    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                    PATHWAYS TO SUCCESS: HOW PRACTICING CIVIL-
                      ITY, COLLABORATION, AND LEADERSHIP CAN
                      EMPOWER MEMBERS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                  BEFORE THE

                          SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
                          MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS

                                    OF THE

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 23, 2021

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-10

                                   __________

      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
    48-601                    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

    Dr. Alison Craig, Assistant Professor, University of Texas at
        Austin
          Oral Statement.............................................     4
          Written Statement..........................................     8
    Mr. Shola Richards, CEO and Founder, Go Together Global
          Oral Statement.............................................    11
          Written Statement..........................................    13
    Ms. Liz Wiseman, Founder, Wiseman Group
          Oral Statement.............................................    15
          Written Statement..........................................    19
    Discussion.......................................................    25

       PATHWAYS TO SUCCESS: HOW PRACTICING CIVILITY, COLLABORATION, AND
                         LEADERSHIP CAN EMPOWER MEMBERS

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2021

                      House of Representatives,
                                Select Committee on the
                                     Modernization of Congress,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room
    2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Derek Kilmer
    [chairman of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Kilmer, Cleaver, Perlmutter,
    Phillips, Williams, Timmons, Latta, Van Duyne, and Joyce.
        The Chairman. There we go. 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. I won't use all five.
        Earlier this year, this committee made a conscious decision
    to explore some topics that aren't always easy to discuss. It
    is one thing to acknowledge conflict in the workplace. It is
    unpleasant, but it is quite another to really dig into that
    unpleasantness to ask why it exists and what we can do to
    address it. These conversations are hard because they force us
    to consider our own actions and to think about the roles we
    play in an institution that has become increasingly polarized.
        None of us want to shoulder the blame for Congress' low
    approval ratings, but every Member bears responsibility. As one
    of our witnesses, Shola Richards, has said, there has never
    been a drop of rain that believed it was responsible for the
    flood. I thought of that on my walk to the Capitol this morning
    as I got drenched. So, while these conversations are tough, we
    need to keep having them. We need to address the institution's
    problems instead of acting like they will somehow resolve
    themselves because they won't.
        The bottom line is that, if we want things to work
    differently, we need to do things differently. The good news is
    that this committee gives us an opportunity to do just that. We
    are providing a forum for discussing some of the thorniest
    issues Members confront on a day-to-day basis. Our mission is
    to make Congress work better for the American people. And, in
    order for that to happen, Members of Congress also need to work
    better.
        Institutions are a reflection of the people who work for
    them, and nearly every Member I know is here because they want
    to solve problems and make things better for the folks they
    represent. But the desire to do good isn't reflected in the
    dysfunction that is more often on display.
        Our committee held a planning retreat earlier this year,
    and we kicked things off by talking about why we ran for
    Congress in the first place and whether Congress has met our
    expectations. And there was a lot of hopefulness expressed. One
    member said she was here to open doors for more people to have
    a voice in politics. Another spoke about her strong desire to
    be part of the solution. And one member summed up the
    congressional experience best when he said, ``I have never been
    more disappointed or more inspired.''
        There is so much desire to get things done and so much
    frustration with the process. The system often feels top-down,
    which makes it hard for rank-and-file Members to feel
    empowered. What is more, as we have discussed in this committee
    before, the incentive structure can sometimes feel out of
    whack. Members are recognized more for racking up social media
    hits than they are for hard work.
        The frustration is definitely there, but today we are going
    to focus on harnessing that desire to get things done. Every
    Member wants to be effective and productive on behalf of the
    people they serve. The trick is finding out how to turn that
    desire into tangible action.
        The experts joining us today know a lot about the tools and
    approaches that lead to success in the workplace. They have
    researched and advised top business leaders all over the world
    and understand how to build and maintain successful teams. They
    understand what factors motivate people to produce at high
    levels, as well as the connection between job satisfaction and
    success.
        The research shows that leaders who practice civility and
    who take a collaborative approach to their work are able to
    produce and achieve at higher levels. So I am looking forward
    to talking about how Members can apply these principles to
    their own work in Congress and figure out creative ways to move
    their policy and political goals forward.
        As with our past few hearings, the committee will once
    again make use of the committee rules we adopted earlier this
    year that give us the flexibility to experiment with how we
    structure our hearings. Our goal is to encourage thoughtful
    discussion and the civil exchange of ideas and opinions.
        This is the wonky part.
        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.
    Okay.
        Vice Chair Timmons and I will manage the time to ensure
    that every member has equal opportunity to participate. Any
    member who wishes to speak should signal their request to me or
    Vice Chair Timmons, and I know we have got some participating
    virtually. So just give us the, you know, tug of the ear, as
    you wish, Mr. Latta.
        Additionally, members who wish to claim their individual 5
    minutes to question each witness pursuant to clause 2(j)(2) of
    rule XI will be permitted to do so following the period of
    extended questioning.
        Okay. With that, I would like to now invite Vice Chair
    Timmons to share some opening remarks.
        Mr. Timmons. Good morning.
        Thank you all for traveling a great distance to be with us
    today. This is our third hearing on civility and how we can get
    Congress to actually do the job the American people want to us
    do, which is working together to solve the biggest challenges
    we face.
        It has been years that we have been talking about
    immigration and healthcare and debt and spending, and we really
    haven't gotten very far on many of these issues. And it is
    definitely not the right path forward. It has been a
    destructive experience. We can see the challenges we are facing
    now. We have to find a way to work together. And I think that
    this issue, civility, and how we have really fact-based
    collaborative policymaking, we have to figure this out. We
    really have to figure this out, and I think that this committee
    has the potential to make recommendations that will make
    Congress work better for the American people.
        So this subject, in my mind, has been divided into three
    categories. The first is time. The second is incentive
    structures. And the third is relationship-building.
        Time is one that we have talked about for the last 2-1/2
    years. In 2019, we had 65 full working days, so 65 full working
    days. We had 66 travel days, fly-in/fly-out days. The 6:30 vote
    we took on Monday, we call it--I call it a bed-check vote,
    making sure you are here. That is not a working day. We didn't
    do any work on Monday. So, you know, this week we have Tuesday,
    Wednesday, Thursday, full working days, and then we fly out on
    Friday.
        So we can't have 65 working days every year and think that
    we are going solve problems. We just have to have a way to be
    here more, and we talked about that. And, you know, it is not
    just physical presence. It is what we do when we are here. I
    call it pinballing. You know, you have got committees, one,
    two, sometimes three or four. You have subcommittees, two,
    three, four, seven. And then you have votes. And then have you
    fundraising. And then you have constituent meetings. There is
    just so much that you can do. And, generally speaking, people
    that run for Congress try do everything. And when you try to do
    everything, sometimes you either let things slip through the
    cracks or you don't do some of the things very well.
        So time is one really important one. We have to free up
    time for Members to do their job and to engage in this fact-
    based policymaking.
        Incentive structures is the second. We have a lot of
    conflict entrepreneurs. The loudest voices are heard and
    rewarded often. And the people that are working to solve the
    problems are--it is just a tough road. And it is not nearly as
    rewarding as yelling from the top of the mountain. So we have
    got to find a way to incentivize collaborative fact-based
    policymaking. We have to find a way to facilitate an exchange
    of ideas from a position of mutual respect and not use the
    often-provided political talking points and have--you have no
    idea what is in the weeds. But, if somebody gave me a piece of
    paper, I can talk about it in a mildly angry way. So we got to
    get away from that. And we got to find a way to actually dig--
    dig deep on these issue because the answer to these problems is
    not going to be on one page of paper with bold font. `
        Last is relationship-building. This kind of ties into the
    first two, and it is embodied in the term ``civility norms.''
    We don't have opportunities for relationship-building across
    the aisle, largely because of our schedule. That is the time,
    and the incentive structure doesn't reward it.
        We have to create physical space in the Capitol. We had a
    dinner a couple of weeks ago, months ago. And it was wildly
    challenging to get 12 Members to have a dinner on this complex.
    It was wildly challenging. And when we thought we figured it
    out, they wanted $7,000. And that is just not going to work.
    So, you know, there is physical space all over the Capitol. You
    should be able to walk off the floor and have a cup of coffee
    with a Member and have a conversation about these things, not
    go home turf, home turf. ``Come to my office.'' ``I don't want
    to go to your office.'' ``Come to''--you know, it is--the
    physical space cannot be overlooked in this conversation. And,
    again, you got to have more time. You got to have incentive
    structure.
        So that is where I have been thinking about these things. I
    would love to have--can't wait to hear your thoughts on these
    issues and how we can really fix this problem. It is, I
    believe, the most important thing that this committee will do.
    And I just really appreciate you-all taking the time to travel
    this far distance and look forward to hearing from you.
        And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        So we are joined today by three experts who are here to
    discuss how Members who pursue a civil, collaborative, and
    leadership-oriented approach to their work in Congress are
    better able to achieve success.
        Witnesses are reminded that your written statements will be
    made part of the record. Our first witness is Dr. Allison
    Craig. Dr. Craig is an assistant professor in the Department of
    Government at the University of Texas at Austin. Her current
    book project, ``The Collaborative Congress,'' examines how
    rank-and-file Members of Congress work together to craft
    substantive and successful policy proposals in a polarized
    Congress.
        Dr. Craig worked for several Members of Congress, both on
    the Hill and in district offices, from 2001 to 2012.
        Dr. Craig, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENTS OF ALISON CRAIG, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF
     TEXAS AT AUSTIN; SHOLA RICHARDS, CEO AND FOUNDER, GO TOGETHER
            GLOBAL; AND LIZ WISEMAN, FOUNDER, WISEMAN GROUP.

                       STATEMENT OF ALISON CRAIG

        Ms. Craig. Thank you, Chair Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons, and
    committee members for inviting me here to speak with you today
    on an issue I care a great deal about.
        So, when I tell people that I study collaboration in
    Congress, it usually prompts a joke along the lines of ``how
    can you study something that doesn't exist?'' So I always like
    to start by just saying that, you know, despite what people
    think, you know, there is actually a lot of evidence of Members
    do--looking for opportunities to work together both within
    their own party and across the aisle.
        You know, nearly every Member of Congress engages in at
    least some degree of collaboration. And the average Member has
    about 15 people that they work with in a given Congress. And
    that is going to include both policy, working on legislation--
    includes everything from writing legislation to chairing a
    caucus.
        But, obviously, there is a lot of room to grow. About 7 to
    8 percent of bills introduced are the result of bipartisan
    collaboration. Given the substantial benefits of collaboration,
    of working together on legislation, that number should be
    significantly higher. Bills that are presented as the work of a
    pair of Members are significantly more likely to pass and
    significantly more likely to be enacted. So, if you just
    exclude post offices and all commemorative legislation, the
    average House bill has about a 10-percent chance of passing the
    House over, you know, a lengthy period of time. And it goes up
    to about 15 percent if it is a partisan collaboration, so if it
    is two Members of the majority party working together, and 20
    percent if it is a bipartisan collaboration.
        So, yeah, so Members and staff know that bipartisanship is
    how you get things done in Congress. You hear Members say that
    all the time, that, you know, this is how you get things done
    around here is to be bipartisan. And so then the question is,
    why don't we see more of it?
        You know, I have had a lot of conversations with Members
    and staff on how they decide to reach out to other offices to
    work together on a bill or a letter. Over and over again what I
    hear is that Members wants to collaborate more. They want to
    work across the aisle, but they don't think they can find
    someone in the other party to work with. They assume it is not
    going to be worth the hassle. And, at the end of the day, it is
    easier to just write the bill that you want to write and
    introduce it yourself.
        So then thinking about how to get a more collaborative
    Congress, you know, Members work together when you expect that
    the payoff is going to be worth the effort. Right? It is cost
    and benefit. So you need to both increase the incentives, as
    Vice Chair Timmons said, and also remove obstacles of working
    together.
        In term of incentives, obviously ``your bill is more likely
    to pass''' is going to be a bill one. But whether it passes or
    not, you know, the sponsor is going to get most of the
    recognition there. It is their bill. So someone who is the,
    like, lead cosponsor may not get credit for passing or even
    introducing the bill unless they promote it themselves.
        So one of the things that I would suggest to kind of
    improve the incentive structure is allow two Members to be
    listed as the sponsors of the bill. It is going to
    significantly increase the benefits of being the number two and
    let them get more substantive recognition for their work. You
    could even limit it to bipartisan pairs and say this is the
    sponsoring Democrat and this is the sponsoring Republican. Or
    you could say any two Members to--in the first case to
    highlight that it is a bipartisan bill.
        Other incentive-based strategies could include committee
    chairs prioritizing bipartisan legislation, promoting the
    benefits of collaboration to new Members, and increasing
    transparency around the suspension calendar.
        On the other side of the equation is making it easier for
    Members to work together, and this is where I think that there
    is a lot of work that can be done. You know, Members need to be
    able to find someone to work with and ideally before there is
    even a bill, because collaboration is a lot easier behind
    closed doors. But this requires connections, which is one of
    the reasons that collaboration actually significantly increases
    once Members are in their third term because now they have the
    personal connections and the relationships that they can tap
    into more easily.
        When you start thinking about how who you could team up
    with from the other party, you naturally go first to your
    friends. You go to the people that you have worked with before.
    And so what do you do when your connections are limited? Maybe
    you are in your first term. Maybe your go-to guy on energy just
    retired. You know, there are a lot of situations in which, you
    know, Members need some help facilitating those connections.
        So my other set of suggestions revolve around providing
    tools to make it easier for Members and staff to find someone
    to work with. You know, committees could create, like, a
    nonpartisan Member liaison position who Members and staff could
    reach out to if they are looking for someone else on the
    committee to work with, like, who would be good on this issue?
    The committee staff would be kind of a matchmaker. And since I
    am on a ``collaboration is like dating'' kick, you could also
    set up an anonymous but moderated sort of messaging board where
    staff could go out and post things like ``in search of Democrat
    on E&C interested in cybersecurity for possible letter'' and
    try to facilitate that sort of, like, very early collaboration
    in that regard because staff also really do play a big role
    here.
        Vice Chair Timmons mentioned the issue of time. Well, the
    staff are here a lot more than the Members are. And a lot of
    the times, if a Member doesn't have a connection, you naturally
    then go to your staff and say, ``Okay, well, who do you know
    that we could work with?'' And so anything that can facilitate
    additional connections among staff would also, I think,
    translate to the Member level. And so, you know, creating a
    sort of, like, coworking space, places for staff, improving the
    ability of staff to get together would also I think be helpful.
        The Members in all these cases still have to decide to work
    together. They still have to agree on what a bill or a letter
    would look like. But this is going to get over that first
    hurdle of scrolling through 435 Members and cold calling
    someone that you think might be interested.
        And that brings me just to my final point, which is that
    collaboration breeds collaboration. You know, one of the things
    I find pretty consistently is that once--you know, the Members
    who start to collaborate then collaborate more because mutual
    friends facilitate connections. If you have a lot of
    relationships, you will make more. Members who work together
    successfully on one project are more likely to work together on
    another, and Members who have more extensive personal networks
    or staff that have more extensive personal networks are more
    likely to know, you know, the right person to go on an issue.
    And that is going to, again, really increase the collaboration.
        So the easiest thing--it is not actually that easy--but for
    individual Members to do is to start by reaching out to someone
    that they want to work with.
        So, thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Craig follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thanks very much.
        Our next witness is Shola Richards. Mr. Richards is an
    award-winning director of training and organizational
    development, as well as a sought-after keynote speaker for
    commencements, conferences, and government events. He is the
    author of two books--this is part of this committee's
    Amazon.com sales effort--``Making Work Work'' and ``Go
    Together,'' which introduce strategies for replacing
    divisiveness and incivility to create positive living, working,
    and leading communities. Prior to starting his own consulting
    businesses, he served as the director of training and
    organizational development for UCLA Health.
        Mr. Richards, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF SHOLA RICHARDS

        Mr. Richards. Thank you, Chairman Kilmer, Vice Chair
    Timmons, members of the select committee, and staff and
    personnel who helped to make this very important hearing a
    possibility.
        As a keynote speaker and consultant, I am often asked why I
    choose to engage in the difficult work of civility. There will
    always be mean and rude people. A drama-free and respectful
    committee meeting won't travel as far on social media as a 15-
    second sound bite would. And, you know, as they say, nice guys
    finish last. Right?
        That is why when it comes to civility specifically in
    Congress, when I told my friends that I was coming here, they
    said to me, what is the point? What is the point?
        To me, that is like asking, what is the point in showering?
    You are only going to get dirty again. True, right? Well,
    similar to showering, civility also is best used when it is
    done consistently.
        So what is civility? Civility in its simplest form is a
    sincere and consistent demonstration of respect. Without a
    baseline of respect, there can be no trust. And, without trust,
    communication among team members will deteriorate rapidly. And,
    without trust, respect, and effective communication, committee
    meetings will devolve into dysfunction; highly-skilled staff
    members will quit; and, most importantly, the American people
    who rely on this institution to improve their lives will become
    disillusioned, and they will lose faith in their elected
    officials.
        On the other hand, people who consistently demonstrate and
    practice civility are not only viewed more positively by others
    based on the research and are more productive, they are also
    more effective leaders as well. More on that to come.
        So, in this hearing, I would like to share a recommendation
    on how Congress can use civility to create a more positive and
    productive institution that truly serves the American people.
    It is my hope that every committee will consider beginning each
    new session of Congress with what I call civility norms. To be
    clear, this is not a code of conduct. Code of conducts
    traditionally are created by the leaders of an organization
    with the expectations that those within the organization will
    follow said codes.
        Civility norms, on the other hand, are very different. They
    would be created by the members of each committee for the
    members of each committee. This would ensure that each
    committee's norms would be specific to that committee's needs.
    So, for example, it is likely that the civility norms for--that
    are created in the Ways and Means Committee could be very
    different than the civility norms created in the Armed Services
    Committee.
        And that is exactly the point. Generic civility rules for
    large organizations such as the House of Representatives, for
    instance, rarely work in the long term due to their lack of
    specificity. In my experience in the work that I have done, I
    have seen much greater commitment to actively practicing these
    norms when a smaller group of people, for example, a committee
    or a subcommittee within the House, play an active role in
    creating those norms. Additionally, there is greater
    willingness to hold their peers accountable to those norms
    because they are the once who agreed to these norms in the
    first place.
        To create these norms is simple, and the process is simple.
    Ideally in a committee's first organizational or planning
    meeting of the new Congress--and, of course, to be very clear,
    this meeting would be bipartisan--the members should answer two
    very simple civility questions. The first one: What are the
    behaviors that demonstrate respect and should be reinforced
    during each of our committee hearings? Some examples of
    responses that I've seen in my work here, for example, can be
    actively listening and showing respect while others are
    talking. It could be something as simple as disagreeing with an
    idea without attacking the idea who presented the idea.
        The second question, equally important, is: What are the
    behaviors that do not demonstrate respect and should not be
    tolerated during any of our committee meetings? Some examples
    could be making derogatory remarks about other Congress people
    during a meeting or on social media, disrespectful body
    language, like eye rolling while another member is speaking, or
    intentionally ignoring another committee member.
        The answers to these questions should be agreed upon by the
    committee members, recorded, and used as the committee's
    civility norms going forward. Additionally, each committee
    should also determine how they will incentivize behavior that
    promotes civility in the committee meetings. An example, for
    example, would be posting a civility score on the committee's
    website or on their social media for committee members who
    consistently adhere to the committee's norms.
        Let's be real. Committing to this process may seem time-
    consuming. I get that. But couldn't the same be said about
    sitting in committee meetings where toxic conflict, incivility,
    grandstanding, and dysfunction is the norm? Civility is too
    important to be left to chance. That is why it needs a real
    process.
        I am deeply grateful to the select subcommittee for
    ensuring that civility is finally given the attention and
    respect that it deserves.
        And, with that, I yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Richards follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Richards.
        Our final witness is Liz Wiseman. Ms. Wiseman is a
    researcher and executive advisor who teaches leadership to
    executives around the world. She is the author of,
    ``Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter,''
    and, ``Rookie Smarts: Why Learning Beats Knowing in the New
    Game of Work.'' Her forthcoming book, ``Impact Players,'' will
    be available this October. Ms. Wiseman is the CEO of The
    Wiseman Group, a leadership, research, and development firm
    headquartered in Silicon Valley, California. She has been
    listed on the Thinkers50 ranking and in 2019 was recognized as
    the top leadership thinker in the world.
        We are grateful that you are with us. Ms. Wiseman, you are
    now recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF LIZ WISEMAN

        Ms. Wiseman. Chairman Kilmer and Vice Chair Timmons and
    members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to
    share a few ideas.
        I have been asked to share a few of the best practices of
    what leaders and the business world and the nonprofit world do
    to build an environment where work is productive, where people
    are empowered, where people are deeply engaged, and where
    people find work fulfilling. And I want to start by sharing a
    few principles that I think underlie some of those practices.
    And these are truths that I have learned studying some of the
    best leaders in the organizations in the world, as well as
    studying some of the worst.
        And what we find is that, even in organizations that are
    deeply hierarchical, where there are very clear reporting lines
    and rules, the best leaders don't lead with formal authority.
    They don't lead with threat of repercussions. And they lead
    through influence. And they lead in a way where people
    volunteer their best thinking and where people hold themselves
    to the highest standard. The best leaders clearly lead through
    influence.
        The second is that people in all types of jobs at all
    levels and all types of organizations come to work wanting to
    contribute everything that they have. They want to do work that
    is meaningful, and they want to do work that has an impact. It
    is like deeply embedded in us to have this kind of impact, and
    the best leaders in some ways simply allow that to happen. They
    remove the barriers for people to make a contribution.
        And the third principle that we find is that people tend to
    do their best work in a climate that is both comfortable and
    intense. And so what the leader's job is to create an
    environment where there is an equilibrium between safety, where
    people feel they can speak out and contribute, where they feel
    accepted, but also where they feel compelled, where they are
    stretched, where they need to do their very finest work.
        Let me share a few of the practices we see from the very
    best leaders on this.
        The first is that, instead of just giving people work, the
    best pleaders delegate leadership and ownership and
    accountability. Most leaders want to involve people, give them
    sort of a say and participation. But when ownership is unclear,
    people tend to default to the leader; they tend to stall and
    tend to get disengaged. What we find that the best leaders do
    is they give members very clear portions of work, so even small
    portions of the larger committee's work, and they give them
    full ownership of this.
        One of my favorite practices on this comes from John
    Chambers, the former CEO of Cisco. When he was a fairly new CEO
    to Cisco, he was making his first executive--he was hiring a
    vice president of customer support. And he says to him: Doug,
    when it comes this part of the business, you get 51 percent of
    the vote, and you get 100 percent of the accountability.
        And I just don't know a clearer or a simpler way to tell
    someone else that you own this, that you are in charge. Just
    give someone 51 percent of the vote.
        The second is that the best leaders tend to encourage their
    members to set and achieve stretch goals. You know, it is very
    easy for a manager to assign work based on people's current
    ability and to give people goals or objectives. But we find
    that, in that case, when you give people goals and it is in
    their wheelhouse, people tend to do the usual. And we know what
    the usual looks like in this setting. But people are most
    deeply engaged when they are given a challenge, something that
    is a question, not a directive, and something that is beyond
    their current capabilities. It is something that feels a little
    bit like a mission impossible.
        One of my favorite examples of this is the former CEO of
    Gymboree, the children's clothing company. When he took over
    the helm, he could see that there was room for improvement on
    earnings per share. And, rather than give targets out to his
    management team to cascade through the organization, he set a
    mission impossible. And he said: What would we need to do
    across the organization to improve our earnings per share by a
    dollar this year?
        And people got thinking. And soon everyone had a mission-
    impossible goal, something that could contribute to this larger
    goal. That year they massively overachieved. They set a new
    mission impossible, which the next year they massively
    overachieved. And, within 4 years, they had five times
    increased their earnings per share.
        So, you know, a good practice for doing this is to not give
    people goals or objectives but to give people puzzles to solve.
    And maybe the most visual example I can give is to ask you to
    remember the scene from the ``Apollo 13'' movie where they are
    trying to return the astronauts back. It is the iconic scene
    from this movie, not ``Houston, we have a problem,'' a
    different one. It is the one where the engineering manager
    pulls together his team. He dumps out on the table all of the
    parts that are available in the lunar module that is now
    filling up with toxic gas. And he says to his engineering team:
    We have got to find a way to make this fit into the hole for
    that with nothing but these resources.
        And it is actually the architecture of a great way to issue
    a challenge, is to give people a puzzle. How do we do X by Y
    with nothing but Z resources? And what happens is people tend
    to respond because they don't know how to do that, actually.
    And so people start to find answers. And it puts the ownership
    on the team, rather than it sitting with the leaders. So the
    best leaders ask the questions rather than give directives, and
    they create puzzles for their team to solve.
        A third leadership practice would be to create tough and
    fierce but really healthy and civil debate. Leaders typically
    in business and in other settings tend to rush to debate where
    they have fire for the deed, when opinions are high. They tend
    to debate opinions or issues and topics, but the very best
    leaders treat debate a little bit like surgery. They do it very
    selectively and very carefully, and everyone prepares. And they
    debate well-framed questions with clearly defined options.
        One of my favorite examples of this comes out of Microsoft,
    an executive named Lutz Ziob. In running his business, when
    there becomes a vital issue--not every issue. Delegates a lot
    of those. But, when there is a vital issue, he pulls the team
    together. He says: This is an issue we need to debate. Here is
    why it is important. He frames it. He poses the question. And
    then he says: I want you to come back in 2 weeks, ready to
    debate this. And everyone is asked to come with two things:
    one, evidence; and, two, a point of view.
        When he starts the debate, he lays the ground rules. I want
    this to be fierce. I want people to push hard on these issues.
    But I want it to be civil. He defines that, and then people
    start to go. He asks people to come with a position already
    established. They argue for their point of view. And then, when
    thing are starting to settle into kind of a pattern, a decision
    is becoming clear, he mixes it up. And he says: I want you to
    switch points of view. You know, Marcus, you have been arguing
    for this. You know, Amanda, you have been arguing against it.
    Amanda, you are arguing for it. Marcus, you are arguing against
    it. Go. Or, Marcus, you have been looking at this from
    marketing point of view. And, Sunir, you have been looking at
    this from a sales point of view. Sunir, you are about
    marketing. You know, Marcus, you are all about sales.
        And it is very unsettling, but the team gets very used to
    it. And, in the end, the team comes to a decision that the team
    agrees to. And it is unclear who was the winner of that debate
    because he has mixed it up.
        My very favorite debate practice is the simplest one. It
    comes from third graders arguing, debating the merits of great
    literature in the Junior Great Books program. It is three
    questions. I will add a fourth question. It is that the leader
    of the debate should ask the question and not give an answer.
    Two, they should ask for evidence. No one gets an opinion
    without bringing evidence for it. Three, they should ask every
    person to weigh in on it. And, fourth, the one I would add to
    this is to ask people to switch. The switch creates amazing
    things.
        Lutz also opened up his debates. He has the members of the
    debate around the team, but he opens up the debate to other
    people in the organization so that they can observe the debate.
        The best leaders don't tend to assign work based on
    people's skill sets or job responsibilities. The best leaders
    tend to look for what each member of the team is naturally and
    natively good at. I call it someone's native genius. It is just
    like what our minds are built to do. It is what we can't help
    but do. And they find a way to tap into that.
        I see so many leaders who do this as an entire team at the
    onset of a project, which is, like, let's first see what kind
    of capability we are working with. And everyone understands
    people's genius. At first I thought this was sort of a little
    bit of a hippy practice. I come from California. We are prone
    to hippy thinking. I thought this was a bit strange. Every
    group, every single group I have seen do this, where they
    identify the native genius of each member of a team or a
    committee, has said, ``It is the best thing we have ever
    done.''
        The last one that I would like to just sort of end on is
    this idea of creating transparency. I think and what I have
    seen is the best way to create civil debate and collaborative
    practices is to create transparency and put good leadership on
    display. When Alan Mulally had taken over Ford and they were
    hemorrhaging losses in the billions, he would tell you that the
    secret to that success was he stopped one-on-one meetings with
    his executive team members. He established a joint meeting
    where they dealt with issues as a team. They had a simple color
    coding system to deal with the severity. And then he opened up
    those meetings to members of Ford. Everyone was to bring a
    guest. And it was remarkable how the behavior of the executives
    changed instantly.
        I think there is a number of ways that congressional
    committees can take--can put their leadership behavior on
    display because people tend to lead at their very best when
    they know that people are watching, particularly young people.
        There are several other practices in the testimony I am
    happy to answer questions about. Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Wiseman follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thanks very much.
        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. Or for those who
    are joining virtually, if you want to use ``raise hand'' or
    just tug the ear, or as you wish. Exactly, there you go.
        One, I really appreciate the testimony from each of you. It
    seems like we sort of covered three different themes all around
    how to make the place function a little bit better: civility,
    collaboration, and leadership. And I thought maybe the
    committee could start by just pulling on the threads related to
    civility.
        I presume that Vice Chair Timmons will ask a little bit
    about incentives since in his opening remarks he spoke about
    that. I think one of the things that this institution struggles
    with is this notion of sort of what we owe each other in terms
    of standards of conduct. As part of this effort, I reached out
    to a sports coach who had taken over a team that had a pretty
    dysfunctional culture. And he said the rules are what governs
    us when we are at our worst, and the norms and culture are what
    keeps us at our best.
        And so, Mr. Richards, your suggestion of establishing some
    sort of standards I think is really important.
        Now here is what is tricky in this place. One person's
    violation of standard and norm is another person's only avenue
    for exercising the rights of the minority. You know, and we
    have seen that in this place. We have seen it recently with,
    you know, every suspension bill now there is a roll call vote
    on. And, you know, and we saw that when the Democrats were in
    the minority and literally took to the floor and did a sit-in
    on the issue of gun rights or gun safety.
        So you see at times things that, probably, if there were
    those sort of codes of conduct, you know, this is--I think it
    is worth recognizing this is different than rules. Right? You
    are talking about how do we engage one another in a way that
    might lend itself to a more collaborative approach.
        So I am just looking for any guidance you have to the
    committee as we think about this and as we think about making
    recommendations, how to thread that needle, recognizing that
    it--that, as an institution, we want to be respectful of the
    rights of the minority and we also want to make sure that the
    place isn't just dealing with persistent obstruction.
        Mr. Richards. Thank you for that question, Chairman Kilmer.
        You know, since you brought out sports first--and I am
    hoping I will be the first of many sports metaphors throughout
    the day hopefully. When I look at a sports team, I think of a
    football team. And if I remember correctly, Mr. Cleaver also
    formerly played football. So I--when I think of football or any
    sport, really, what happens are rules that govern the sport.
    But there is also unwritten rules around respect, not just for
    the teammates but respect for the game. So, when you see
    someone who violates an unspoken norm or a team norm, so to
    speak, not only are the people on the other team upset at that
    person, but people within the team are upset with that
    particular player. You notice that people can fight hard and
    play hard. At the end, they are trading jerseys because they
    can still respect the game.
        So, when we come to the House of Representatives and we
    think about the work that is being done here, the reason why
    norms are important is that it is conflict with guardrails. So,
    when you see people who are engaging in disruptive behavior,
    things that make this institution dysfunctional in some way,
    there should be some sort of guardrail in terms of, ``Hey, this
    is how we are going to be working here,'' and more than just a
    Code of Conduct but really specific to each committee and
    subcommittee to see whether or not this is something that would
    actually work.
        So, in my experience, I have found, like I said in my
    opening testimony, people are more willing to adhere to norms
    when they play a role in creating them, regardless if you are
    in the majority or in the minority. This is part of--because,
    as we all know, this is cyclical. Sometimes you will be in the
    majority; sometimes you will be in the minority. But the idea
    is these norms should be constant. They make a difference when
    people actually adhere to them. And, most importantly, more
    people are willing to hold others accountable to these norms
    because they played a role in creating them.
        So, while it is hard to do this--and I know we can't
    legislate people being nice and kind to each other. I just want
    to be very clear. That is not what I am saying, unfortunately.
    But what would be nice is that if people could at the very
    least have some sort of norms, some process that they can
    remind themselves of when they show up.
        I think Phoenix Suns Coach Monty Williams said, and I want
    to make sure I get this quote right: Everything that we want is
    the on the other side of hard.
        And this is hard. This is not easy. If it was easy, this
    would already be done. So it is going to require some sort of
    process and, quite frankly, some new suggestions that I am so
    happy to get into during our question and answer. But I want to
    cede my time and share with the two fabulous ladies on either
    side of me.
        The Chairman. I don't know if anybody else wants to speak
    to that question. Otherwise, I will invite Vice Chair Timmons.
    Go ahead. And then others who want to pull on any of these
    threads related to civility, and then we will shift gears and
    talk about collaboration.
        Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Craig, I want to talk about incentive structures,
    particularly at the committee level. We have talked a lot about
    Congress as a whole. Just--there is a lot there: 435 Members is
    very challenging. But, when you kind of go down to the
    committee level and say, what can we do to really change the
    incentive structures within committees, which is where most
    Members of Congress do the most of their work, it becomes maybe
    a little bit more manageable.
        We had Congressman Upton come and talk about how, when he
    was the chairman of E&C, they had--you know, they gave priority
    to bipartisan amendments. That seems like a pretty easy thing
    for us to recommend. Sitting interspersed throughout the dais,
    I really think that that is something that is a no-brainer,
    just creating, forcing people to sit amongst their colleagues
    on the other side of the aisle. I really think that has
    potential. Modifying the questions--the questioning structure
    is something that we talked about, actually exchanging ideas as
    opposed to just using talking points and not really defending
    your ideas. Honestly, that is one of the biggest things that I
    think is missing in really our country today. You don't defend
    your ideas. You can say things that may be incredibly
    intelligent or may not make much sense, and nobody actually
    says: Let's really get into the weeds on that. What is the
    effect of that policy you are proposing? And what about this?
        Nobody does that. You go on Fox News or CNN, and you get
    praised. There is no--there is no back and forth.
        One of the things that we talked about, discharge petition.
    I mean, you know, 218 is what you got to get. But what if there
    was another one? What if it was like a bipartisan discharge
    petition with a lower threshold? You get 100 Rs and 100 Ds, you
    are guaranteed a vote. And, you know, taking that same thought
    process to committees, you are guaranteed a hearing if you get
    X percent of committee equal Rs and Ds.
        So that causes me to say: All right. I have this thing I am
    passionate about. I got to go and sell it to people on both
    sides of the aisle because that is the only way that I can
    guarantee my outcome, things like that. I mean, throw out some
    new ideas, talk about those. I am open to really anything.
        Ms. Craig. No, I appreciate that. Thank you, Vice Chair
    Timmons.
        You know, I think that you are right that committees are I
    think an excellent avenue for a lot of collaboration to occur
    because it is, first and foremost, a smaller group and it is
    easier to get a smaller group of people working together. You
    know, I think that having, you know, actually tying into the
    idea of kind of setting committee norms, having one of the
    norms and--would work better again in some committees
    understand others--be, like, some level of prioritization of
    bipartisan legislation, you know, the committee chair agrees
    that they are going to--you know, if you get X level of
    support, yes, they are going to put it on the agenda or at
    least have a hearing. Similarly with amendments, it could
    happen that way.
        You know, I think that, in terms of kind of tying, I guess,
    the committees into, like, the relationship building, like, one
    of the things I like--well, we will see how it goes. But I
    think I like how you are doing because it is the questioning
    here in terms of it keeps people in the room more. And that
    then also, I think, facilitates relationships and more of a
    conversations and builds connections between members if you
    have that sort of structure within the committee hearings.
        In terms of kind of then when you move on to the floor side
    of things, you know, I think--toying around with the idea but
    the idea of, like, the suspension calendar, obviously, is where
    a lot of bipartisan--the main benefit of, I think, of a lot of
    bipartisanship is that it becomes much easier to get through on
    suspension. But a lot of Members don't really know how that
    works, especially, like, in the first couple of years. And it
    is not really clear.
        And so, even if you weren't to say--so all--I mean, you
    could go all the way to saying, like, yes, there is a
    guarantee. Like you can show me that you are going to get two-
    thirds, that this bill will get two-thirds support, we will put
    it on the agenda. But at the very least allow Members to, like,
    submit their legislation and say: Hey, I have enough--maybe I
    don't have two-thirds cosponsors, but I have enough bipartisan
    support here that I am confident we will get past that two-
    thirds vote. And allow them to kind of raise the legislation to
    the attention of the leadership to hopefully get it on the
    schedule would be another one of my suggestions.
        Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
        Anybody else have any thoughts on incentive structures?
        Mr. Richards. I will jump in.
        You know, I have two young daughters. And I have learned
    that the best way to get any type of behavior to change is to
    focus on the behavior that you want versus the behavior that
    you don't want.
        And there has been some talk and some ideas around in terms
    of collaboration. But also, too, with civility is having, like,
    a civility score or something that you can actually see in real
    time who is playing an active role in getting Congress to work
    again? And this hopefully would disincentivize the folks who
    want to be difficult and be obstructionists and make things
    difficult for the institution. But, more importantly, it shows
    what this institution actually values, which is collaboration,
    which is civility, people working together, and, most
    importantly, doing this in a way that is public so that people
    can actually see what is going on, on social media or on the
    website.
        It helps to get people to think: Okay, this is important.
    Clearly this is something that is being measured. I don't want
    to be a person who is staying out of this. I want to be a part
    of this. And hopefully really engage people's better angels in
    doing the right thing.
        Ms. Wiseman. There is something I would like to add to
    that. When I look at what is done in the business world to
    incent collaborative behavior, civil behavior, you know,
    collaborating in the business world, you know, in many cases,
    is as hard as in really complex organizations where people have
    interests and very different interests. And what the
    organizations tend to do is, first, they create case studies,
    like: Here is what it looks like when it is done well.
        And they create heroes out of these people, and there are
    probably video-based case studies.
        I think there could be a lot of power in saying: Where has
    it been done well? Where are the positive examples? And let's
    put that on display and maybe continue to build this library of
    case studies of successful, bipartisan, collaborative, good
    leadership, and civil discourse. That is one thing that
    businesses tend to do. I think it could work here.
        Another is not just the kind of formal incentives but spot
    incentives. A lot of organizations use these peer-based spot
    incentives where anyone without prior approval can see good
    leadership, collaborative behavior, bipartisan legislation,
    civil behavior, and give somebody a spot award. Maybe it is a
    lapel pin. Maybe it is a sign on their door that says this is
    what--this is what the desired behavior looked like. And it is
    not only fun to receive one of these, people love giving these
    kinds of awards. It is incredibly gratifying. I think there is
    power in doing something that simple.
        Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. Okay. We have a flurry of hands that just
    went up. So I have got Mr. Latta, then Perlmutter, then Joyce,
    then Phillips, then Cleaver.
        So, Mr. Latta.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
    today's hearing. I think it is very instructive.
        You know, I think that you have heard me say that, in my 25
    years of almost in the legislature, either in Congress or back
    in the General Assembly, I have always pushed for what I always
    call the five Cs. The top of it was civility. And you got
    cooperation and then collaboration and then camaraderie but,
    you know, working together.
        But, you know, it is a tough world out there. And I think
    that is what you had mentioned in your opening statement. Or
    maybe it was Mr. Timmons that, you know, time is one of our
    biggest enemies out there. It is getting to know one anymore is
    very, very difficult.
        And, for our panelists, maybe I could hear from each of you
    because just to get your thoughts on how--where we are today
    because, again, you know, we live in an instant world. You
    know, people are reading the scroll on the bottom of their TV
    or something like that or something off their handheld device,
    and get their information in less than 30 seconds and not
    delving into it.
        But when--you know, when you take away the thoughts of
    where we are with the internet, with Instagram, with Twitter,
    with Facebook, you know, how do we get out there to make sure
    that, you know, we are working with each other? Because, again,
    it is difficult, you know. And I objected when, you know, the
    cameras were right outside the House floor. You know, it seems
    like Members would run right out and--from the floor after they
    said something and get right in front of the TV cameras.
        And, you know, it is the way we address each other on the
    floor. I am a big stickler for that. One of the things in Ohio
    that we had as a rule is that you never addressed anybody by
    their name. It was always by where they were from and, you
    know, to keep things on a nonpersonal basis just on that.
        But I am just kind of curious. You know, in this instant
    world that we are in today, how do you all see that we can get
    this civility? Because, again, with time being a problem,
    getting to know people, having that ability, how do we address
    that in today's world? Thank you.
        Mr. Richards. I will take that.
        Ms. Wiseman. I will follow.
        Mr. Richards. Perfect. It is so interesting when we talk
    about time. And, you know, I think we have to get creative when
    we think about time, how we use it, how we use it within this
    institution and maybe, quite frankly, maybe outside of it.
        So, creatively speaking, what would be cool--and I am using
    that word intentionally because I don't think this is happening
    now--is an idea where folks from either side of the aisle could
    invite a person from the opposite side of the aisle out to
    dinner. Now, I want to be very specific about this, because
    this is not just some idea of, like: Hey, let's go have dinner
    with someone from a different party. This is very intentional,
    and I want to be clear when I say this.
        So the idea behind this to make this work because then it
    is hard to find time when you have multiple committee meetings
    and different competing priorities, I get that. But what would
    be great is you could have a dinner once a month that is
    actually expensed by this institution. Now, not the $7,000
    dinner that Vice Chair Timmons was talking about in his opening
    remarks, but it could be something like $50 or $100, whatever
    makes the most sense.
        But what is important about this particular dinner is you
    are off-site. You have an opportunity to connect with someone
    that is not really based on, ``Hey, will you sign off on this
    bill,'' and things of that nature, but leaving work aside and
    having an opportunity to get to know someone based on the
    relationship-building that Vice Chair Timmons was mentioning in
    his open.
        It should be branded, though. And this is really important.
    It is not like: Hey, we are going have dinner. You could call
    it something like, just naming a President, a Jefferson Dinner.
    Hey, I am going take someone out on a Jefferson Dinner. Now the
    idea behind this is that, when you brand something, you give it
    a name, there is an expectation behind it. So it is, like, when
    we have this dinner, the expectation is I am going to take
    someone out from a different party, and we are going have
    dinner expensed on this institution where we can get to know
    each other and finally build that trust away from the cameras
    that you see after a hearing where people run out to their
    favorite cable news station and get in front of a camera and
    say: Look how I did. Look how I did.
        This is more around getting people to understand each
    other, to start humanizing people, and taking the time to get
    to know people and build those relationships.
        Maybe most importantly though, once you find that friend
    from the other side of the aisle, it is easy to say: I will
    just keep taking this person out to dinner every single time.
        It should switch. So it should be a new person every month
    in order to be able to get this expensed.
        This is a very simple, powerful way to do this. Businesses
    all over the world use this as an opportunity to get people to
    know each other. I am surprised that this is not built into
    this institution, knowing that it works. So once you get the
    opportunity to build this, it can create bonds that go far
    deeper. And it hopefully will alleviate the challenges of time
    that Mr. Latta was speaking about earlier.
        I have more, but I just want to stop there for that.
        The Chairman. Anyone else want to swing at that?
        Ms. Wiseman. I would like to add something to this. You
    know, it is no secret that we are--there is a lot of
    performance going on, performing for cameras, performing for
    social media, performing for constituents. You know, it is
    happening with our young people performing for social media. I
    think we know how damaging this is.
        I think there is some interesting thinking that can be done
    about, how do you allow people to perform for a different
    audience, and I know there is a practice of allowing school
    children field trips to come in and watch. And I just wondered
    what would happen if committee meetings were open not just to
    whatever classes happen to be by but there was active just
    reach to bring in middle school field trips and not just have
    them come and go but to look for teachable moments. And perhaps
    these norms of behavior, as they are codified or we say, ``Here
    is what good leadership, civil, collaborative, productive
    leadership looks like,'' I would think, like, put that on a
    piece of paper and give that to each kid who sits down. And
    maybe make a bingo card out of that. Maybe you make a checklist
    and give them a pencil and say: Just circle every time you
    notice that behavior.
        And then maybe the teacher has a conversation about that
    with the students. Behavior would change.
        Maybe you structure in more teachable moments where there
    is a chance to talk to the school classes that come down about
    what it means to be a steward and not just a representative of
    geography or a constituency but what it means to be a steward
    of a democratic process and the obligations and the higher
    obligations that come with being a public servant.
        And I think if you create an audience that people value,
    people will perform at their best. I think you could also bring
    peer observation in, or there is a slew of external executive
    coaches who I am sure would be happy to come in on a pro bono
    basis and observe and coach and help people lead at the very
    best. But I like bingo cards for school kids myself.
        The Chairman. That is fun.
        Ms. Craig. Well, I would like to add to that, just because
    I am really sad I did not give my students bingo cards for this
    hearing because I am making them watch.
        But just to briefly chime in on the role of time, you know,
    I think that is one of the reasons. You know, there is a lot of
    conversations. You hear a lot of people talking about how, you
    know, part of the problem with Congress is that no one lives
    here anymore; no one plays--you know, the kids aren't playing
    on the same baseball time. Like this is a very common refrain.
        We don't actually have a lot of evidence to say that that
    is what kind of caused the decline of civility. So I want to
    caution with that. But I feel like sometimes we get so hung up
    on these conversations of, like, well, no one living here, so
    we don't hang out, we are not friends, that no one thinks
    about, so how do we adapt to the new world in terms of finding
    new ways to make connections and finding, you know, new ways to
    have these conversations. I think, you know, going out to
    dinner, the dinner idea is fantastic. This is one of the
    reasons that I also emphasize staff because, again, the staff
    are here all the time. And so, if you can facilitate
    connections between your staff, the staff can then be a bridge
    to make connections between Members. And, yeah, I mean, I think
    just generally.
        The other thing I would say is that, in terms of kind of
    the instant response, it is also why I think part of it is
    getting--part of what would increase civility is to have a lot
    of these conversations happen behind closed doors and then come
    out as a joint, united front and make that the announcement,
    rather than having, you know, ``Oh, here is an idea,'' and
    then, you know, go through some back and forth and place
    different, competing proposals on the table. Instead, just come
    out as a united front of, like, ``Here is our idea,'' and
    really take joint ownership of it.
        The Chairman. Mr. Perlmutter and then Mr. Joyce.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Is that on? Yeah.
        I guess just in trying to put these in silos, I am not
    sure. You know, civility, collaboration, leadership, they are
    all part of the same thing.
        So, going back to the sports analogy, you know, the
    Broncos, two of our fiercest competitors were the leaders of
    the team, Peyton Manning and John Elway. Okay? And I mean they
    wanted to win. Period. And made it a better team. What we have
    under this--in this room under the dome is we have two teams
    competing. It is different than Microsoft and everybody getting
    in the room and debating, you know, towards a thing. They are
    part of the same team.
        So what has been difficult for all of us is the team
    element has become more and more pronounced over time.
        So I just open it to the three of you because I think you
    are all talking, you know, from the leadership, you know, the
    more competitive the leader, you know, all of a sudden, you are
    going down one path. And I can pick a couple of my committees
    where I have just the fiercest competitive leader in one
    committee versus a more collaborative leader in another
    committee. And you get different results. There is no question
    about it.
        So, in the setting that we have, which is difference than a
    corporate setting, you know, it is--we are sort of in the game
    the whole time. How do you manage that? How do you bring out
    civility? How do you bring out the collaboration? I guess that
    is my question.
        Ms. Craig. Sure. So I can jump in on this.
        You know, I think--I do think there is a perception issue
    more so than--I mean, yes, there absolutely are competing
    teams. Don't get me wrong. I am not going to come in here and
    be, like, no, no, everyone really gets along. But the--I
    actually do have a fair amount of research showing that the
    majority of Members are mostly just focused on, you know,
    creating policy solutions and/or district advocacy, you know,
    like the majority--a bare majority--but the majority are
    focused on that end.
        And so that is where I see the role of collaboration I
    think being really impactful is actually getting those, like,
    rank-and-file Members who are less concerned about the partisan
    fighting that is going on over here and more concerned about
    working together and making these connections and because, like
    I said, you know, kind of collaboration facilitates more
    collaboration.
        So, if you have these two Members that are really concerned
    about policy working together and then, oh, they are
    successful, like, other people will hopefully try to imitate
    that behavior and expand the, you know, value, the norm of
    collaboration within the Congress by just demonstrating good
    behavior or collaborative behavior anyway.
        Mr. Richards. Can I jump in, too?
        Thank you for that Dr. Craig. I am--I just love sports
    metaphors because, I mean, using Peyton Manning and John Elway
    is a great example for this. And I know your district is
    obviously in Colorado. And the idea--right? The idea is when
    you talk about John Elway and Peyton Manning, the two things
    about them, besides being Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks for
    the Denver Broncos, they also are not just fierce competitors,
    but they did something that could also be duplicated within
    this institution.
        You mentioned before that there is fierce teams that are
    separated, and they are fighting for their cause. So the one
    thing that could help interrupt that is intraparty policing
    where there is someone within the party who is willing to say:
    Hey, listen, you can fight for your cause and fight hard, but
    still let's remain within these guardrails.
        It is more--far more powerful hearing it from someone
    within your own party who is willing to say: Hey, this is not
    okay. Like I understand that you are fierce. But to get on
    social media, to run to said news network, and just start to
    disrespect or humiliate someone is not advancing this cause.
        And this is going to take courage. Quite frankly, and I
    know courage is a relative term, but the idea is this is going
    to require people to put their necks out a little bit. I think
    if you are in a, politically speaking, a safe district where
    you are most likely to be reelected over and over and over
    again and because, for whatever reason, there is more people in
    your party there, it is either deep blue or deep red, there is
    less of a willingness to engage for sure, if we are going to be
    honest. But the idea is, if someone from the party within the
    party chooses to hold someone accountable, this is beginning
    the process of turning the ship around that has been so off
    track for so long.
        And that is what Peyton Manning did. That is what John
    Elway did. They went to the situation. And even Tom Brady who--
    sorry--but he went to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers after they were
    a horrible team and in one year turned them around. And I think
    it is because the inside of the team, there is a spirit of
    accountability, which I think is sometimes absent in this
    partisan bickering that we see so often.
        The Chairman. It is interesting. I mentioned I have talked
    to a sports coach, and he talked about they have a players
    council, where it is that type of holding each other
    accountable. It is not getting sent to the coach's office
    because you violated a rule. It is, you know, it is a peer
    basically pulling you aside and saying: Hey, you know, we don't
    really do that here.
        You know, I keep wondering if there is a way to structure
    something like that in Congress. I don't know that there is.
    But I can tell you, like, if Emanuel Cleaver came up to me and
    say, ``Hey, you know, that is--you were outside of the lines
    here,'' like, that would probably change my behavior. Right? I
    mean, he would be the chair of the players council.
        Mr. Joyce.
        Mr. Joyce. Unmute. They we go.
        The Chairman. There we go. I knew you could do it.
        Mr. Joyce. You would think, after 16 months, I would know
    how to work this thing.
        When I--you know, you touched on a good point, as always,
    Derek. But I thought that maybe I would have those
    conversations with some knuckleheads, who aren't here, when
    they said stupid things that reflected poorly on all of us.
    And, on top of them, you know, giving me grief, then they
    turned around and said crazier things.
        So you would like to think that, you know, peer-to-peer
    discussions would work. Maybe with some they do. But certainly,
    in this instance, I see it as more--and I think--I am sorry.
    But the last speaker touched on it, the idea that the, you
    know, that Tom Brady or the coaches, in other words, the
    leadership has to bring and be incentivized to bring that to
    the team. And I was wondering if any of the panel had an idea
    on how that might be accomplished or how the team could search
    for the leadership to actually make that happen.
        Ms. Wiseman. I will comment on that.
        I don't--I think I first want to acknowledge that I
    understand that the business world has a different model. I
    don't think the leadership dynamics are any different, that
    people are people. However, the organization's structure
    creates a very different dynamic because, in the business
    world, as well as the nonprofit world or our school systems,
    there tends to be a unifying leader.
        And, in this setting, there is an absence of a single
    unifying leader. There is competing teams and which means that
    the unifying force has to come from within the organization for
    there to be a functional process.
        And I want to share just an observation and then maybe a
    resource. The observation would be, you know, so much of my
    work is studying power inside of organizations. And I have been
    thinking a lot about this question over the last months, and
    the conclusion I come to is probably a conclusion that everyone
    in this room has already come to. But I want to share it
    anyway, which is, in absence of a unifying force and if the
    peer-based leadership dissolves, people need clear leadership.
    And I think what is happening is we will, as a country, trend
    toward authoritarian leadership. Like we will see that this
    vacuum is filled. If it is not filled in Congress, it is going
    to be filled more and more with leaders who take very
    authoritative position. And I think more and more, as our
    citizens, the electorate, people like me see a lack of peer-
    based unifying leadership in these buildings, the voters are
    going to want leaders who are authoritative and dictator-like,
    and I think this is a disturbing trend. I don't think we want
    to see that on any party. And so we have to find a structure
    where this comes from the middle of the organization or from
    the top of the House, so to speak.
        That is probably an obvious conclusion. But I feel like
    shared--like that is the only conclusion I can come to is we
    will move more and more to an authoritative society. And that
    troubles all of us, I believe.
        The resource I would point you to is there an organization,
    I think you are familiar with, the Partnership for Public
    Service. And I am a member of their advisory board. I have been
    serving with them for the last, I don't know, 2 or 3 years.
    And, as part of that work, they have and we have built a
    leadership model that takes some of the best thinking out of
    the business world, that looks at what are some of the
    peculiarities and challenges of being a leader in the public
    service space. And it is centered in the idea of stewardship
    and public service, and I think it is a tremendous resource to
    say this is what good leadership looks like in this context.
        And I think you will be talking to some members of that
    group next week, but I would encourage you to look at that
    leadership model in particular.
        The Chairman. Dr. Craig.
        Ms. Craig. I just wanted to jump on here real quickly
    because the answer is that that is a really hard thing to do,
    frankly. I mean, you elect party leaders whose job is to keep
    your party or get your party into the majority. I mean, that
    really--that is who you elect to be your party leaders are the
    ones that you think are going to be, you know, keeping your
    party in the majority. And that requires distinguishing
    yourself from the other party, and it rewards conflict, and so
    on and so forth.
        So I am, with respect to Liz, I am not sure it is the right
    idea to try to change kind of how the leaders are. But maybe--I
    am really into this, like, council of--now I don't want to call
    it council of elders, but that is because I am--like, you know,
    kind of another sort of--create a new leadership position that
    is a little bit more bipartisan, that is elected--I really--in
    a majoritarian institution, this is so hard to do. But find a
    way to create it so that it was absolutely a bipartisan
    position and have them be someone who is, like, providing,
    setting this norm of collaboration and voice that isn't
    necessarily the partisan--the party leaders. Or hire a staff
    member or hire, like, a parliament--the parliamentarian version
    of the civility director.
        Mr. Richards. May I add one small thing to that too and
    just to add on to kind of what Dr. Craig was saying? I also
    think there has to be a reimagining of our leaders around, who
    is their audience? You know, we have to think about this more
    deeply. We have an idea that your base are the people who are
    on Twitter, who make up, what, like 20--I think only 20 percent
    of Americans, according to Pew Research, are actually on
    Twitter. So that is not your audience. That is maybe the most
    vocal minority who is speaking up, and there is a need to
    placate those people, and there is way that that kind of moves
    the conversation towards the fringes to satiate that base.
        But what would make more sense is to reimagine the audience
    of the remaining 80-plus percent of people who may consider
    voting for you, may consider working with you, maybe consider
    pushing your agenda if you were to behave in way that was maybe
    more civil, more thoughtful, and can engage more people. It
    just may be time to reinvent that and think about it
    differently.
        The Chairman. Mr. Phillips.
        Mr. Phillips. Mr. Perlmutter and I were just reflecting on
    the proposition to have children, you know, attend everything
    and how beautiful that would be even in our caucus meetings
    because it would change. Then, again, we have plenty of
    children already, I would argue.
        There is so much to unpack. This is my favorite
    conversation in Congress because I was reading Chairman
    Kilmer's tweet this morning. And he wrote, quote: Research
    shows that leaders who practice civility and who take a
    collaborative approach to their work are able to produce and
    achieve at higher levels.
        And having come from the private sector myself, that is
    exactly how things worked until I got Congress.
        And I thought a lot about this. You know, there are 435 of
    us. You know, if we were in a private enterprise or a business,
    surely each one of us would have been fired already for
    insubordination at one time or another. But only--and a
    handful, clearly, if there was accountability, would probably
    be terminated for poor behavior. Growing up in a household, you
    know, we had a parent who provided accountability. In schools,
    we had a teacher or principal. In business, we have a boss.
    And, here, as I reflect on rewards systems and the incentive
    structure to all of your respective points, it is actually
    antithetical. It is the opposite rewards, which is so terribly
    confounding to me.
        You know, so a couple of questions. You know, voters are
    electing dividers to Congress. And then those elected to
    Congress are electing dividers to leadership positions. That is
    just pretty clear. It is true on both sides of the aisle. A
    couple of questions and one reflection.
        You know, I think we have this vice happening in America.
    We have got angertainment on one end of the vice that is
    thriving, using us as pawns to divide. And then we have
    gerrymandered districts, as you, I think, reflected on, Mr.
    Richards, that reward deeply blue or deeply red behavior. And
    then all the rest of the country is in the middle of this vice.
        I want to better understand the psychology behind why both
    Americans might be electing dividers, why we in Congress seem
    to be elevating the wrong people. And then, secondly, what if
    hypothetically there was a third caucus? How would that change
    the behavior, do you think, in the institution, a more
    moderate, a combination of thoughtful Democrats and Republicans
    perhaps that would be a triangulation, if you will, of power?
    Would that change anything in the U.S. Congress?
        So, two questions: the psychology behind why and how some
    internal dynamics might change with a third entity instead of
    just two teams.
        Ms. Wiseman. I can speak to a little bit on the psychology
    of why. One of the things that I study is, I mean, leaders I
    call multipliers who bring out the best in others versus
    leaders who are very smart and capable but have a diminishing
    effect on others.
        Mr. Phillips. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Wiseman. They tend to be very divisive leaders. And
    often they have staying power in organizations, and they have
    success. And I have spent a lot of time trying to understand
    why people keep working for them and why people follow them,
    and I think it addresses a couple of your concerns. And what
    happens is, when people feel voiceless and they feel like their
    voice is not being heard: Nobody is listening to me; I am going
    to get behind someone who people are listening to. And, even if
    I in some ways abhor this person, this is my only avenue for
    voice.
        And it is what happens in the business world is people tend
    to follow them.
        The other dynamic that we see out in the private sector is
    that these leaders tend to have a diminishing effect on others,
    and others get intellectually weakened around them. We become
    lazy. We will--I will just defer thinking to them. I will let
    them do the hard stuff. I will just sort of be hands and legs.
    And people actually become less capable around these leaders.
    So they are less capable of standing on their own. So they
    become places where people degrade around, and then they become
    dependent on them for any kind of influence.
        And so I think it is a very--it is a very disturbing cycle
    of degeneration. And I think it is--I see it happening all the
    time in the workplace. And I think it is also happening in our
    political system.
        Mr. Phillips. And just--and to my second question about
    just this notion of these two teams, you know, what happens if
    there is a third team in a construct like this? What do you
    think?
        Ms. Wiseman. Probably changes everything.
        Mr. Phillips. How so?
        Ms. Wiseman. Well, it gives more options. And, you know,
    you don't have a mortal enemy. And you have to form--I don't
    know. I don't want to purport that I understand anything about
    the political process, but I think it creates more options and
    more like a market system perhaps. But I don't know. This is
    not my expertise.
        Mr. Phillips. I appreciate it.
        Ms. Wiseman. So we are over the edge of my expertise.
        Mr. Phillips. I appreciate it.
        Ms. Craig. I think I am, like, obligated to jump in here as
    the political scientist at the table.
        So I am sitting here, trying to imagine a third party. And
    I just can't get to the point where it exists. Just in terms of
    thinking about the House, the way, because of the Members that
    are elected right now, you have--you know, if you imagine
    everyone on kind of on a left-right continuum, obviously, there
    are issues that go on other dimensions. But right now there is
    actually such a gap between the two that filling in the middle,
    like, Members who are even at the more, you know--like
    conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans are probably
    better off with still, like, their own party preferences than
    going all the way to the other party. The further apart the
    parties move, the less incentive there is----
        Mr. Phillips. Of course.
        Ms. Craig [continuing]. To cross the aisle, obviously.
        So, yeah, so I get really stuck on the where does the third
    party come from because ideally you would have, like, a middle
    component. And we don't really anymore. I mean, that is really
    true that the--for a number of different reasons actually, you
    know. A lot of moderate Members are losing their seats. And
    then that also, I think, leads to a more polarized Congress.
        In theory, though, you know, and it is a theoretical
    version of having three parties, I mean, it definitely changes
    thing because all you have to do is, you know, look at
    parliaments where you have to start, look ahead to these
    coalitions. So, okay, we are going to try to forge weird groups
    to try to get a governing majority. And, I mean, you know, I
    like a good parliamentarian, just a parliamentary system. But
    that is kind of the dynamic that you would get where you would
    have--force--it would force people to kind of break outside of
    their group in order to get a majority.
        And the only other thing I would add on that is that, while
    we do not have a third group, you know, it is important to
    remember that, right now, for the time being, you do have--I
    mean, I know it is bad to talk about them on the--or Hill, but
    you have the Senate on the other side, which actually does
    serve as, to some degree, as--it does force a degree of
    bipartisanship. If you want to get something actually through
    the Senate, there are ways around it, obviously. But you need
    to get past that 60-vote threshold. And that is going to
    require, you know, Members of both parties.
        And so that is, you know, I think, certainly an element
    that can also kind of help people break out of their coalitions
    if you emphasize that a little bit more and focus on that a
    little bit more.
        Mr. Phillips. And before we move on, any thoughts on if
    rank choice voting, as an example, might change the rewards
    system for candidates to broaden their base of support perhaps
    or to not just pander to the base?
        Ms. Craig. So that is really outside my area of expertise
    in fairness.
        Mr. Phillips. All right.
        Ms. Craig. So I am really kind of hesitant to jump in on
    what--because it really varies. You know, I think it depends a
    lot on the State. It depends a lot on the districts that they
    are running in.
        I will say on the subject of thinking about the incentives
    in districts that, you know, there definitely is a line between
    the really what we call safe districts but really the strong
    partisan districts where there is, if not a disincentive,
    certainly no real incentive to be bipartisan there.
        But one of the things that I find in my research is that
    for Members who represent districts where it is not even just
    the marginal ones, they went up to about 60 percent of the
    vote, kind of that 50 to 60 percent, 48 to 60 percent range,
    the Members who collaborate more, who have larger and more
    robust networks, actually do a little bit better in their
    elections.
        So, if you have those sorts of districts that are a little
    bit more swingy, a little bit more moderate, then that
    actually--the voters end up incentivizing collaboration. But,
    when your district is 80 percent Democratic or 80 percent
    Republican, they want--they are with their team, and they want
    their team's positions, and nothing else will do.
        Mr. Phillips. Yeah, I do see a correlation between good
    behavior in more competitive districts----
        Ms. Craig. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Phillips [continuing]. You know, no question, yeah.
        Mr. Richards. Can I take a quick stab at those two
    questions, Mr. Phillips, really quickly?
        I--kind of on--adding onto Liz's point earlier around
    leadership, why people follow leaders who may be divisive in
    some sense, I think the easiest way to look at this is, when
    you see bad behavior, bad behavior is an unskilled expression
    of an unmet need. I will say it again: All bad behavior is, is
    an unskilled expression of an unmet need. So there are needs
    that are not being met, and the skill to meet those are not
    developed.
        So, oftentimes, you will find a figure who is able to
    engage the lesser angels of a person, so to speak, and, without
    the skills to manage those needs that are not being met, it is
    easy to follow someone like that.
        Secondly--and this is outside of my expertise, but I will
    take a stab at it anyway--is the idea of adding a third
    potential party to the table, so to speak. My initial response
    was I don't see how that would truly fix anything. It is like
    having a dysfunctional couple, and they are married. And it is
    like: Hey, we should add a child; that is going to fix
    everything. And I don't know if that would.
        I mean, like, the reason why I think about that is I think
    about how adding something to a situation that is already
    dysfunctional without really finding some tools that are going
    to repair the current dysfunction will be aided by adding
    something additional to it, if that makes any sense.
        Mr. Phillips. Yeah, and the reason I asked that, of course,
    is in, you know, when there is triangulation of leadership, it
    forces you, to get anything done, you need two of the three.
        Mr. Richards. True.
        Mr. Phillips. And that is--anyway, thank you all very much.
    I appreciate it.
        The Chairman. Mr. Cleaver and then Ms. Van Duyne.
        Mr. Cleaver. And thank you. This has been very, very
    interesting. I almost ran over to make sure I was here in
    person. We have so many problems. And you have been very
    articulate in giving us some reason to, you know, contemplate
    ways in which things can function better.
        We have multiple influences, and one of them is the media.
    And I understand the media. I mean, but if you want to get
    attention and want to become a national personality, I mean, if
    I, you know, took off my pants and ran around, you know, this
    building, I mean, I would get significant coverage tonight.
        Ms. Craig. Or lack thereof coverage.
        Mr. Cleaver. Yes. But if I did it, you know, to demonstrate
    that we have naked policies, you know, then I am heralded. And
    so that is a part of it that we--nobody wants to talk about
    because nobody wants the media to get mad at them.
        However, the good news is that, 2 weeks ago, a major news
    outlet--I am not going to mention them because I don't--we have
    this lengthy meeting. And I don't want--they may not be ready
    to talk about it. But they are interested in something that you
    have talked about and I have talked about here in our
    committee. And that is they want to figure out a way that their
    particular news outlet can measure civility among Members and
    recognize Members, you know, like, we are measured, as I have
    said to the committee, by every group in the world. I mean,
    the, you know, laborer, and the Chamber, I mean, everybody, you
    know. You get a 98 or whatever.
        And they are interested in doing it. We ran into a problem,
    and we talked about this. It was a lengthy meeting, and I was
    thrilled to see that that media outlet was actually wanting to
    do something to turn down the volume and or maybe more
    particularly to celebrate individuals who were not turning up
    the volume.
        And the problem that we ran into is--was--and it is going
    to be difficult to solve--and that is, you know, by
    personality, by their nature, there are a lot of Members whose
    voices are never heard because they just kind of, you know, do
    their work, get on the plane, and go home. Do their work at
    home. Come back. They are not going to be recognized by the
    media. And so, if you, you know, if you say, well, they are the
    ones who have the greatest level of civility, it is probably
    not a good way to, you know, to measure others.
        And I said to them, using a sports analogy, I said: Yeah,
    we have got to create a way to do it because you can hit 450 in
    baseball, but if you did not come to bat a certain number of
    times, you can't win the championship. You know, you have to
    have--a certain number of at bats that you have to have in
    order to be a part of the statistics. And so we couldn't--we
    were not able to get past that in the conversation. And so I am
    just wanting to throw that out to you.
        And then, to this, finally, said there are a lot of Members
    who on both sides of the aisle really want things to do better.
    I have been beaten up by a Republican friend who said: You
    know, you quit writing the letters.
        And for the newer Members, for about 5 years, I wrote a
    letter each week to all of the Members, 435 Members.
        And then I was in New York over the weekend, and another
    Member came up to me and said: You are the problem.
        I said: What?
        They said: Where are the letters?
        So I thought I would start it again. I think the chairman
    was probably here when I was doing the letters every week to
    everybody. So I am going to--I did one yesterday--2 days ago
    that is going out.
        So I know that there are a lot of people who want things to
    be better. And they don't celebrate, you know, people who are
    doing a nasty--making a nasty remark. But, on the other side,
    if you have any ideas on this system of measurement, I think
    this particular news outlet is really interested in doing this
    because they spent a lot of time with me twice and probably
    watching our meeting because that is where they first got the
    idea.
        Ms. Craig. So I can jump in on this.
        And I don't have an answer for you quite yet on how to
    measure civility. But I did make a little note for, like: Next
    project, consider finding a good measure of civility. So maybe,
    you know, a little bit, a couple of years.
        You know, I think--but you have raised several, I think,
    really excellent points that, you know, first and foremost, the
    media is driven by conflict. It is not actually their fault.
    That is what--the views. You know, it is, you know, conflict
    draws attention.
        But I will say that bipartisanship actually also gets
    coverage, like when--I mean, it is covered in a certain way
    where it is covered, it is, like, a rare show of bipartisanship
    on Capitol Hill. The number of headlines I have tracked of,
    like, The Washington Post, The New York Times that highlight
    the rare show of bipartisanship makes it kind of clear it is
    not actually all that rare. But if that is--if it gets them
    writing about it, cool. That is great.
        So, when bipartisanship is successful, you know, I think it
    does get attention. And I think the--the idea I was proposing
    about having Members have or having legislation that has, like,
    two sponsors, a Democrat and a Republican sponsor, I think
    would actually help in that it would make that bipartisanship
    much more visible. It would also make--we could get all sorts
    of scores to calculate for you if you do that on the political
    science side of things.
        But the other thing I would just say is that, you know, so
    there is a couple of political scientists at the University of
    Illinois who have done work kind of classifying Members,
    classifying all of you by your behavior in terms of not
    civility but in terms of, like, your actions, in terms of,
    like, how much do you fund raise, how much due vote with your
    party, so on and so forth. And the vast majority of Members
    fall into categories that, as Mr. Cleaver was pointing out,
    don't get any attention. It is 16 percent of the Members end up
    falling into, like, the two high-profile categories of, like,
    the party--you know, party leaders and not just leadership but,
    you know, carrying party warriors, I think is what we are going
    to call them, and what we call the ambitious entrepreneurs,
    although I really like conflict entrepreneurs, too, for that.
        But that is, you know, a small segment of Congress. The
    vast majority of them are policy--policy wonks, district
    advocates, you know, people who are focused on their policy.
    And so, you know, also doing internal work to promote more of
    that behavior, like, promote that activity more publicly could
    be part of it. Certainly passing their legislation obviously
    ends up getting more attention by making it more public that
    way, but it is a big challenge.
        Ms. Wiseman. I want to add one thought to that. I agree
    with you. You know, there is a reason why the media covers
    conflict. We are interested in conflict. It is part of our
    human nature. We are drawn to the salacious. It is interesting.
    It is compelling. And rather than trying to change that, maybe
    to play with it, double down on it, which is, you know, a great
    movie, something that we are fixated on is all about conflict.
    No one wants to watch a movie or read a story that lacks
    conflict, but what we love even more than conflict is conflict
    resolution.
        And I wonder if there is a chance to tell stories about
    conflict and then say: Here is the conflict. Here is how we
    were warring, at odds. Here was the no-win situation. And here
    is how people came together to resolve that.
        These are stories people want to read. These are case
    studies that would get media attention. So I would play up the
    conflict and add the resolution piece to it, and I think we
    could get a lot of attention for it.
        Mr. Richards. I want to echo what you just said, Liz. That
    is--I am so grateful that you said that because--and I know
    that the media is set up in a way to kind of, you know, attract
    people to drama. I understand that. But I will be just be from
    my own personal experience, and I feel like I am pretty dialed
    into the civility stuff. I had never heard of this select
    committee prior to, like, a month ago. And the work that you
    all do is so meaningful and so powerful. And, quite frankly,
    when I tell people, when I told my friends, like, yeah, I am
    going to be testifying on Capitol Hill about civility, it is,
    like, there is an amazing Select Committee on the Modernization
    of Congress that is doing really powerful work to make Congress
    work better. There is?
        So there is a responsibility. And I don't know on your
    websites if you have this front and center, if this is
    something that people can actually see, so people are aware of
    the work that you are doing. It could make a huge difference to
    know that there is hope on the horizon. There are people who
    understand this problem because I will tell you, on the ground,
    people are just, like: Yeah, this is the way Congress is
    broken. That is the way it is. It doesn't seem like anyone is
    taking the effort to fix it.
        So this hearing, hearings like this and the work that you
    all are doing needs to be publicized even more than it
    currently is.
        Mr. Cleaver. The problem--I am sorry. I am from Kansas
    City. It is the home of Hallmark cards. And the Hall family--I
    am not doing a commercial, although they--the family, they are
    good friends of ours. But, Don Hall, Sr., reads every script
    for the Hallmark movies. The number one watched net--yeah,
    network during--from Thanksgiving to New Year's is the Hallmark
    Channel.
        And one of the thing that--my son is an actor. So I have
    started paying attention to this stuff. But one of the things
    you have to, if you know Hallmark--I don't know if any of you
    know the culture. I don't--every movie ends beautifully. I
    mean, I mean, whatever it was that happened, it is--it ends
    beautifully. They have to end that way. And the millions of
    people who are watching, they know how that is going to end.
    And yet the overwhelming majority of Americans watch it from
    Thanksgiving to New Year's, and they already know how it is
    going to end.
        And so people are--they are hungry for things to work out
    well. And, you know, and they enjoy it and celebrate it. And I
    think we are fighting against it here. I have a--I don't want
    to get him in trouble. I have a friend who is a Republican. We
    have traveled all over the world together. I have wiser--
    friends. And I said it to him the other day. We were someplace.
    And I said: You know, I am scared to say anything about this
    because I don't want you to end up getting death threats.
        I mean, I--you know, death--I have two people in prison
    now. I don't have them. The FBI put them in two prisons. And,
    you know, we talked about it yesterday in Homeland Security.
    And so I am almost--I don't want one of my friends to end up
    getting, you know, threats. And that is where we are right now
    in the country. You know: You have violated the rules of the
    tribe, and, therefore, we are going to attack you and call you
    and tell you what we are going to do to your children and so
    forth.
        So the--I think there is a hunger for it. But if we allow
    this thing to continue to get out of--to get further and
    further and further out of control, I am--I--you know, I have a
    little 6-year-old grandson who I love more than I love myself
    most of the time. He can do some other things. We won't talk
    about it here. But I actually fear right now for what my little
    6-year-old is going to experience, I mean, in our country.
        And so I--I think this committee is doing valuable
    business. I appreciate you being here. I think that we got to
    get out of this thing where we can't even acknowledge
    relationships because we are afraid to do it.
        Thank you. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No.
        Ms. Craig. Can I--I just want to jump in really quickly,
    because an idea came to my mind while you were talking. It does
    not solve the problem of death threats, unfortunately. But in
    terms of we were talking about the Hallmark movies. And I think
    one of the reasons that, you know, the Hallmark movies are so
    popular is because everyone knows, for that one month, you can
    turn on that one channel, and you will get a feel-good movie.
        But you could actually imitate that behavior in Congress
    where you have a sort of, like, this is the bipartisanship
    month or the week, you know, whatever it ends up being where
    you have, if you had a week that was focused on, you know,
    bipartisanship and collaboration and you kind of centralize all
    of your activities around that theme like as a House, then that
    is going to be an easier way for you to get attention from the
    media probably also in terms of these, like, small little bills
    that wouldn't get attention of themselves. But if you do an
    entire week of it, like, right now I think that would be so
    shocking that people would be, like: Well, we are definitely
    going to cover this. But, you know, you can kind of capitalize
    on that by consolidating things.
        Ms. Wiseman. Yeah, and you can play it right after Shark
    Week.
        The Chairman. I feel like this is the time where I should
    thank C-SPAN for being here, but I also----
        Mr. Phillips. We need Hallmark to cover Congress.
        The Chairman. They did a week, covering the week of this
    committee. They replayed all of our hearings. As you can
    imagine, it was ratings gold.
        Ms. Van Duyne.
        Ms. Van Dyne. I had--hit the button. It is not----
        The Chairman. There it is.
        Ms. Van Duyne. Is it on? All right.
        I appreciate the work of this committee. But I think it is
    also incumbent on each of us as leaders to take those
    responsibilities of reaching out and being everything that we
    talk about in being a leader, of being accountable, of being
    collaborative.
        As a freshman, this has been an interesting time. I think,
    as anybody in this room will acknowledge, we are probably at
    our most divisive that we have been in decades. You know, my
    third day here, we had January 6th. The week after that we were
    talking about impeachment.
        We have a lot of different characters on both sides of our
    aisle, but I don't want to give anybody death threats. But I am
    just looking across the table. And, yesterday, Representative
    Cleaver and I signed a deal inking a caucus that we are
    creating as former mayors, trying to work together. And, you
    know, when we were mayor, I didn't have a letter next to my
    name. People knew where I went to, you know, where my kids went
    to school, where we went to church, where I shopped. You know,
    we were very accessible. And so, as mayors, I think we look at
    it differently. We want to be productive.
        I don't know anybody here who is just wanting to be on C-
    SPAN. I think a lot of us come here with ideas of what we want
    to do, and we are desperate to be productive, which means
    working and collaborating. And I am looking at, you know, Ed
    Perlmutter, at the bottom of the--you convinced me to join the
    Congressional Softball Game, the softball team. Thank you very
    much for the 7 a.m. practices.
        But, I mean, those opportunities, we are creating. It is
    not, you know, having a month where we are doing it, and it is
    just kind of hokey, but we are creating those opportunities.
        Last week, I was in Minnesota with, you know, with fellow
    colleague Dean Phillips. We were going around and talking to
    businesses that were in his district to find out the
    commonalities. What are businesses across the country facing?
    And I am in Texas. He is in Minnesota. I will tell you: They
    are facing the same things.
        And I look forward to having you in Texas to do those, to
    do the same type of meetings.
        I think it is incumbent on all of us to create
    opportunities to do that. Now, look, we may not be in agreement
    on a lot of our votes. But I am trying to find ways that we can
    work together. Now, as a freshman, I may be naive to be doing
    these things. I mean, time will tell if they actually are
    effective. But I think it is important that we all recognize
    that we are here to do a job, and we can't do a job if the only
    thing we are doing is just throwing axes. And I don't know if
    those are interesting ways that have been tried before and have
    failed. But what are your thoughts on some of those ideas?
        Ms. Wiseman. I think that is the essence of leadership.
    That is my thought.
        Mr. Richards. I have to jump in, too, because it is
    interesting, Ms. Van Duyne. I was in your district, Tarrant
    County, and had an opportunity to speak at the Fort Worth
    Convention Center. And there was a moment where I saw almost
    the epitome of civility in terms of what I would see from--
    there was a moment where something went wrong from an AV
    perspective. And the amount of people who came in and didn't
    place blame and didn't point fingers and just collaborated to
    get everything working again, it was hard to explain because
    there was no Republican, Democratic, Black, White, gay
    straight, born-again, atheist. It was just: Hey, let's work
    together to make sure this event goes off without a hitch.
        And in my travels around the country, I have always found
    that the leadership that Liz was speaking of, you know, often
    comes up in moments of crisis. But I also want to see how this
    can continue in moments that are just a regular Thursday or,
    you know, just a normal way of operating. I think we can get
    there.
        I did want to mention, too, to Mr. Cleaver--and I am really
    sorry about the fear that you shared about your grandson, about
    potential--I mean, it hasn't happened hopefully, but death
    threats that could be something that is a problem for even
    admitting that you are hanging out with someone who is across
    the aisle. Ms. Van Duyne was talking about going to Mr.
    Phillips' district in Minnesota outside of Saint Paul to have
    an opportunity to connect, and now it is on C-SPAN.
        But the idea is we have to normalize this. And as hard as
    it is to feel like, well, you know, I would rather keep it
    private for fear of these things, if we normalize that there is
    nothing to be afraid of, of having people across the aisle have
    meaningful relationships, I think we can begin the process of
    making meaningful change.
        Ms. Craig. And I would just jump in and say, I mean, I
    think that trips like the two of you are talking about are
    really fantastic for a few different reasons. But one of them
    is because a part of working together to solve problems starts
    with agreeing on what the problem is, and I think sometimes
    that is missing. You know, sometimes these conflicts can't be
    solved because you are not actually agreeing on what the
    problem is. And then, obviously, the solutions are going to
    vary. So, if you start by doing this sort of, you know, fact-
    finding and work together to actually come around on the
    problem, then I think that facilitates also collaborating on
    solutions.
        And then the other thing I would say is, again, I think it
    is a lot of work could be done in terms of just making it
    easier for Members to find people to work with, especially
    Members in their first term who maybe don't have the robust
    connections that more senior Members have. And that is, you
    know, I think utilizing the infrastructure that currently
    exists in the House, like utilizing committee staff is
    obviously one place to facilitate that. But, even if it were
    just--I mean, Zoom makes things very challenging right now.
    But, you know, having these sorts of Jefferson Dinners, which I
    also am a big fan of, to get people to meet each other, like,
    you know, once you get more--once you get more, like, personal
    connections, they kind of have more--you know, they build upon
    themselves. And I think that helps a lot.
        Mr. Richards. One last thing, back to Ms. Van Duyne's
    point, orientation, and I know it was probably very odd for you
    being oriented during a pandemic and everything like that. But
    if we can also use orientation as an opportunity to set some
    norms around civility, knowing that being new to Congress, that
    could also be a great opportunity as well.
        The Chairman. Indeed, one of the recommendations out of
    this committee was to do that.
        Mr. Richards. Oh, awesome.
        The Chairman. So we are thinking alike.
        I think we have covered a lot of good terrain. I want to
    give folks an opportunity to ask some kind of cleanup
    questions. I just want to quickly, and then I will ask--I know
    Vice Chair Timmons has a question to follow up on, too.
        Dr. Craig, I think one of the--it is not just around
    incentives in terms of the challenge of collaboration. It is
    actually sometimes just hard to find, you know, who do I want
    to work with on this? I keep thinking that there are lessons to
    be learned from private industry. I worked for a management
    consulting firm that had thousands of people all around the
    world. And I could say who has got expert--you know, I could
    literally go onto an intranet and say, who has expertise on
    this subject?
        Similarly, I don't think anything like this exists in
    Congress where I could come in and say: Hey, I am a new Member.
    I want to work on veterans' housing issues. Are there other
    Members who have self-identified as wanting to work on that--or
    rural broadband or reducing debt or whatever? It does seem like
    something like that might be useful and being able to identify
    the staff person on your team who would be the point of contact
    for something like that. Is that kind of along the lines of
    what you were thinking about when you said, you know, like a
    craigslist or something like that, you know?
        Ms. Craig. No, that is. That is really what I was thinking
    about. But another idea, similarly, along similar lines is,
    like, again, within kind of the House intranet if all of the
    Members set up profiles that were, like, here are my top three
    priorities, the things that I am really interested in working
    on, and here are my staff contacts for those, it is a different
    presentation than like what you put out on your public-facing
    web pages because this would only be for internal use.
        But, you know, we do this in academia where it is, like:
    Okay, I am looking for someone to collaborate on a paper that
    studies X. And it turns out I can pull up their websites. And I
    can find, okay, you know, they--this is their priorities, the
    priorities in their research. And so I think that would also
    translate really well if you don't necessarily want to set up a
    dating site for legislating in Congress.
        The Chairman. Vice Chair Timmons.
        Mr. Timmons. Chair, thank you.
        When I got sworn in, I guess this was 2019. One of the
    coolest experiences I had was a dinner in Statuary Hall, and it
    was all the Republican freshmen. And the Marine Corps Band was
    there, and it was very formal. It was just a very cool
    experience. And I know the freshmen Republicans my year,
    freshmen Republicans, they are some of my closest friends in
    Congress, and I have a relationship with all of them.
        I don't have that on my Committee on Financial Services.
    And I don't have it to the same degree even close with the
    freshmen Democrats from my--from my year.
        So we are talking a lot about just opportunities. And we
    had previously discussed the idea of having committee dinners,
    annual committee dinners. And the Library of Congress has a lot
    of space. I don't think it is reasonable to open up Statuary
    Hall for that many dinners. But there is multiple spaces within
    the Library of Congress. And you could host a dinner, for
    example, Financial Services. You invite Republicans, the entire
    committee. And you have 10 seats per table. You do four Rs,
    four Ds. And you bring in people that you anticipate will be
    speaking in front of the committee and for hearings. You know,
    we can anticipate this pretty well with Financial Services. I
    imagine it is the same for most other committees. And you just
    have a get to know each other. There is no--there is no agenda.
    It is just, what are you working on?
        So I think that is something that is an easy, low-hanging
    fruit that we can do. But there is also this opportunity of
    issues. I mean, there is 10, 20, 30 issues that are very
    important to everybody. Why not have a dinner just to get to
    know people? Hey, if you care about immigration, we are going
    to have this opportunity where it is going to be an incredible
    experience to go and have dinner in the Library of Congress--it
    is beautiful--and share a meal together. And, you know, make
    sure each table is divided, R and D.
        And these are just layouts. I mean, I think everybody can
    agree that this is something that should be going on that is
    not. So I think that we will spend some time looking into that
    more.
        And the other thing with civility, a civility officer, I
    don't know where they would go. But this is not going to be
    easy. What I am talking about is not something that you just
    say: All right, you do this.
        Somebody is going to have to be in charge of making sure
    that all the committees are scheduled right. We don't even
    populate some of the committees until a certain time. So there
    is all this scheduling. And then you have to make sure that--
    you know, I know that Zoe Lofgren and Rodney Davis serve on
    four committees or five--I don't even know--five committees. It
    is crazy. So you got to make sure there is no conflict, but it
    is doable. It is very doable.
        So I think that that is a really good direction that came
    out of everything that we just talked about. So, I mean, any
    thoughts on that idea? I mean, it seems like we are taking
    everything that we just talked about and putting it into an
    action item.
        Mr. Richards. Yeah, I would happily jump in on that.
        I love the idea of the dinners and having an opportunity
    from people from different parties to have an opportunity to
    connect. There is something humanizing about breaking bread.
    There is something--this has been, gosh, since the--the
    beginning of time where people connect more deeply when they
    have an opportunity share a meal together.
        I will also on that vein share something that could be a
    potential recommendation, as well, that could be useful from
    the business world is--and Liz kind of talked about this, but
    this is a little bit different--is Bring Your Child to Work
    Day.
        Now let me explain. Not necessarily bringing your child
    into committee hearings but having an event once a year where--
    because I know the challenges--and Dr. Craig had talked about
    this before--where people don't live in the District anymore.
    They live away from D.C. So the idea of bringing your family
    here for a period of time where they could have an event, where
    it is bipartisan, and there is speakers, and there is teaching
    events. But, most importantly, lawmakers and their children get
    to interact with other lawmakers and their children. And the
    children are in age-appropriate events that are things that
    they can enjoy and have an opportunity connect.
        It builds the trust that I think is so desperately lacking
    in this institution where people can feel like: Hey, my kids
    get along with their kids, and there is an opportunity to do
    this. One, it will also help to make people understand what
    their kids--what their parents do for a living, which is
    certainly nice. But maybe, more importantly, it will remind
    lawmakers to set positive examples to their children and have
    an opportunity connect to people who may ideologically think a
    little bit differently from them. And I think it is a powerful
    way to begin this process and gives people something to look
    forward to on a bipartisan basis.
        Ms. Craig. And I would just say I think also the thing of
    the committee dinners idea is a great idea. I would suggest,
    instead of trying to make it so the entire committee gets
    together, because that is going to be really hard with some of
    your bigger committees and scheduling is a nightmare,
    obviously, but if you made it so that it was just like a small
    dinner, like eight members of Financial Services and the
    members had to sign up, it also creates some scarcity, like I
    think that could also get people a little more excited if it is
    hard to get into the dinner. And so, you know, it becomes
    something that, you know, they want to do--they haven't had the
    chance to do it--and facilitate participation with the
    schedules.
        The Chairman. Mr. Phillips.
        Mr. Phillips. Just one more quick question, and we have
    spoken about this pretty regularly. Just the physical construct
    of this hearing is remarkably unique in Congress. We are facing
    each other instead of backs towards one another. And maybe even
    more important, we are all on the same level, you know, you
    testifying with all of us, Democrats and Republicans. Do you
    think the physical construct perhaps of how we do our hearings
    and conduct our meetings might even change? In my experience,
    it is a little harder to be rude to someone who is just a few
    feet from you, not to mention physically on the same level. So
    any thoughts on that?
        Mr. Richards. I mean, 100 percent, 100 percent. I think,
    Mr. Phillips, just this idea of sitting--and I am a little bit
    of a political nerd. So I do--watched a few hearings in my day.
    But, to your point, it is having layers of higher ranking
    people with more tenure sitting higher than ones who are lower
    ranking, so to speak, and talking to the backs of people's
    heads is not--not only does it not increase collaboration, but
    it is just not really a civil way of doing it.
        This is an opportunity for hopefully whoever has C-SPAN as
    part of their cable package to see how this actually works----
        Mr. Phillips. Yeah.
        Mr. Richards [continuing]. When people do look at each
    other in the eye and have an opportunity to communicate. It is
    not just the subject matter that is creating this civil
    conversation that we are engaging in, but I do believe, to your
    point, it is the format.
        Mr. Phillips. Yeah.
        Mr. Richards. I think it makes a huge difference, and I
    don't want to overstate that. I think it does make a difference
    to be able to see people and look at them when they are
    speaking.
        Ms. Craig. And I want to--oh, sorry. Go ahead.
        Ms. Wiseman. I just wanted to add to that. I do think it is
    hard to be divisive and dislike people when you are close to
    them. And it makes me think--I want to share just a small story
    because it is about sports, and I haven't been able to add to
    the sports metaphor. And it is something--a story I heard Steve
    Young tell, you know, former 49er quarterback.
        Mr. Richards. Yeah.
        Ms. Wiseman. And he talked about one of his opponents,
    Reggie White, who was this, like----
        Mr. Richards. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Wiseman [continuing] Fierce----
        Mr. Richards. Sure.
        Ms. Wiseman[continuing] Lineman and he talked about what it
    was like being the quarterback in the pocket, like, knowing
    that Reggie White, who was, I don't know, like, 6 foot 5, like,
    I don't know, 300 pounds of, like, massive offensive line
    coming at him. And he said: I could hear Reggie coming. He was
    loud, like, I knew he was coming to get me. And I lived in
    terror of this man.
        He said: But when Reggie would come and tackle me--you
    know, I think he led the NFL in quarterback sacks. He would
    take Young, and he would grab him. And he would tackle him to
    take him down, and then he would use all of his own weight to
    flip Steve over and so that Steve landed on top of him so that
    he would take him down but not hurt him.
        And then Steve said: And then, as soon as he tackled me, he
    would be like, ``Hey, Steve how you doing?''
        And Steve would be: Not so great right now, actually, but
    glad you asked.
        He would be like: Hey, Steve, how is your dad?
        And, you know, Steve is trying to shake it off. And I think
    it is this wonderful metaphor, which is you can be fiercely
    competitive.
        Mr. Richards. Yes.
        Ms. Wiseman. You can be on opposing sides. You know, Reggie
    came at him with everything he had and was ready to take him
    down, but he did it with civility.
        Mr. Richards. Yeah.
        Ms. Wiseman. And he didn't hurt Steve.
        And I think that is a metaphor for how people can work.
    Yeah, you can be competitive. You can try to be vying for a
    point of view, but you can do it with dignity and civility and
    with good leadership. It is just like we need a few more Reggie
    Whites in Congress. So that is what I would offer around
    proximity, like they are close.
        Mr. Phillips. I love that.
        Ms. Craig. And the only thing I would add is that I think
    that, you know, one of the strengths of this structure of a
    committee hearing is that it does turn into much more of a
    conversation. I mean, your average committee hearing, you know,
    you come in. You give your 5-minutes talk. And then you leave.
    You have no idea what anybody else said in that committee
    hear--not everyone but frequently you have no idea what anyone
    else said in that.
        Ms. Wiseman. No, always.
        Ms. Craig. Yeah. So, you know, this encourages people to
    stay and have this conversation. But it also encourages more of
    an exchange of ideas. And, you know, I think that talking
    about--I don't have a good sports metaphor here, unfortunately.
    I am really sad about that. But, if you think about--thinking
    about, like, navigating the fact that there is this really
    intense conflict that isn't going to go away anytime soon,
    there are still a lot of areas where there is a lot of room for
    common ground. You know, if you think about going back to
    your--you are, like, people who go back to their districts,
    even if it is a really, you know, deep red, deep blue, they are
    afraid. They are, like, oh, well, I compromised, and so,
    therefore, it is bad. The district isn't going to care if it is
    something like ``and we worked together to bring you all of
    these money'' or ``we worked together to bring you all of these
    roads.''
        You know, that is sort of like distributive politics, in
    particular, is, you know, everyone is very collaborative. But
    having the conversations I think reminds people of the areas
    where you can find common ground, and then that also then
    facilitates collaboration.
        Mr. Phillips. Terrific. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        With that, I would like to thank our witnesses for their
    testimony today.
        And, Dr. Craig, I would like to thank your students for
    watching and boosting our C-SPAN ratings.
        I would like to thank the committee members for their
    participation. You are right. The structure we are using is not
    cosmetic. I mean, it is with an eye towards trying to foster
    similar collaboration that we are talking about today.
        As always, I want to thank the staff of the committee for
    pulling together such a great hearing with three such terrific
    experts.
        And, again, thanks to our friends from C-SPAN for showing
    up.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Can I just make one point?
        The Chairman. Yeah, go on, Ed, Mr. Perlmutter.
        Mr. Perlmutter. I am surprised that Mr. Cleaver didn't talk
    about Patrick Mahomes.
        The Chairman. I would like to thank the National Football
    League for the substance for the day.
        So, with that, 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 material to the chair for
    inclusion in the record.
        And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
        Thanks, everybody.
        [Whereupon, at 10:59 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                [all]