as an effective method in communicating
CAO's 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 Resume Bank is providing offices an easier and
quicker way to find job candidates. Effective use of the Resume
Bank has led to requests from chiefs of staff for more
effective methods to attract diverse and talented applicants,
and we tend--we will deliver.
The House Digital Service team is committed to a ``build
with and not build for'' philosophy for stakeholders to ensure
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 leave tracking software for Member
offices; options for a legislative branchwide staff directory;
and a common committee calendar portal to help reduce schedule
conflicts.
The CAO is conducting research on replacement options and
cost estimates for a new House payroll system since the current
system is nearing end of life. Through this project, we will
modernize antiquated processes, automate manual procedures, and
improve the payroll experience. Also, this will be an
opportunity to consider transitioning to a more frequent pay
cycle for House employees, a recommendation by the select
committee.
The Office of Finance is piloting an application employing
electronic signatures to automate many of our administrative
forms. The new system launches soon and provides House offices
the ability to electronically prepare, approve, route, and
submit payroll transactions. These transactions are validated
in real time against House rules and regulations, providing
considerable time savings to that office.
To keep our promise to be ``Member focused, service
driven,'' the CAO adopted a new strategic plan that is focused
on understanding the needs of the Members and the 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 championed provides significant opportunity for the
House to continue to transform services.
Chairman Kilmer and Vice Chairman Timmons, the
modernization momentum you created propels us forward and 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.
[The statement of Ms. Szpindor follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Szpindor, for your testimony
and for your partnership.
Our next witness is Dr. Casey Burgat. In addition to being
the father of Huck and Charlie, Dr. Burgat is the director of
the Legislative Affairs program and assistant professor in the
Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington
University. He previously served as a senior governance fellow
at the R Street Institute, as well as an analyst with the
Congressional Research Service, and executive branch operations
in the Congress and judiciary sections.
Dr. Burgat, welcome. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. CASEY BURGAT
Mr. Burgat. Chair Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons, and members
of the select committee, thank you for the invitation to
testify this morning.
I like everyone here, I can imagine, followed the work of
your committee closely since its inception. I know I speak for
many in the reform community--Diane is going to echo this, I am
sure--that we applaud all of your leadership on all of these
topics, especially in these political circumstances. We applaud
not only the committee's robust productivity, but maybe even
more importantly, the example it has set about how it has gone
about its work. It has been civil, it has been purposefully
bipartisan, and it has been thorough. Thank you all for all
setting this example.
Right, 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, and including the impacts of your nearly
200 recommendations; and 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, thus, can be studied as such.
That part is easy. The impacts of increasing staff pay,
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. Goals such as encouraging civility within Congress,
modernizing technology, improving constituent service processes
don't come with clear measures or--and this is the important
part--publicly accessible data. On many issues, the causal
chain between the committee's recommendations to tangible
outcomes will be long and precise and conditional on an
infinite number of variables. And 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 amendment and drafting activities. Does
cosponsor action differ in numbers and networks, potentially
cross-party counts, thanks to the electronic cosponsor
recommendation and your civility efforts? Are Members more able
to insert legislative text into bills because of the
collaborative legislative drafting recommendation? Do Members
and offices seem to work together more often after attending
bipartisan onboarding and new Member orientations?
These are things that we can kind of get at with proxy
measures, though there aren't easily quantifiable data
attached.
On the oversight front, enterprising researchers can study
whether more bipartisan oversight efforts, including
identifiers like letters signed by both the chair and ranking
member, are undertaken. And then should certain panels follow
the select committee's lead in deliberations, such as this
roundtable format, the bipartisan seating, foregoing the 5-
minute rule, studies can analyze differences and outcomes on a
variety of deliberation measures. So things like what witnesses
are called to testify; using text analysis of hearing
transcripts to study what types of questions are asked, because
there are infinite types of different questions to be asked;
and how you all use your allotted time, will that change?
And precisely because Members will be hard--measures will
be hard to come by, its key researchers do not discount the
importance of qualitative study as well. To fully understand
why certain outcomes differ, 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
will all make yourselves available, your staffs available, and
your data as available as possible so that we annoying
academics who work on these questions can get some answers
without having to bug you too much.
Now, the second question about when assigning my students
to submit 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 decrease
resources for offenders; the other half want to use carrots,
like access to the floor or maybe a civility plaque in the
Capitol hallways. Almost all require Members to judge each
other on their behaviors, which history has shown us over and
over brings a whole host of challenges and implications.
Students also commonly submit proposals to reform the
budget process. Their reform ideas attempt to lessen the
reliance on continuing resolutions, reinvigorating authorizing
committees, improving budgetary oversight, minimizing deficit
spending, and doing away with high-drama debt ceiling hikes. I
bet you all would sign on to all of those things as well.
But by far--and by far--the most common theme of student
reform proposals speak to the overwhelming centralization of
legislating power in leadership offices. It simply doesn't
compute to my students that rank-and-file Members are commonly
not involved in the legislative process and sometimes
completely in the dark on policy negotiations and even
legislative text until the final moments prior to votes. They
can't understand why bills that would assuredly pass the
Chamber won't get debated, let alone receive attention on the
floor.
After much discussion, they begin to theoretically
understand how the current balance of power serves enough
interests of enough Members, but 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.
Their solutions to the problem are unbelievably varied,
though. From pie-in-the-sky pledges that every Member read
every bill before granting access--to granting floor access to
every Member at least once per session. Increasingly, student
reform ideas attempt to tackle the doom 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
service? Their incentive structure is hard to argue with.
To address this, many proposals advance altering House
rules and instituting automatic thresholds that guarantee
subsequent actions, like a markup within committee or a vote on
the floor. Ideas like reworking the discharge petition,
identifying a certain magic number of cosponsors, of bipartisan
cosponsors that would automatically trigger a definite path to
the policymaking process, including access to the floor.
In nearly all of these thoughts, though, students are quick
to point out that leadership cannot be given a veto, can't even
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, but thank you all again for the invitation to
testify. And I would be remiss if I didn't take this
opportunity to implore you to do everything possible to make
this committee, in whatever format it can take, permanent. It
matters.
Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Burgat follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Our final witness is Diane Hill, who is a
senior manager at the Partnership for Public Service. She
previously served as a Presidential management fellow at the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, as a program
analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, and as a
legislative staffer for Congresswoman Lindy Boggs, Congressman
Pat Williams, and Senator Bob Kerrey.
Ms. Hill, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. DIANE HILL
Ms. Hill. Thank you, Chair Kilmer.
Chair Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons, members of the committee,
thank you for inviting me here today to testify. Determining a
future for the modernization movement that this committee has
created is necessary and important.
As Chair Kilmer said, my name is Diane Hill. I am a senior
manager at the Partnership for Public Service, but I am
privileged to be the coordinator for the Fix Congress Cohort, a
community of 45 civil society organizations who align in 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 that you have done.
Now, as you can imagine, being the coordinator for 45 civil
society organizations who want to make a significant change in
the world and make a difference, it is not easy to come up with
a consensus about where we should go next with the
modernization effort. So 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 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 is such a hard one, but we
are committed to it.
With that in mind, we make the following recommendations,
and as I stated, it is not easy to get consensus. So our first
two recommendations are alternatives of where the modernization
effort should be housed.
Recommendation number one is to place modernization work
within the Committee on House Administration either by
establishing a new subcommittee or a commission. Giving the
work to House Administration makes a permanent home with a
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,
explore, and develop new recommendations.
So there are two options we could 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 all House
Administration members. The second is to establish a
modernization commission modeled on the structure of the
Communications Standards 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 party in equal numbers and also has
the possibility of membership from the entire House of
Representatives, as does the Communications Standards
Commission.
The second recommendation--and you will remember that this
is an alternative to the first--is that we reauthorize the
Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. As I agree
with my colleague, Dr. Burgat, 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 thorny issues can be explored fully and
respectfully by Members who don't necessarily agree but are
seeking ways to find common solutions.
The makeup of this bipartisan committee brings together
members of key committees who have direct jurisdiction over
House operations: the Committee on House Administration,
Appropriations, and the Rules Committee. The collaboration and
communication between these three committees needs to continue
and will fully support a modernization effort.
Our third recommendation is to create a permanent
modernization task force in addition to a Member-based
solution, so this would be an add-on. The task force 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, the Clerk's Office, and the Sergeant
at Arms.
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.
And the fourth recommendation is to pursue a joint
committee on the modernization of Congress. Ideally,
modernization of Congress would include all of Congress. For
that reason----
[Audio malfunction.]
Ms. Hill. Okay. No, I am still there. Okay. Sorry, I must
have--my apologies.
For that reason, the cohort supports creation of a joint
committee on the modernization of Congress.
While it appears that the Senate is not ready to take that
step right now, we should be exploring that goal in the long
term, and that way 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, but I
also want to thank you most sincerely 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, and we are
grateful that this committee has been willing to stand by
Congress as an institution, and we wholeheartedly support that
effort.
Thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Hill follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Hill. And thank you not just
for your testimony but for your partnership and for the
partisanship of the cohort. Thank you for that.
I now recognize myself and Vice Chair Timmons to begin a
period of extended questioning of the witnesses. Any member who
wishes to speak should just signal their request to either me
or Vice Chair Timmons.
And I am going to be here the whole time, so I am going to
let you all go first, assuming folks may have to leave. I know
Chairwoman Lofgren is on via Zoom as well. I don't know if she
has been elevated to participant.
So I saw Rodney's hand go up first, so go ahead, Mr. Davis,
and then I will go to you, Ms. Williams.
Mr. Davis. This right there, Chairman Kilmer, is just great
leadership, because he is going to be here the entire time. We,
of course, like to come in and out, which makes Congress very
functional, of course. But you recognized that I raised my hand
first, and I really appreciate your leadership on that. I
really do.
The Chairman. I would like to appreciate your speed----
Mr. Davis. Yeah.
The Chairman [continuing]. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Hey, in all seriousness, as somebody who has
been on this select committee since its inception and as
somebody who also, you know, has the role on House
Administration, what Derek has done over the last two
Congresses is miraculous. He has been able to really drive a
bipartisan message to success.
We have had tremendous successes last Congress and this
Congress, recommendations being implemented through this
process, and to have the leadership that Derek had in the
majority to give then-Vice Chair Graves, now-Vice Chair Timmons
somewhat equal status is unheard of. And this is the stuff that
your students think Congress is about, and that is why it is
great to use this select committee as an example. But as we all
know, it is not the rest of Congress.
And that is really due to your leadership and your team's
leadership, Derek, and it wouldn't have been driven.
Exceptional job as the chair, and, again, William, you know,
exceptionally mediocre job.
But I do want to say, I do want to say, in all seriousness,
the list of recommendations that were implemented throughout
this committee's process cannot be overstated. And I will say
and argue that most of them happened before Perlmutter got on
the committee, but, you know, we have slowly moved ahead. We
can't stop that. And I am really interested in the
recommendations of how to extend this process.
Chair Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons, 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, and that to me is the most
logical place for a permanent subcommittee on the Committee on
House Administration to focus solely on making this institution
better. Because that is the standing committee in the House
that should be focused on making this institution better.
We hear--when somebody says pie-in-the-sky discussions
about how do we get the Senate to work, you know what, we could
do that through joint interaction with the Senate Rules
Committee. But let's make sure we highlight the fact that the
discussions and the debates that we have here and the
successes, they have got to continue. I am not going to
continue. Ed is not going to continue. It is 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 isn't forgotten.
I would like to see--and, look, as we plan ahead to what we
call our roadmap to the majority, I have laid out my priorities
to my hopeful successors that would create a subcommittee on
modernization within the Committee on House Administration.
Certainly hope to be able to populate that subcommittee. We
might be able to get some more members on House Administration.
But then House Administration has got to do its job, and that
means we have got to have a continued focus from members who
are on this subcommittee who may want to engage and be Members
of the House Administration Committee, because that is where
you can actually get a lot of these recommendations that are
sitting, waiting to be implemented done.
The low-hanging fruit is gone. It is going to be more
contentious. But the committee process is the place to work it
out, and 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 3.5
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, and I know you are
moving in that direction, in spite of having John Clocker, who
is sitting up in the corner as part of your team.
Hi, John.
Mr. Perlmutter. He is taking a shot at everybody.
Mr. Davis. I wouldn't say it if I didn't love you, buddy.
But in all seriousness, you know better than most how
difficult it can be to have a ModCom and have a House
Administration Committee pull you and your team in different
directions.
I want to ask you, let's say there is a subcommittee on
modernization on House Administration. Is it easier then to
have a single point of contact through that committee to be
able to focus on implementing recommendations or do you think a
better setup could exist?
Ms. Szpindor. I think that certainly can be 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, I agree with you, because we have to know
where to take our direction from overall. And I, you know, work
closely with the House Committee on Administration, we have
worked closely with you, but I think going forward, the most
important thing that you have done, quite frankly, is given us
an ability to get the information, get 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 is making sure that your stakeholders are actively
engaged in what you are doing. If you don't have that, it is
very, very hard to get anything done. And quite frankly, I
believe one of the reasons over the years we have sometimes not
always proved successful in delivering solutions is because we
didn't have that contact. We didn't have individuals there
behind us helping us, championing us to move forward with that.
And so however it is organized, we need that support going
forward.
Mr. Davis. You need that support, and that is my point. I
am going to end with this. This place is set up to have a
structure for final decisions. And this committee is great at
recommendations, but the problem is, there is a next step,
because House Administration has to approve a lot of those
recommendations. So to me, let's get that finality in place
that allows you, your teams, and the other officers to be able
to know what their final direction is.
We can have the discussions, the debates on what is going
to work on that subcommittee on modernization. We can do the
exact same things here, but we also, when it comes time for a
vote and when that vote is had, a decision is final, and 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.
So I want to say thanks. It has been a pleasure to serve
with each and every one of you. I am humbled by the opportunity
to be able to play a small role in making this place better.
And I certainly know that as we move on, there is going to be a
tremendous amount of activity of folks who are more interested
in making Congress work because of the work that 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 who are
going to have to continue what we started here. And I am always
here to offer advice, but we are going to be watching. And I am
proud of each and every one of you, and thank you for giving me
the opportunity to serve with you.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I know we have got Chair Lofgren on via Zoom. Let me call
on her next.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you very much, Mr. 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; and that we have done that
in a collaborative fashion, in a bipartisan fashion makes it
even better.
I would just 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. And as the chair and the
committee know, as we have made recommendations in the
Modernization Committee, we have been able to implement them.
We haven't 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 the Modernization Committee was looking at
them.
Obviously, the House Administration Committee has the
primary jurisdiction over the operations of the House, but it
is 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 just like to say that I am eager to work with you
and all the members to make sure that the promising work that
we have achieved this year doesn't get lost and that we
continue in effort, whether it is either in the House
Administration Committee or some other format. Obviously, we
need to have a discussion not only on this committee but in the
broader body about what is the best way to proceed, but it is
valuable. And I think the leadership shown by yourself and the
ranking member really stands out as helping the whole committee
be successful.
With that, I don't have additional questions, Mr. Chairman,
but I do thank you for recognizing me and for the service that
you have provided, along with all of the other members.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chair Lofgren.
Next up, Ms. Van Duyne.
Go for it, Ms. Williams. Thanks. Thank you.
Ms. Williams. See how cooperative we are on this committee?
Good morning, everyone.
And, Ms. Szpindor, I know that Mr. Timmons is probably
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 calendar that could deconflict the schedules of
Congress--like right now, I have a Financial Services full
committee hearing that I am sure my chairwoman is wondering why
I am not there as well, but we also had this committee hearing.
And it never fails, every week that we have committee hearings,
I either have this hearing along with T&I or this hearing along
with Financial Services. So it was music to my ears reading
your remarks and seeing that there was a plan to roll out a
calendar that could deconflict some of the committee's
schedules.
And I am just wondering what that rollout looks like, and
what is the timeline for something like that?
Ms. Szpindor. Well, I will tell you, it is on 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, and 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 that they are looking into.
So I can certainly provide updates on an ongoing basis. We
are excited about it. It is something that Mr. Davis----
Ms. Williams. So am I.
Ms. Szpindor [continuing]. Mr. Davis brought up to me
sometime ago, and we think there is an opportunity. We are
using some new development tools and codebases that we believe
will make this much easier to do, and----
[Audio malfunction.]
Ms. Szpindor [continuing]. Looking into what this means.
And they are going to need to work with the Clerk's
organization as well, so it gives us a chance to work with them
to be able to get some of the information and everything that
they need. And we have a very good working relationship with
them, so----
Ms. Williams. So we are not quite at a rollout phase yet,
is what I am hearing.
Ms. Szpindor. No. I wish I could say we were, but we are in
the early stages of coming together with what that is going to
look like, how it is going to work. And then we are using agile
processes, which allows you to go in and start some early
development on it 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. But we will get you a schedule as soon as we have
one that we are prepared to tell you about it, but it is one of
the ones that we are moving forward with.
Ms. Williams. Thank you.
The Chairman. I am going to call on Ms. Van Duyne next, but
I do know--I think it was the Bipartisan Policy Center had just
sort of a draft example of what block scheduling could look
like. I don't think that deconflicts everything if you go that
direction, and inevitably some committees will balk at being
told when they can and can't do their hearings. But I think it
would be better, right? I think it is a start from----
Ms. Szpindor. Yeah.
The Chairman. Because right now everything conflicts with
everything. So----
Ms. Szpindor. Yeah.
The Chairman [continuing]. You know, as your office looks
into that, I commend you to look at that just as a starting
point.
Ms. Van Duyne.
Ms. Van Duyne. Well, I appreciate the fact that you have
freshmen on this committee, because we really kind of get
thrown--you know, I don't want to say the leftovers because
that sounds really bad, but you know what I mean. When we have
the number of committees that we are on, the number of
subcommittees, because, you know, 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 am asking you because I have no clue. I mean, we have
counted, but there seems to be ones that we don't know about.
Do we have like an official number of committees and
subcommittees?
Ms. Szpindor. I am sure there is an official number. I
don't know. I look through the CAO website all the time and
house.gov and looking at all the--the listing of all the
committees and everything. But with the subcommittees, I can't
tell you.
Ms. Van Duyne. That is how far off we are from actually
rolling this out. I mean, I look at it from a college
perspective and, you know, if we can have colleges that have
tens of thousands of students and probably equal number of
classes to be able to figure out so there is not overlap, we
should be able to do it in Congress.
Not only, I think, are we fighting with scheduling, but
orientation I think is also really important. We are somewhat
fresh off of that. I know it has been a year and a half, but we
have got another class that is going to be coming. We came in a
unique year. It was COVID. We were separated. Everybody wore
masks. We didn't have events. But we also were separated from
the beginning.
You know, you had your Republican orientation, you had your
Democrat orientation. It would have been nice, I think, if we
could have actually have met all Members that were coming in
and all of our class and have done events together. I think
that would have been really great.
Your point on not having bills and being rank-and-file and
not knowing what we are voting on, it is 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, and they are
multiple hundred pages bills. I don't think--a business could
definitely not work that way. A government should absolutely
not work that way. You are going to have fights with leadership
on that, because a lot of times they are adding details up
until the very moment that they come out.
How we can fix that, I don't know. I know that we have
tried to have fixes in the past, you know, 24-hour, 48-hour,
72-hour mark, but it takes very small handful to be able to
kind of override those rules. So having potentially not just
suggestions or ideas but hard, fast rules that we can count on,
regardless of what party that you are in, or majority or
minority, would be very helpful.
I have got a question on CAO. How many resumes are we
getting? Have you seen a decrease in the number of resumes over
the last couple of years or have you seen an increase? How is
that working?
Ms. Szpindor. For----
Ms. Van Duyne. For staff, for Capitol Hill staff.
Ms. Szpindor. Well, you know, 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 or added to the
Resume Bank. Within the CAO, most of all of our recruiting is
within the CAO, and for the Sergeant at Arms we assess our HR
department, and also for the Clerk, if they need any
assistance. But I really--I know for the CAO the number of
resumes we get in, but for the Member offices, I could not tell
you.
I can tell you----
Ms. Van Duyne. And I am asking that question because from
across the board and pretty much every single 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 know, you have to pay more and
you can, you know, 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 and on
being a market 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 their office? District, without a doubt, but,
I mean, on Capitol Hill.
Ms. Szpindor. 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 in staff positions
within the offices, within the first week we had over 2,000
submitted.
Ms. Van Duyne. Yeah.
Ms. Szpindor. And I know that subsequent weeks we got more
thousands of resumes. So we hope that that is at least an
opportunity for people to provide resumes that they can go
through, 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.
Ms. Van Duyne. All right. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Due to scheduling conflicts, I know Mr.
Cleaver is in a markup right now so I am going to call on him
next.
Mr. Cleaver. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have Financial Services, Homeland Security, and
Modernization right now. I left Homeland Security, which is one
floor up, to run down here and gave some staff members my phone
number so they could text me when they need me to come upstairs
for a vote. And I think that is absolutely embarrassing for the
United States of America to have a political body where all of
the committees can literally be scheduled at the same time, and
so I want to add my comments with those that were made earlier.
But the college analogy may make some sense. Well, it does
make sense. I don't mean to say ``may make.'' But the
difference--because in the college system you enroll and you go
there to make sure that you don't enroll in two classes that
meet at the same time. And maybe--it is going to take a lot
more time, but maybe that is what we need to do.
I mean, during a certain period of time we ought to--I
mean, the leadership and the bodies that make the
recommendations on which committee we sit on, maybe that needs
to be done early, early on, like the first couple of days when
we are here because, you know, we just accept the fact.
And I think it is bad for our image, because people, for
example, they see Rodney Davis leaving and--well, but, I mean,
they could--I mean, somebody in the public, well, he just
doesn't want to be here at the meeting and he is leaving. You
know, or when we leave, I mean, have to leave early; you know,
people watching C-SPAN or in the committee hearing room, they
don't know. They don't know how dumb this joint is.
And so, you know, I think one of the things we need to
flirt with with the brainpower, like you have, in the history,
you know, there ought to be some kind of period when we first--
--
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Cleaver [continuing]. Where we enroll or, I mean, you
can figure that out. You know, I can do that part. But I do
know that that part needs to be done.
And my final comment, Mr. Davis left, because I think--it
may have been luck, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 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 mean,
I don't know if we could have gotten better than Graves or
Timmons, you know, as vice chairs. And I have said to the
chairman publicly and behind his back that I thought this has
been amazing. And I am upset even that Mr. Perlmutter is
leaving. But I can get over that, but the other parts of this
are really troublesome.
So anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will go back to
Homeland.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver.
And for those watching on C-SPAN, when Mr. Cleaver leaves,
it is not that he doesn't care about the work of our committee;
it is that he has to go vote in Homeland Security. So I hope
you are watching and understand.
I know Vice Chair Timmons wants to weigh in here, and then
I will go to Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Timmons. Before Mr. Cleaver leaves, I want to point
something out real quick. He has three hearings right now
because it is likely that we will not be here on Friday, and
because of that, that makes tomorrow the fly-out day. We flew
in last night. We got here at 6:30. We very well could be
leaving tomorrow--who knows?--might, might not, but the
committees know that, so they are scheduling everything right
now.
I always talk about the 2019 calendar. We were here for 65
full days and 66 travel days. Sixty-five full days over 32
weeks, so an average of 2 days a week. When you are here 2 days
a week, then you might be losing a day because something
happens on a calendar and fly-out is early, you are just going
to have conflict.
So while we are thinking about the calendar and the
schedule and deconflicting everything, having a--having more
days here and having a more predictable schedule as far 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,
but I will yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Phillips. And then I got Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And it only takes a few days of joining this institution to
recognize that there is a distinct bias against both
cooperation and improvement. And I will offer that I believe
that is not just a competitive risk to the United States of
America but a national security risk, and that is why I believe
that this group, this work that we are doing is the most
important work in the United States Congress. I believe this
committee is the most important. And, 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, in that the most
important work is ignored or dismissed, underappreciated, and
some of the most trivial, unimportant is elevated in
inappropriate ways.
And I just want to celebrate both our chairs, my
colleagues, the staff of this extraordinary committee, and our
individual staffs who have made this possible and have actually
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 our country. And I want to celebrate all of us for
a minute. 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.
And some of this can go through regular order, but we know how
complicated that is, and we also know there is an absence of
regular order in this institution.
I would argue that we should put together some
recommendations to whomever might lead the House in the next
session of Congress and actually revise our House rules to
implement some of these and try to embed culture of
modernization. And I say that as someone who has great
appreciation for conserving, conservation of what works and
progressing on the issues and areas that we can do better, and
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 the very people
that are mindful and bring that ethos to the institution,
because without leadership, I don't think any of this will
become successful.
But my question to you, Doctor, and to you, Ms. Hill, just
a simple one: If you could wave a magic wand--you both made
recommendations, but if you could wave a magic wand, based on
this conversation and your own recommendations, what is your
most important of all your propositions--especially you, Ms.
Hill, with a variety of them--what do you think we should do
singularly to take the next step? I will start with you,
Doctor.
Mr. Burgat. I have wanted that wand for a long time.
Mr. Phillips. Me too.
Mr. Burgat. And your lead-up is exactly where I would
start, and in this discussion about how this committee can
continue in whatever format it could is important, and there is
pros and cons to each. House rules package is the ticket. I
mean, 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 singular vote at the beginning of a
Congress. That is super important and a very attractive vehicle
for this committee 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 that you will be limited in putting it in a
place like that, including the things that you are frustrated
with on a leadership centralization basis, right.
So the downsize of House Admin is that you are still
subject to the limitations and leadership prerogatives that it
is. The access to the floor will be completely limited the same
way it is in a lot of your other subcommittees and committees.
And so, to me, it seems like the House Administration idea is
to implement what has already been recommended. Great place to
work. That is obviously where the jurisdiction lies. It makes
sense there is going to be a turf war for it anyway. That is
implementation of already passed recommendations.
For the big, substantive, calendar-specific, all of the
things that you--the non-low-hanging fruit, to Mr. Davis'
point, those big institutional changes, I am a huge fan of
using the rules package to create something bigger. And, again,
the lack of attention to something like that in a rules package
that big, I think it is an opportunity that not many people
take advantage of. There is a way that you can set this up,
probably in the mold of something like the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence where you create this independence,
right. And that is the key point: funding independence, staff
independence, procedural independence 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 just 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 are Member-led decisions.
The idea that Chairman Kilmer can take a step back and
recognize someone four seats down, not only of the Republican
Party, of the minority party, that is a decision. You can't
write that into House rules. 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 and pointed out, the feedback
loop of that is infinite.
So rules package is my magic wand. I think it opens the
most opportunity for big institutional change, not to discount
the recommendations that have already been made. There is
plenty more left to do. That is the best place to do it.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Doctor.
Ms. Hill.
Ms. Hill. I have to say that I am grateful that Dr. Burgat
is a member of the cohort that I am the coordinator of, because
he certainly has the expertise in the issues that I don't have.
If I had a magic wand, what I would do is I would start
with that--probably the last point that he would make. I would
renew this select committee, and I would renew it with the
spirit which it started with 4 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.
You know, the work that we have to do over there for
modernization of the whole Congress and the difference that 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 matter. And this committee works
well in part--what a treat to see all the members here today,
everyone working together. Chair Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons,
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 exactly kind of modeled
and continued to model this behavior.
One of the reasons that 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 eighties I was on the Hill. I started in 1989 with
Congresswoman Boggs. 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 can live stream events and town
hall meetings, incredible difference. We need some Members that
can lean into that, love it, and embrace it in the way that you
do.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you. And as a freshman in 2019, when I
was handed a pager, I kept that on my credenza as a nice
metaphor, and I no longer have it, so we are making progress.
I want to thank you. And let me just close by thanking our
chairs and our staff and my colleagues again, because it is not
just the work that we are doing, but I think, most importantly,
it is how we are doing it, and that starts with leadership, and
I am grateful to all of you. Thank you.
The Chairman. I want to call on Mr. Perlmutter, but before
I do, you said add more teeth. Can you just double-click on
that real quick before I call on Mr. Perlmutter?
Ms. Hill. Yes. I think one of the things that you have done
admirably and worked so hard on is rolling out recommendations
to have them available and then implementing them. If this
select committee had more teeth and a stronger way to do some
of the implementation and the jurisdiction, I am thinking of
some kind of mechanism.
I listened to Ms. Szpindor talk about needing strong
direction in terms of what they can accomplish at the CAO's
office, 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. And I think
the energy to make the change has come from the select
committee. That has been my view, right, because I know the
excellent professional staff on House Administration and the
members. It is not that they don't want to make change; it is
that sometimes other issues that are--they are having to deal
with overshadow that. So if there is a way to influx those two,
I would think that would be a really good idea.
The Chairman. Thanks.
Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. First, I want to thank the committee and
you, Derek, for allowing us to visit the European Union and
parliament last week. Mr. Timmons, Mr. DeSaulnier, and I had a
fantastic trip that I think 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
contrasting parliaments and legislative bodies.
You know, a legislature is a--there is a tension between
sort of norms and traditions that you had from the beginning of
time, and we met with parliament, which basically is from the
beginning of time. Then there is--then we sort of come into
existence, the EU much later sort of on the spectrum. And we
learned a lot. And what we learned was that we are 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 have ever taken in my career--and I have been doing
this 28 years now between the State legislature and Congress--
was the election of the Speaker, the passage of the rule
package, and the certification of the Presidential election.
Those are the three votes I have taken, out of thousands of
votes, that I consider to be the most important votes. But that
rule package piece of this thing is key to how we manage our
affairs, at least for 2 years coming.
As you said, administration has to implement it, but the
rules package really can establish where you are going with it.
Luckily, you had the vice chair sort of leading this trip, we
had a member of the Rules Committee, and we had staff from the
House Administration to be able to really look what things can
be done.
And so, you know, this committee has been looking really in
four areas: technology, personnel, campus, and member kind of
relationships and how we relate to the institution.
Because I agree with Mr. Phillips--and I disagree--I agree
with Ms. Van Duyne on 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,
and to the private sector and to other countries, that we don't
need to just hamstring ourselves for whatever reason.
And one other place I disagree, and then I want to talk
about one recommendation. I gave you 14 from my trip. But one
other place I disagree with her, and I think that it is very
important, that as a body, that we are 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 Lindy Boggs in 1989 to start off,
you don't know anything, but you were there, you were hired,
but then you learn. And then if you stay, you provide good
services to the people that you represent.
So I think retention is key, and we have--and I want to
thank the vice chair here because he knew Ms. Szpindor had been
so focused on making sure that we have good personnel and good
staff and we retain good staff.
Last thing I will say where I do agree, and it was Beth Van
Duyne that sort of--along with Aubrey from House Admin that
gave me an idea about orientation. All right. So one of the
things that we are talking about, that you talked about,
Doctor, is rank-and-file Members, we feel a little
disenfranchised or we have lost--we want to be more empowered,
you know, that the individual Member wants to be more
empowered. We have some ideas about that.
But one of the places, as a freshman coming in, you just
won an election, you have got a million things going on, people
coming at you from all directions. And you go to orientation,
and even if they--we had had a joint orientation, it lasts for
3 days, and you don't know half the questions to ask. So then
you split into the parties, you don't operate really as a class
again, you know, other than that 3-day orientation or 2 days or
whatever it is.
The suggestion that I am going to make that I think is a
good one is that, later on, maybe 9 months out, a year out as a
freshman class has gotten their feet under them and start
having an idea of the questions to ask, that there be a second
kind of orientation where, again, it sort of builds across the
party lines kind of a class identity, as well as being able to
ask--answer questions. You know, you didn't know what questions
to ask in the first place, now you have got a better idea.
And that came from Beth, from Aubrey, but then also the
woman who runs the House of Commons, that they suffered under
COVID just as we did and their new members coming in couldn't
really be oriented in a way that allowed them to really
understand when votes were going to be and all that.
So we have made improvements, I think, a lot on the
technology side. We have got a lot more to do. We have made a
lot of improvements on personnel. Dean should have been on this
trip because he could have seen some changes to the campus that
would have made things more Member and user friendly that these
other--that the parliament and you had.
Member colleagues, scheduling thing, all of that and
empowering Members, I will leave that to smarter people than
me. And I want to just thank you, Derek, for allowing me to be
part of this committee.
The Chairman. And thanks for all you contribute to our
committee.
Vice Chair Timmons.
Mr. Timmons. Thanks, Chairman.
The Chairman. I will point out, Vice Chair Timmons is going
to hit all the questions that I want to ask you too or most of
them, so----
Mr. Timmons. Like I said, we have been working together too
long, too long.
Mr. Perlmutter. And I am not leaving.
Mr. Timmons. Oh, sure you are not. We spent too much time
together last week, so probably sick and tired of me.
So while I would--I can see arguments to try to extend the
select committee, but I think we were extremely fortunate to
get 4 years. We were only supposed to get 12 months, which was
really only like 8 months, given the fact that in the calendar
and we didn't really get up and running until March. So, you
know, I think we have made a lot of great recommendations, made
a lot of progress.
So I do think that there is a lot of consensus around the
Subcommittee on House Administration, and I do--I am not sure
there is consensus on this idea. I am going to run through a
couple things and ask for your feedback.
You know, right now, there is only one Republican on each
of the subcommittees, and, you know, I don't think that this
subcommittee should have disparate numbers. I think if two
Republicans, two Democrats, three Republicans, three Democrats,
I think that would be good. It will ultimately be focused on
implementation of previous recommendations from the select
committee in preparation for the next select committee, and it
would work closely with partners, cohort and such.
So, I mean, the question then becomes, how often do we need
a select committee? I think everybody agrees it is not every 30
years. So then, is it every three, is it every four, is it
every five Congresses? You know, I am not sure the answer for
that, but I think we can probably find some consensus for it.
And I think the beauty of the 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 is already hired, there has already been a lot of pseudo
hear--I am not sure if you would call it a hearing, but, I
mean, they are readying material for the select committee and
so it could ideally operate within 2 years and, you know,
that's--this is another weird idea. Space shows value, so, I
mean, if this is something we are serious about, I think it
should have its own office space, and 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 roundtable.
In the EU and the U.K., literally everybody is--well, the
EU had roundtables and the U.K. had a much better setup than
this. That was a much more productive setup.
But, again, I mean, if this is something that is important,
and I think it is, I think finding a way to create continuity
has value. Yeah, I really do think that having that setup going
from a subcommittee to a select committee back and forth with
three or four, five Congresses in between would allow planning
to occur prior to the select committee to--the select committee
can really just hit the ground running and maximize its use of
time.
So I will just put that back to you all. What thoughts do
you have on all of that? Ms. Szpindor, what do you think?
Ms. Szpindor. I think you have some very good ideas about
that. 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 are 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 is a
need that my department has.
So however it is structured, as long--whether it is going
through the House Committee on Administration to someone or
some other away, 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 are going to be
moving forward with.
So we just need the assistance and the information. And I
do agree that to make it a full recommendation that we can
understand, having the bipartisan perspectives of having enough
of the bipartisan individuals providing us information from a
data-gathering perspective and planning of our projects is
extremely beneficial. So thank you.
Mr. Timmons. Dr. Burgat.
Mr. Burgat. As with almost everything here, I think it is
important to start to answer your question with a question of
depends on what your goals are. What are your goals for this
select committee? Historically, there has been several types,
from minimally successful to overwhelmingly successful, and
their goals differed from the outset, and I think that is
important.
Your point about the membership being important,
particularly on the minority side, just to have one minority
representative on the subcommittee, you can imagine, let alone
if they are not even present, how overrun they could be. But
even then you are still subject to the full committee's
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 a select committee or
some version of this committee is necessary, I think it is
important to point out that this committee started kind of
behind the eight ball in a couple of different ways. It had
been a long time since the previous one, and that previous one
was one of those minimally successful ones, right. So you had a
bunch of legwork to do to catch up to what that had been
missing then.
And then just the time period, the subject of the time
period since that previous select committee and now has been
the most biggest change we have ever seen across almost 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 try to
systematize in fives Congresses from now, those--each period of
those five Congresses, those 10-year periods are not going to
be equal. You are going to basically try to fix what the last
committee left behind and try to make up for.
So if your goal is to proactively change the institution,
you have got to be permanent. If your goal is to retroactively
change what went wrong or what was leftover, then the
systematized every so often can serve that purpose.
Just as you mentioned the space equals value, that is
absolutely true, from parking spaces 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 intervally
important to us, that we can just wait for the next one.
I think we are 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 permanence speaks to the moment of
now, that only then can you start to talk about the non-low-
hanging fruit, the civility, the ones that are tearing us out
at our seams, the permanence of a committee like that, to say
nothing of the independence that you can set up to make 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, your independent funding
streams, your permanent office space, all of those speak to the
importance of the moment. And I think there is no more
important moment than now to get at the types of questions that
I think you all are trying to get at.
Mr. Timmons. Ms. Hill.
Ms. Hill. I would agree with Dr. Burgat again, no surprise
on that. And what I have heard from you today, from members
here, is that just modernization as a matter of course over
time, waiting for extended periods isn't an option, right. That
is 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 have 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 that we are here today is because we
understand how vitally important Congress is to making the
executive branch healthy. And that is why I have spent the last
4 years at the partnership working on this very issue.
I don't think--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, but if you think it is a periodic time, every 2
years, every 4 years, I can see a cycle, Vice Chair Timmons,
where we now have almost 200 recommendations, right. So to
take--and that is why we--I framed my testimony in the way that
I did.
To take the next 2 years and put a primary focus on
implementing those recommendations 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 the changes that can
occur in a 2-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 I think we might cycle in that way to implement for a
couple of years, while still looking at possible modernization
ways--things that we need to do, and then 2 years after that we
go hard at making new recommendations----
Mr. Timmons. [Inaudible.]
The Chairman. I think there is a country song that uses the
lyric ``how can I miss you when you won't go away,'' and I am
conscious that there is a little bit of that dynamic with this
committee in that it was established for a year and 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 that is 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 institutional improvement. I think it would make a
decent point for just keeping it rolling.
Having said that, though, you know, I think it begs the
question, other than focusing on implementation, which is
probably where House Admin and House Rules, the bulk of the
work is going to happen through them, what other--you know, Dr.
Burgat, you said your students want us to focus on how do you
empower rank-and-file Members. I would argue, some of the
recommendations we have made have been in that spirit, but--so
let me ask you, you know, if you were setting the work plan for
a select committee that got renewed next Congress, what would
you have it work on?
Mr. Burgat. Incentivizing legislating, almost--and with
legislating, incentivizing bipartisan oversight. The problem
there is that now you are 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 are going
to get here, including this next freshman class. There is going
to be one that ran diametrically opposed to the institution and
won 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 is impossible. That is
sincerely impossible, and better you than me to try to--to help
with that.
But in terms of getting the ones--not everyone is like
that. Not everyone is the flamethrower, and I think that you--
in conversations you can kind of discern who has some sort of
issue that they want to get advanced. The problem is 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, 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. It may not include a lobbing pass, but just
a vote, just a markup, 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 is always committees,
always has been committees, and it always starts with the chair
and ranking member setting those standards, offering those
paths to legislative productivity is the be-all/end-all for me.
The Chairman. Ms. Hill.
Ms. Hill. Am I on now?
Thank you for your question. I think one of the things that
I would look at, I would look at--continue to look at the
staffing issues that we are currently looking at. As I was
listening to Dr. Burgat's testimony, I think those students
that are in his classes that want those changes are our future,
right. And they are not just our future as staffers and
staffing, but they are our future as Members. And when they
enter the institution--as we know, it is going to have to
happen, right. Demographics are on their side--we need to be
prepared for that.
And those are some of the issues that we need to be
considering. How do we make sure that as Members enter, they
are prepared to serve their constituents, they are prepared to
reach out in ways that they need to be able to do that, right.
And, again, I think 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 a joint select committee 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. I too, 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 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.
The Chairman. Would you do every three Congresses?
Ms. Hill. I would do it every other. Every other.
The Chairman. Dr. Burgat, do you agree with that?
Mr. Burgat. I am fine with that. I think you can set the
floor, a minimum of every X number, and then as necessary
conditions arise jump to it and necessary conditions arise.
The Chairman. Yeah. It is funny, I have thought a lot about
this, right. And Chris, from Roll Call, thank you for being
here. He asked, you know, so what did the committee not take up
that you wish it had? And so I spent a lot of time thinking
about this, and a lot of it is either things outside of our
jurisdiction or things where it is tricky to get a two-thirds
vote, right.
I mean, if you asked me some of the things that are broken
in Congress, I would say, you know, role of money, the way
district boundaries are drawn, and the way Members are selected
through primaries probably drive a lot of the kind of conflict
entrepreneurship we see within the institution.
I am not sure a select committee now, next year, or in the
future is likely to take up those issues. Probably argue cable
news and social media also contribute. I don't even know where
to start on that, and I am not certain it is something that a
committee like this could work on, but maybe it could. I don't
know. It is certainly something I have been chewing on as this,
you know, at least as we sprint to the last 4 months of this.
I actually also think that one of the things that makes
tricky this issue around schedule is the difference between
where we are and where a college is. People are already
enrolled in their class, right. You have got Members who are
already on committee, and so deconflicting--even the challenge
of block scheduling is you are either putting someone in a
position of having conflict or having to give something up.
Nobody wants to give something up when they have accrued
seniority, so that does make it a little bit tricky.
I think we could deconflict it more than it is right now,
and so I am really pleased to hear that the CAO is working on
that. I think we need some help, and the sooner the better,
because as we roll into the next Congress, we are 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
is really important.
I also, Ms. Szpindor, I wanted to get at just getting a
sense of how you and your office tracks implementation of the
recommendations that fall under your jurisdiction. You know, do
you kind of 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 and front burnered?
And give us direction--I mean, I actually think we--I am
going to 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 is what we are
actually thinking about, how could we word this in a way that
is more implementable. But give us some direction as we make
recommendations to future reform efforts, how might we best
work with you on implementation going forward?
Ms. Szpindor. Well, the answer is, yes, I have many lists,
and those of my staff that are watching know I am a very old
project manager from many days back, and I believe in planning
and then executing the plan and having the expectations that
you meet. So we do have a list. We use a product called ClickUp
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 are working on are
part of that. I ask questions about where we are. It tracks--
this tool tracks any issues that we are finding with that
particular initiative. It tracks who the primary support person
is for that initiative. So it is built into me to have 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 the funds are that we are actually
allowing that individual to use to bring in some additional
help.
So 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 CHA. So we have all of your projects that you
have requested that I have talked about in my testimony listed
there.
Do you mind if I ask you a question?
The Chairman. Sure. We are a weird committee, so sure.
Ms. Szpindor. I mean, we are trying to be more informal
here. But I am listening to a lot of the things about the
timing and how often some type of committee in some form should
meet and everything.
Being in technology, I know how rapidly everything changes,
and I just want to make sure that--and it is things nobody--we
all know how things have changed in the past couple of years.
Okay. So how do we really maintain this momentum?
I mean, we have got all of these initiatives that you all
have brilliantly come up with, and we are working with you on,
but it could be tomorrow, next week, or next month that
something significant could come up that would require us to
focus on that and maybe have to push some of these things to
the background. So, you know, it is almost like every month
there is something else coming out.
So how do we stay current, I think, is the question I am
asking, given the rapid change in our environment, in
technology, in staffing, in everything going on in this world
without there being some consistency along the road if we are
looking at extending anything with this committee?
The Chairman. 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 Chair Lofgren
about that, but I have talked to Ranking Member Davis of the
House Admin Committee, and he thinks that is a good idea. 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 and waking up every morning focused
on implementation.
I also take to heart the comments that have been made
about, you know, the need to continue engaging on these issues
as issues come up. I just, my sense is, particularly since this
select committee was extended four times the length it was
initially envisioned, I am just not sure it is a likely outcome
that it be made permanent. And so to me the next best thing is
our committee making a recommendation, say, no more than, you
know--or no less frequently than every three or four
Congresses.
The other thing I have thought about, and I don't know, Ms.
Hill, I am actually kind of curious what the future of the
cohort looks like, particularly if this committee expires. You
know, one thought that I have had also--we haven't talked about
this. Again, we are informal--you could establish a Fix
Congress Caucus, right. And so people will self-select, getting
back to the people proposition. It is a lot easier to engage on
these issues with people who actually want to improve the
institution. So you could set up something--you know, there is
caucuses dealing with all sorts of issues. In the interim
between the expiration of this committee and a new committee
popping up, you could do that.
Now, the challenge is, you know, that is 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 is--
you don't want to staff it, you know, you don't want to have
Members actually put some dough up to hire someone to run the
show or dedicate a certain amount of their staff time to the
work of that.
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?
Ms. Hill. I think--let me just take a step back from it,
because the cohort is an interesting mix. Of the 45
organizations, there are some who can lobby, there are some who
can't. So some of those who can't provide--I want to give you
this background. Some of those who can't provide expertise and
guidance, and they feel very strongly that it is--and we all
do--I think it is important to keep the cohort strong, right.
And so we are in the process of determining how best to do that
as this committee sunsets.
But my impression as we have gone through this year,
because we have 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, at which point we went through
some discussions. And thank you to Vice Chair Timmons and your
stated purpose of we are going to 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. Four years ago, there were members who were a
smaller cohort. You know, they came together 2 years ago 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 the table to gauge
the closeness that we had and the trust that we had in each
other and how we have grown, and that only has increased over
the last 2 years.
And what happened for us is, you have witnessed with the
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 is the bridging community
or others who are extremely interested in the same issue.
So I don't see the cohort going away. I see the cohort as
continuing, and I am not sure what that--you know, how we will
set that up. We are working on that now. But I think it is
important that you know, whoever is working on this issue on
modernization, that there is a strong contingent outside of
Congress that is very engaged on these issues----
The Chairman. Yeah.
Ms. Hill [continuing]. And they care deeply about them.
The Chairman. I really appreciate that. And that is
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. With that, I would like to thank our witnesses for
their testimony today, and 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--Chris, thank you for showing up and following the
work of our committee. We are clearly a viral phenomenon at
this point.
I also just want to shout out the staff of our committee
for the great work that they do setting up amazing hearings,
this being our last one. I want to just applaud their excellent
work in setting this up. We can literally applaud them if you
are up for it.
We are not done. We have got a bunch of recommendations we
still have to make, and so I am going to save my vicious
attacks on Rodney Davis until we get through that markup. And
my gratitude to the rest of the committee too, I intend to
reserve for that.
So, without objection, all members will have 5 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.
Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
within which to submit extraneous materials to the chair for
inclusion in the record.
With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thanks, everybody.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]