[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF CONSTITUENT
ENGAGEMENT WITH CONGRESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION
AND INNOVATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
December 17, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.govinfo.gov
www.cha.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-407 WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman
LAUREL LEE, Florida, Vice Chair JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia Ranking Member
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina NORMA TORRES, California
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
MARY MILLER, Illinois
MIKE CAREY, Ohio
Mike Platt, Staff Director
Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION AND INNOVATION
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma, Chairwoman
MIKE CAREY, Ohio NORMA TORRES, California,
Ranking Member
JOSEPH MORELLE, New York
Jordan Wilson, Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statements
Chairwoman Stephanie Bice, Representative from the State of
Oklahoma....................................................... 1
Prepared statement of Chairwoman Stephanie Bice.............. 3
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Modernization and
Innovation Norma Torres, Representative from the State of
California..................................................... 3
Prepared statement of Ranking Member Norma Torres............ 4
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on House Administration Joseph
Morelle, Representative from the State of New York............. 68
Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle.......... 69
Witnesses
Dr. Michael Neblo, professor, The Ohio State Institute for
Democratic Engagement and Accountability....................... 6
Prepared statement of Dr. Michael Neblo...................... 9
Mrs. Aubrey Wilson, Director of Global Initiatives, POPVOX
Foundation..................................................... 22
Prepared statement of Mrs. Aubrey Wilson..................... 24
Dr. Beth Simone Noveck, Chief AI Strategist, State of New Jersey. 34
Prepared statement of Dr. Beth Simone Noveck................. 36
Mr. Ken Ward, Director of House Digital Services, CAO............ 60
Prepared statement of Mr. Ken Ward........................... 62
Questions for the Record
Mr. Ken Ward answers to submitted questions...................... 78
Mrs. Aubrey Wilson answers to submitted questions................ 84
Michael Neblo and Laura Moses answers to submitted questions..... 96
Dr. Beth Simone Noveck answers to submitted questions............ 100
THE FUTURE OF CONSTITUENT ENGAGEMENT WITH CONGRESS
----------
December 17, 2025
Subcommittee on Modernization and Innovation,
Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Bice
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bice, Carey, Torres, and Morelle.
Staff present: Michael Platt, Staff Director; Rachel
Collins, General Counsel; Abby Salter, Deputy General Counsel;
Jordan Wilson, Director of Member Services, Modernization and
Innovation; Marian Currinder, Senior Professional Staff;
Kristen Monterroso, Director of Operations; Annemarie Cake,
Professional Staff and Deputy Clerk; Jamie Fleet, Minority
Staff Director; Sarah Nasta, Minority Senior Advisor and
Director of Outreach; Kwame Newton, Minority Oversight Counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHANIE BICE, CHAIRWOMAN OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION AND INNOVATION, A U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM OKLAHOMA
Chairwoman Bice. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
Modernization and Innovation will come to order.
The title of today's hearing is ``The Future of Constituent
Engagement with Congress.'' I note that a quorum is present.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time. Also, without objection, the hearing record will remain
open for 5 legislative days so that Members may submit any
materials they wish to be included therein.
At the beginning of the 119th Congress, we decided to
update the Subcommittee's name to the Subcommittee on
Modernization and Innovation. The behind-the-scenes work of
closing out recommendations made by the Select Committee on
Modernization continues, but we also need to look forward and
determine how we can ensure that House technologies and systems
continue to evolve instead of getting stuck in time. This is
where innovation comes into play. Bringing Microsoft Copilot
into the House community is a great example of how the
Subcommittee is leaning into this work.
For the past couple of months, we have worked closely with
the CAO on a comprehensive plan to provide Copilot licenses and
targeted training to our House staff. As of today, 150 Member
offices have licenses, and in January, licenses will be
available to every Member, Committee, Leadership, and House
support office. Integrating AI technologies into House
operations is really a game-changing first step in making the
House a more efficient and effective institution.
Constituent engagement, the topic of today's hearing, is
another area that is ripe for innovation. There are all kinds
of innovative tools and technologies that we could be using
right now rather than scrambling to play catch-up later.
Communicating with our constituents is absolutely essential
for doing our jobs, the jobs we were elected to do. Assisting
with casework, responding to questions, and explaining our
positions on the issues of the day requires interacting with
our constituents in effective and meaningful ways. As we all
know, the communications landscape is evolving at a rapid pace,
and there are now many different ways to engage and share
information.
Our constituents are exposed to new technologies daily,
whether they are scheduling appointments, ordering food, or
using AI tools that work. The forms of communication they
encounter outside of Congress are much less common inside of
Congress. Rather than assume that they will read our letters
and emails, we should figure out how to meet our constituents
where they are at today, tomorrow, and into the future. If we
do not begin to incorporate new and emerging technologies and
platforms into our constituent outreach strategies, we risk
losing the ability to effectively connect with the people we
need to hear from the most.
For decades, the House has relied on a small number of
constituent management systems, or CMS, for handling Members'
constituent engagement and outreach needs. While these systems
have added different features and upgrades over time, I do not
think that any of us would call these systems cutting edge.
That is not at all a criticism as much as it is a reflection of
the fact that the market here is limited and it lacks the kind
of competition that is typically needed to spark innovation.
All of this presents us with a real opportunity to
reimagine constituent engagement. Members represent vastly
different districts and constituencies, so maybe a, quote,
build-your-own system makes more sense than a one-size-fits-
all. That way Members could choose technologies and platforms
that best meet the needs of their districts and constituents.
More options could encourage real innovation, and that is
really what we want. I am looking forward to learning more
about public views on the current and future states of
constituent engagement as well as what other countries and
States are doing that is innovative and effective. The
discussion today will help inform the Subcommittee's
exploration of how the House can innovate to improve how we
connect with all of the people that we represent.
I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Torres for the
purpose of providing an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Bice follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
MODERNIZATION AND INNOVATION CHAIRWOMAN BICE
At the beginning of the 119th Congress, we decided to
update the Subcommittee's name to the Subcommittee on
Modernization and Innovation. The behind-the-scenes work of
closing out recommendations made by the Select Committee on
Modernization continues, but we also need to look forward and
figure out how to ensure that the House's technologies and
systems continue to evolve instead of getting stuck in time.
This is where innovation comes into play. Bringing Microsoft
Copilot to the House community is a great example of how the
Subcommittee is leaning into this work.
For the past couple of months, we have worked closely with
the CAO on a comprehensive plan to provide Copilot licenses and
targeted training to House staff. As of today, 150 Member
offices have licenses and in January, licenses will be
available to every Member, Committee, Leadership, and House
support office. Integrating AI technologies into House
operations is a game-changing first step in making the House a
more efficient and effective institution.
Constituent engagement, the topic of today's hearing, is
another area that is ripe for innovation. There are all kinds
of innovative tools and technologies that we could be using
now, rather than scrambling to play catch-up later.
Communicating with our constituents is absolutely essential for
doing the jobs we were elected to do. Assisting with casework,
responding to questions, and explaining our positions on the
issues of the day requires interacting with our constituents in
effective and meaningful ways. As we all know, the
communications landscape is evolving at a rapid pace and there
are now many different ways to engage and share information.
Our constituents are exposed to new technologies daily,
whether they are scheduling appointments, ordering food, or
using AI tools at work. The forms of communication they
encounter outside of Congress are much less common inside of
Congress. Rather than assume they'll read our letters and
emails, we should figure out how to meet our constituents where
they are at today, tomorrow, and in the future. If we do not
begin incorporating new and emerging technologies and platforms
into our constituent outreach strategies, we risk losing the
ability to effectively connect with the people we need to hear
from most.
For decades, the House has relied on a small number of
constituent management systems (CMS) for handling Members'
constituent engagement and outreach needs. While these systems
have added different features and upgrades over time, I do not
think any of us would call them ``cutting edge.'' That is not a
criticism as much as it's a reflection of the fact that the
market here is very limited and lacks the kind of competition
that is typically needed to spark innovation.
All of this presents us with a real opportunity to
reimagine constituent engagement. Members represent vastly
different districts and constituencies so maybe a ``build-your-
own'' system makes more sense than a ``one-size-fits-all''
system. That way, Members could choose technologies and
platforms that best meet the needs of their districts and
constituents. More options could encourage real innovation and
that is what we want.
I am looking forward to learning more about public views on
the current and future states of constituent engagement, as
well as what other countries and States are doing that is
innovative and effective. The discussion today will help inform
the Subcommittee's exploration of how the House can innovate to
improve how we connect with the people we represent.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NORMA TORRES, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION AND INNOVATION, A U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Torres. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Chairwoman
Bice, and thank you so much to our distinguished witnesses for
taking the time to share your insights with us today.
I am glad to be here working together with my colleagues on
these--and experts on the most fundamental goals of an elected
Representative. How can we listen to our constituents, and how
can we build the trust that we need with them?
I worry that faith in Government is broken. We know that
too many people feel like their Government fails them, that we
just simply do not listen to them, that they do not hear from
us, they do not unders--we do not understand their complicated
lives, and that whatever we do does not help them with their
challenges. When they do reach out to us, they feel--will they
feel heard? I am not sure that that is a true statement. I
think that at least the constituents in my district want to
feel that there is a human on the other side representing them.
I represent a district about an hour east of Los Angeles,
where Latinos make up more than two-thirds of the population.
At a time when Americans need to be able to connect with their
elected Representatives in a straightforward, efficient way,
the disconnect between Washington and my constituents in the
Inland Empire can often feel as an uncrossable divide.
This hearing is an opportunity to confront the reality of
record low trust in Government and determine how Congress can
improve its approach to constituent engagement through
modernization and innovation. What I do believe is that we need
to meet people where they are. The goal is to create systems
that make it easier for people to be heard. We need tools to
better listen, to better hear the American people, and to
better serve them.
I must say very loud and clear that a faster system that
still excludes people is not progress. We need to design tools
that are accessible, transparent, and responsible to the lived
experiences of our constituents. These new methods of
engagement must also protect constituents' privacy and personal
information when necessary.
If Congress is serious about strengthening democracy and
encouraging civic participation, we must build the tools that
do not just work on paper in Washington, but they actually work
in our communities. These tools need to work in practice for
every American who needs to be heard, because when a
constituent finally takes that step to reach out to their
Government, that moment matters. How we respond may determine
whether they ever try again.
A good example of a broken system--and that is not just
here in Congress--this year, as of August of this year, we had
returned over $23 million to our constituents. We can say
congratulations to my office, to my employees, to the
caseworkers. I want to look at it as a failure of agencies that
have failed to respond in a timely manner and a respectful
manner and have failed to truly hear the needs of that
constituent. Shouldn't take a Member of Congress to have to
play lobbyist for our constituents. If they deserve certain
benefits, they should get them. A system that could help me
deliver even more money to my constituents is what I am here
for.
I am going to turn it back to our chairwoman, and I look
forward to listening to the conversation today.
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Torres follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
MODERNIZATION AND INNOVATION NORMA TORRES
I am glad to be here working together with my colleagues on
these--and experts on the most fundamental goals of an elected
Representative. How can we listen to our constituents, and how
can we build the trust that we need with them? I worry that
faith in Government is broken. We know that too many people
feel like their Government fails them, that we just simply do
not listen to them, that they do not hear from us, they do not
understand we do not understand their complicated lives, and
that whatever we do does not help them with their challenges.
When they do reach out to us, they feel--will they feel heard?
I am not sure that that is a true statement. I think that at
least the constituents in my district want to feel that there
is a human on the other side representing them.
I represent a district about an hour east of Los Angeles,
where Latinos make up more than two-thirds of the population.
At a time when Americans need to be able to connect with their
elected Representatives in a straightforward, efficient way,
the disconnect between Washington and my constituents in the
Inland Empire can often feel as an uncrossable divide.
This hearing is an opportunity to confront the reality of
record low trust in Government and determine how Congress can
improve its approach to constituent engagement through
modernization and innovation. What I do believe is that we need
to meet people where they are. The goal is to create systems
that make it easier for people to be heard. We need tools to
better listen, to better hear the American people, and to
better serve them. I must say very loud and clear that a faster
system that still excludes people is not progress. We need to
design tools that are accessible, transparent, and responsible
to the lived experiences of our constituents. These new methods
of engagement must also protect constituents' privacy and
personal information when necessary.
If Congress is serious about strengthening democracy and
encouraging civic participation, we must build the tools that
do not just work on paper in Washington, but they actually work
in our communities. These tools need to work in practice for
every American who needs to be heard, because when a
constituent finally takes that step to reach out to their
Government, that moment matters. How we respond may determine
whether they ever try again.
A good example of a broken system--and that is not just
here in Congress--this year, as of August of this year, we had
returned over $23 million to our constituents. We can say
congratulations to my office, to my employees, to the
caseworkers. I want to look at it as a failure of agencies that
have failed to respond in a timely manner and a respectful
manner and have failed to truly hear the needs of that
constituent. Shouldn't take a Member of Congress to have to
play lobbyist for our constituents. If they deserve certain
benefits, they should get them. A system that could help me
deliver even more money to my constituents is what I am here
for.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member Torres.
Our first witness is Dr. Michael Neblo, director of the
Ohio State University Institute for Democratic Engagement and
Accountability, IDEA, an alumni-endowed professor at Okla--I am
sorry--at Ohio State University. I have Oklahoma State
University on the brain. I just graduated a child from there on
Saturday, so my apologies--at Ohio State University.
Dr. Neblo has designed ``Deliberative Town Halls'' for the
U.S. Congress, the Chilean Constitutional Convention, and the
Australian, Nigerian, and U.K. legislatures. He has further
projects planned for Malawi, Korea, and the European Parliament
and Commission.
Our next witness is Ms. Aubrey Wilson. Aubrey is Director
of Global Initiatives for the nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization POPVOX Foundation. In this role, she leads the
Digital Parliaments Project, which is focused on directly
assisting legislatures around the world in adopting technology
to improve operations, transparency, and continuity. In recent
years, this work has had a heavy emphasis on AI, leading Aubrey
to present AI training to parliamentarians around the world.
Prior to joining POPVOX, Aubrey served as a deputy staff
director and director of oversight and modernization for the
Committee on House Administration. Welcome back.
Our next witness is Dr. Beth Noveck. Dr. Noveck is the
chief AI strategist for the State of New Jersey and the founder
of InnovateUS, which delivers free AI training to States and
cities across the United States. Her newest book is ``Reboot:
The Race to Save Democracy with AI,'' that will appear with the
Yale Press this summer.
Our final witness is Ken Ward, senior director of House
Digital Services. Drawing from his Hill experience and computer
science degree from Georgetown University, Mr. Ward founded
Fireside 21 in 2007. He led the company for over a decade as it
deployed a broad scope of constituent products still used by
House offices today. Mr. Ward returned to the Hill in 2020 and
has since led a team of technologists to deliver high-impact
technology products for the House community. Welcome. We are
glad to have you.
Thank you to the panel of witnesses for all being with us
today. Please remember to press the button on the microphone in
front of you so that the green light is on. When you begin to
speak, the timer in front of you will turn green, and after 4
minutes it will turn yellow. When the red light comes on, your
5 minutes have expired, and we would ask you to please kindly
wrap up.
At this time, I now recognize Dr. Neblo for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF DR. MICHAEL NEBLO, PROFESSOR, THE OHIO STATE
INSTITUTE FOR DEMOCRATIC ENGAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; MRS.
AUBREY WILSON, DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL INITIATIVES, POPVOX
FOUNDATION; DR. BETH SIMONE NOVECK, CHIEF AI STRATEGIST, STATE
OF NEW JERSEY; AND MR. KEN WARD, DIRECTOR OF HOUSE DIGITAL
SERVICES, CAO
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NEBLO
Mr. Neblo. Chairwoman Bice, Ranking Member Torres, Members
of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak today.
Our Founders famously established a republic, fearing
direct democracy would lose sight of the common good. Less
famously, they feared that if Government were too indirect,
Congress would lose touch with the common people. They proposed
capping the number of residents per district. Instead, Congress
capped the number of districts. Americans today believe
Congress has lost touch. You represent 280 times the Founders'
limit. How could you stay in touch?
This hearing turns that rhetorical question into a real
question. How could future engagement help you stay in touch?
How can technology help reconnect Congress to constituents?
We partnered with this Committee and the House Digital
Services on a survey of 1,000 citizens to find answers. At
best, only one in five contacted their Member last year. What
about the other four? Their silence does not mean they are
satisfied because only 13 percent trust Congress to do what is
right. Are they apathetic? No. The vast majority are
frustrated. They are frustrated because they believe Congress
does not care what people like them think and only listens to
organized interests and party activists, so they see no reason
to engage.
We have worked with enough offices to know Members care
very much. As average citizens withdraw, however, only
organized interests and party activists remain to tell Congress
what they want. We have fallen into a self-reenforcing cycle.
There is good news. Governments around the world have used
new approaches in technology to engage citizens in meaningful
two-way communication. We could easily adapt them, and citizens
are eager to try.
Unlike apathy, frustration creates energy for change. Only
9 percent of our survey respondents said they would not be
willing to engage if they were invited to what they thought was
an authentic and consequential forum. Our research shows that
is not cheap talk. When we invite ordinary constituents to
online deliberative town halls, previously disengaged citizens
prepare, show up, and contribute more than those who already
call your office. They find the forums so transformative that
94 percent say they are, quote, very valuable for our democracy
and they want to participate in more.
Think about that. In an era when only 13 percent of
citizens trust Congress, you can create spaces where 94 percent
of citizens say the experience is so worthwhile they would do
it again. That 81-percent gap tells us everything about what is
possible.
Participating Members and staff have also found the forums
valuable but simply lack the time and resources for ongoing
deliberation. Yet in our surveys, citizens rated such forums as
the most legitimate and effective way to communicate. Mass
emails and social media scored lower, and at the bottom, 80
percent of citizens told us that AI chatbots were not
acceptable for matters of substance.
This finding is crucial. AI can transform how staff manage
the deluge of routine requests. It is a deluge. Unless we use
the freed up time the right way, AI will not dent the core
problem. A customer service model makes sense for many
important constituent service tasks: scheduling Capitol tours,
tallying issue sentiments from correspondents, et cetera.
Think about what customer service implies about
representative Government. You own the company, and citizens
can take or leave what you are selling. An office could have
stellar customer service and constituents will still find that
problematic. Lobbyists might be clients of Congress, but
citizens want to be partners in self-government. I know that
most Members want to be such partners too.
Engagement that treats them like partners produces lasting
gains in their political knowledge, trust, voting rate,
civility, and willingness to work together. These patterns hold
in forums with over 7,000 citizens. Mr. Kilmer and Mr. Timmons'
national forum with the predecessor to this Committee rolled
back 38 years worth of rising partisan animosity, the largest
decline in polarization ever documented.
Citizens also reward and encourage legislative expertise
and collegiality in these formats. We have had similar success
with official forums as part of the Chilean Constitutional
Convention, the Good Friday Accords in Northern Ireland, and
many others, with several more projects planned.
Citizens are so frustrated with representative democracy
that they are prepared to work around it through referenda and
the like, and an alarming number are now willing to consider
alternatives to democracy itself. Like our Founders, the vast
majority would rather work with and through their
Representatives--that is, if we reimagine what that entails.
I am so grateful for this opportunity to testify because I
believe the future of American democracy depends much more than
we realize on the future of constituent engagement. The
technology exists, the models are proven, your constituents are
ready and waiting if you are ready to meet them. I know that
all of us on this panel stand ready to help you do that.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neblo follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NEBLO
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Dr. Neblo.
I now recognize Ms. Wilson for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF AUBREY WILSON
Ms. Wilson. Chairwoman Bice, Ranking Member Torres, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
be part of today's hearing. I am Aubrey Wilson, director of
global initiatives at POPVOX Foundation and, as previously
stated, a former House staffer, had the immense pleasure of
working for the Committee on House Administration during the
117th and 118th Congresses.
At POPVOX, our mission is to help democratic institutions
keep pace in a rapidly changing world. The majority of our team
are prior congressional staffers, but our love for legislative
institutions has expanded, leading us to work directly with
parliaments around the world to transform their internal
operations, helping them leapfrog from paper to cutting edge.
Over the last 2 years, much of our work has focused on
legislatures' adoption of AI, specifically as it relates to
improving internal operations. I have been asked to share
international examples of how emerging technologies improving
constituent engagement in ways that could benefit Congress.
Chatbots represent one of the lowest hanging fruit. They
are familiar to users, quickly deployable, and capable of
providing 24/7 assistance regardless of users' age, language,
or education level. Estonia has developed two AI legislative
systems for MPs and staff that search through parliamentary
legislative data bases to find information about current laws,
legislative proposals, and amendments. While not currently
public facing, these chatbots are a model for how constituents
might one day be able to interact with data on Congress.gov to
understand which bills have been introduced and how those laws
may affect them.
Estonia has also launched a public-facing chat interface
through which citizens are able to access services across 18
agencies. Through this one point of service they can file
consumer complaints, apply for permits, renew ID cards, report
car accidents, and even borrow library books.
This vision of constituent engagement transcends the
legislative branch by imagining Government as an integrated
service provider that could support individuals in navigating
our complex ecosystem of Federal agencies in any language at
any time.
Beyond streamlining access to information is enabling two-
way interaction. Brazil's Ulysses Suite empowers constituents
to leave detailed remarks about legislation via online poll. AI
then groups and analyzes this broad public input and presents
it back to policymakers, giving constituents meaningful
participation while equipping legislators with actionable
insights.
AI can also foster quality constituent interactions at
scale. In 2024, Remesh, which is a U.S.-based company,
facilitated an AI-assisted community dialog between the major
social groups in Gaza. The insights from this were aggregated
into informative data for international negotiators and went in
the ongoing peace process.
These examples, along with the additional ones included in
my written testimony, show what is possible. They also
demonstrate that legislatures do not have to accept the all too
common public perception that they are slow to innovate. With
441 lawmakers with diverse backgrounds and expertise, the House
is already witnessing the deployment of technology in new ways
by Members and staff to engage with their constituents. The
Congressional Hackathon, House Digital Service, modernization
initiatives account, and Congressional Data Task Force
exemplify the resources available that institutionalize
innovation.
The House has all the inspirational components it needs,
but it must go beyond one-off initiatives by adopting a new way
of doing things that allows ongoing experimentation, learning,
and refinement. As the Subcommittee evaluates next steps for
institutional modernization, we encourage you to partner with
the CAO to reform House IT procurement and introduce
transparency.
While few tools are built specifically for legislative use,
a vibrant marketplace of tools that can be used in Congress
exists. If other institutions share open-sourced models, the
selection of customizable legislative tools will also expand.
Members who identify promising tools need a clear pathway for
institutional approval. This Subcommittee in partnership with
the CAO has a wide spectrum of potential approaches to support
responsible innovation.
For instance, the Subcommittee can support the CAO in
exploring new contracting vehicles. It can work with CAO to
establish rapid-pilot authorities and provide guardrails on
low-risk, no- or low-code experiments. It can champion
innovative projects like House Digital Services' amazing data
lake and innovation sandboxes where Members can test new tools
before institution-wide deployment.
Together, additionally, the Subcommittee and CAO must
prioritize the establishment of robust but expedient
cybersecurity review processes. A 1-year authorization
timelines for new tools is incompatible with 2-year election
cycles.
Finally, building off of Catherine Szpindor's legacy, the
next CAO needs to be ready to work hand-in-hand with the
Subcommittee to usher in the next era of House innovation by
identifying actionable solutions that empower Members to pilot,
experiment, and reimagine how new tools can serve constituents.
Around the world, legislatures are experimenting with
emerging technologies, deploying new tools, and learning from
each other about new approaches for the future of constituent
engagement. The House can benefit from this innovation but only
when it has adopted the internal processes to institutionalize
new ways of doing things.
Thank you for being leaders in this conversation, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUBREY WILSON
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ms. Wilson.
I now recognize Dr. Beth Noveck for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BETH SIMONE NOVECK
Ms. Noveck. Chairwoman Bice, Ranking Member Torres, Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today.
It is precisely at this moment when Congress is most
overworked, when the issues are getting ever more complex. The
Committee staff are roughly 40 percent smaller than they were
in 1980, when the support agencies, CRS and GAO and CBO, they
have shrunk 45 percent in the last generation. Public
engagement at this point really can sound like an unreasonable
burden. Frankly, it is hard enough to field more than 81
million calls coming into Congress every year from
constituents.
Historically--let us be realistic--meaningful participation
has been too expensive. It has been too time-consuming, and it
has really lacked the structure that has made public
contributions useful for institutions. The web has made it
easier for everybody to talk, but that does not mean it has
made it easier for our institutions in our democracy to listen.
In the State of New Jersey, what we have learned is that
pairing the right artificial intelligence tools today with a
disciplined process with the right design can actually make it
possible for Government institutions both to serve residents
better, to deliver services, but also to listen and to govern,
not only faster and more efficiently, but also more
inclusively, even at scale.
There are two recommendations that are outstanding, 176 and
174, from this Subcommittee that provide a practical starting
point for what we might do and for that transformation.
176 calls for exploring ways to solicit public input for
Committee hearings. Long before Generative AI, Brazil's Senate,
larger than our own, began inviting residents to submit
questions for Committee hearings both by phone and on the web.
Today, the Brazilian Senate has been integrating AI tools that
are helping staff de-duplicate comments, cluster similar
questions, and highlight those that directly are relevant to a
Committee's oversight goals. Participation has been
substantial: 46,000 questions across 546 hearings in 2023, and
69,000 questions across 440 hearings in 2024. Public input has
become so routine that the staff report to me that when they do
not get it in fast enough, the senators call them and say,
Where is my list of questions?
This Subcommittee could begin testing recommendation 176
through a simple, low-risk pilot conducted over the course of a
few hearings that invite the public to submit questions. But,
look, until recently, the idea of putting up an open text box
on the web and say ``comment here,'' this was really an
impractical idea. AI now makes it straightforward to gather
that feedback, not just by text but by voice, to remove
duplicates, to filter off-topic comments, to cluster questions
into themes, and to synthesize learnings.
I outline the specifics of this process in the written
remarks. Let me just add that my students in a program we call
``AI for Impact'' that we teach through Northeastern University
and our community college system in New Jersey, they are
embedded full time with Government partners, they just built a
tool, a free open-source tool called Open Feedback, which is
being deployed at scale by the city of Boston. Residents can
submit feedback in natural language, and the AI assistant
responds with clarifying questions to improve the submission.
The tool allows staff to organize comments by topic, to analyze
patterns, and to route issues to the right department for
faster feedback.
The next AI for Impact co-op starts--cohort--excuse me--
begins in January, and we would be happy to adapt this tool for
your use and to be of use.
Through InnovateUS, the free, nonpartisan, nonprofit, peer-
to-peer training program that I founded, where Government
professionals teach one another how to use AI and where we have
trained 150,000 people around the country now in using AI to
serve the public, we are learning from jurisdictions around the
country, from the Engaged California project, from the Bowling
Green engagement project, from work we have done in New Jersey
and around the world, about how different jurisdictions are
using AI to do engagement at scale. We are turning those
learnings into a training which we will be happy to provide on
how to effectively use AI for public engagement.
Of course, there are risks, and Congress must guard against
hallucinations by ensuring that we are using AI to sort and to
organize and not to make decisions. The greater risk is, of
course, that we engage in ineffective or performative
engagement that is disconnected from real decision-making.
These pilots, they create an opportunity, a practical and
immediate way to tap the expertise and the lived and
credentialed experience of the American public to strengthen
lawmaking, to strengthen oversight. To quote Michael, we all
stand at the ready to assist.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Noveck follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF BETH SIMONE NOVECK
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Dr. Noveck.
Just a bit of housekeeping. You probably heard the bells.
House votes have been called. We will go ahead and finish
opening statements, along with the opening statement from
Ranking Member Morelle of the full Committee. Then we will take
a brief pause for Members to go vote, and then we will return.
At this time, I recognize--Mr. Ward, you are recognized for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KEN WARD
Mr. Ward. Good morning. Thank you for inviting the Chief
Administrative Office to participate in today's hearing. I am
joined by our CAO, Catherine Szpindor; our chief information
officer, Jamie Crotts; our chief digital officer, Bob Barrett;
and our deputy chief information security officer, Addie
Adeniji.
Personally, I have spent my entire career in and around the
legislative branch. I worked in a Member office. I founded the
citizen engagement software company Fireside 21, and I served
as CEO for 10 years. I have spent the last 5 years here at the
CAO and lead our House Digital Service. I have had a front row
seat to see how technology has changed and impacted Member
offices.
The era dominated by landlines and letters is certainly
over, and today, citizens and advocacy groups are already
leveraging AI to reach and influence Congress. Here in the
House, the CAO has been bringing new methodologies and
technologies online: human-centered design practices, business
automation, cloud integration, and responsible AI, just to name
a few.
These innovations bring new possibilities for our products
and services, and today, we are sharing a new vision to help
Members and their staff improve constituent engagement while
continuing to ensure the privacy and security of the sensitive
data.
In the unique environment of the House, the nonpartisan CAO
plays the role of both innovator and host when it comes to
innovation. As an innovator, we build and maintain custom
applications, like the Communicating with Congress API, e-Dear
Colleague System, House Cal, LegiDex, and Quill. Over the past
several years, in large part because of this Subcommittee and
the previous Select Committee on Modernization, the House has
advanced constituent-focused technology as well. We launched
FlagTrack, which helps offices manage flag requests from
constituents, and we are piloting Case Compass, an initiative
to aggregate and analyze casework to help Members better
understand trends and conduct oversight of the executive
branch.
In our other role as host to innovation, the CAO
facilitates access to commercial technologies, like office
productivity suites, photo and video editing software,
collaboration tools, and correspondence management systems, the
CMS systems your offices use daily.
The current contract structure for CMS is designed so every
Member's constituent data resides within one of a few
proprietary systems, and now this design is limiting our
innovation because other vendors cannot access your data to
provide new or improved services. To be clear, we are not
blaming CMS vendors. They are all operating within the
framework that the House has required for several decades that
ensures the protection of your data. However, with recent
advancements in secure storage and computing technologies, the
House can and should explore making changes that could spur
Members' access to more innovation, most notably, by changing
the way constituent data is stored and accessed.
As you know, we have proposed creating a secure, House-
controlled constituent data lake for each Member that can be
leveraged by multiple House and vendor applications if and as
authorized by each Member.
In short, your constituent data would be hosted in a way
that gives you control over who can securely access your
office's data, and that shared access will allow you to pick
from a variety of vendors, offering a range of constituent
engagement services. This concept will open the door to new
technologies and greater interoperability with existing House
applications.
Just this past September, over 20 innovators pitched new
Congress-specific applications at the Congressional Hackathon.
Presenters shared tools that use AI to identify constituent
sentiment, automate sorting, and show real-time analytics. A
data lake would help bring these new innovations to Congress
and provide opportunities to enhance numerous other internal
applications. For example, you can imagine receiving an eDear
Colleague and that invitation to cosponsor a new bill already
having data from your citizens who support and oppose that
bill.
We think our issue is not a lack of innovation. It is just
an access to this innovation. Migrating to a House-controlled
data lake will require a multiyear investment. However, our
iterative approach will not only validate ongoing investment
but also deliver new capabilities along the way, new
capabilities that will be available to all Member offices
without the need to switch your CMS.
If done correctly, building a data platform that focuses on
security, governance, users, and constituents, the House will
spur both internal and external innovation in constituent
engagement. It is a future where Members are more empowered
with a wider range of options to best serve and interact with
the American public.
Again, thank you for today's invitation, and happy to
answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ward follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEN WARD
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Ward.
Thank you to all the panelists for those opening
statements.
At this time, I am going to recognize Ranking Member of the
full Committee on House Administration, Mr. Morelle, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Morelle.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
NEW YORK
Mr. Morelle. Thank you. I will be very brief given that we
have votes. I appreciate the witnesses for being here on a
really important subject, and certainly to you, Madam Chair,
for your continued good work in helping to modernize Congress,
and certainly to my friend, Ranking Member Torres, as well for
your leadership.
I do want to acknowledge Catherine Szpindor who is retiring
in the next few days and thank her for her long service to the
Congress. We are very, very grateful. Wish her the very best as
she transitions to the next phase of her life.
I also just want to acknowledge Mike Carey who keeps adding
layers of clothing because it is so damn cold on that side of
the room, and the House Administration Committee ought to do
something about it.
In a serious mode, I think of, as I was thinking about this
in my head, how constituents engage with Congress. I am sure
there are many different buckets, but the four that I am
particularly interested in--one is just access to information
about Congress, what bills are happening, making it easy to
access that so it is not as bewildering as it may seem to
people.
The second is sort of the interaction with Members,
engaging us in terms of providing perspective on issues before
the House, issues before the country, what they think we ought
to be doing, and for us to be able to engage with constituents.
That interaction is very important.
Then the last two are related. One is access to Government
services. How do people know how to connect with all the things
that we offer, both Federal, State, local?
Then the final, which is related and adjacent, but it is
access to community services. How do I know--if I am suddenly
in crisis, how do I know to engage? I think many times when we
do constituent services, people reaching out because they are
entering into a system that is, to them, bewildering.
At a time when we have clearly lost the faith and
confidence of the American people institutionally as
Government, that last--those last two buckets may be, in some
ways, the most important just because as people are in crisis,
our family members are in crisis, how do they engage? I have
some real thoughts on that.
The introduction of AI clearly is critical, and I would
love to learn more about it. I will admit, many websites I go
to where I am doing a chatbot, and it is clearly a chat
assistance, I find incredibly frustrating. I do not feel like--
I feel like I might as well read the frequently asked questions
because there is no other engagement other than the frequently
asked questions being regurgitated to me. That will get better.
Clearly, having humans engaged in this is going to be a big
deal. I appreciate all of what you have to say, and I am
looking forward to, after votes, coming back and engaging
again.
Madam Chair, thanks for giving me the opportunity to say a
few words.
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION JOSEPH MORELLE
I do want to acknowledge Catherine Szpindor who is retiring
in the next few days and thank her for her long service to the
Congress. We are very, very grateful. Wish her the very best as
she transitions to the next phase of her life. I also just want
to acknowledge Mike Carey who keeps adding layers of clothing
because it is so damn cold on that side of the room, and the
House Administration Committee ought to do something about it.
In a serious mode, I think of, as I was thinking about this
in my head, how constituents engage with Congress. I am sure
there are many different buckets, but the four that I am
particularly interested in--one is just access to information
about Congress, what bills are happening, making it easy to
access that so it is not as bewildering as it may seem to
people.
The second is sort of the interaction with Members,
engaging us in terms of providing perspective on issues before
the House, issues before the country, what they think we ought
to be doing, and for us to be able to engage with constituents.
That interaction is very important. Then the last two are
related. One is access to Government services. How do people
know how to connect with all the things that we offer, both
Federal, State, local? Then the final, which is related and
adjacent, but it is access to community services. How do I
know--if I am suddenly in crisis, how do I know to engage? I
think many times when we do constituent services, people
reaching out because they are entering into a system that is,
to them, bewildering. At a time when we have clearly lost the
faith and confidence of the American people institutionally as
Government, that last--those last two buckets may be, in some
ways, the most important just because as people are in crisis,
our family members are in crisis, how do they engage? I have
some real thoughts on that.
The introduction of AI clearly is critical, and I would
love to learn more about it. I will admit, many websites I go
to where I am doing a chatbot, and it is clearly a chat
assistance, I find incredibly frustrating. I do not feel like--
I feel like I might as well read the frequently asked questions
because there is no other engagement other than the frequently
asked questions being regurgitated to me. That will get better.
Clearly, having humans engaged in this is going to be a big
deal.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member Morelle.
I want to second the comments that you made about Catherine
Szpindor and her departure from the CAO. It has been a joy and
pleasure working with the entire CAO staff but particularly
Catherine on these endeavors. Your presence will be noted as
you depart for greener pastures potentially.
With that, we are going to take a recess of the
Subcommittee, and we will return upon the conclusion of votes.
The Subcommittee will now come to order.
We will now move to questions for the witnesses, beginning
with me, followed by the Ranking Member Torres, Mr. Carey, and
Mr. Morelle. Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions,
so I ask to please keep your responses concise. I now recognize
myself for the purpose of questioning the witnesses.
First of all, thank you for the very insightful testimony.
I think that we can agree that AI is certainly becoming a
useable tool as we look to improve constituent engagement
across the House.
My first question, though--and this may be more for Dr.
Noveck or Mr. Ward--is, how do you build a platform that would
be useful as an AI tool, for example, using a chatbot, that
could actually give responses that are going to be accurate
and/or make sense? Are you looking at building some sort of
customized element to actually interact with the House website?
Second, how could you ensure that the responses that are
being given are going to be customized to each office? Because,
for example, Mrs. Torres and I may have a different perspective
on an ag issue. Can you talk a little bit about how you might
do that?
Ms. Noveck. No red light on my end.
I--thank you for the question. I think one of the things
that we have done in New Jersey, first of all, and that we have
done through our work building tools for other States as well
is to start with internal-facing chatbots. I think it is really
important to recognize that these tools are extremely good for
synthesizing information and that is what has made it possible
to do things like train an AI tool on a specific corpus of
documents.
That would mean a Member could--and it is something, by the
way, that together with POPVOX, the AI for Impact program built
the first and tested the first chatbot for a Member, where we
loaded it with all of that Member's position statements, bill
drafts, et cetera. Then--the tools are getting much better at
restricting responses only to what is on--what is in that
corpus of knowledge. That is one way to avoid the hallucination
problem, No. 1.
No. 2, internal-facing tools, so that what you are doing is
giving staff a tool that they can use to quickly give answers
to people. In New Jersey, for example, we are not using
chatbots to answer constituent calls. You are not getting, you
know, a machine. What you are getting is a human who in turn
has a good lookup tool on their end that is allowing them to
synthesize a lot of information. I think the best place to
start is with those tools for the people answering the phone,
to make their jobs easier. The tools are allowing us to get
better, especially when you train them to restrict their
answers to a specific corpus of knowledge. That is also what
has allowed us in New Jersey to bring down the time it takes to
answer a call from 40 minutes to now 3 minutes and modernize
all of our call centers using some of these practices.
Chairwoman Bice. Fantastic. Would you like to add anything,
Mr. Ward?
Mr. Ward. I would just echo that. I think we have a lot of
opportunities here internally for those chatbots. There is a
use case where staff is trying to find House operational
information; that could be on HouseNet. There is the data that
is private to your office; that could be a different chatbot.
There is data in your CMS; that could be a separate chatbot. It
is just about structuring data the right way to enable those
services.
Chairwoman Bice. Perfect. Thank you.
Dr. Neblo, I want to pivot to you. Your testimony
highlighted the mismatch between public frustration and
Congress' current engagement methods. What specific
institutional reforms would help bridge this gap and make
constituent input more actionable for Members?
Mr. Neblo. Thank you. That is a--that is a great question.
At the Institute so far, we have had a relatively small set
that we have implemented and have hard evidence on. I try to
follow a kind of political science Hippocratic oath, so I will
separate a little bit between what I have firsthand, you know,
scientific evidence about and then some other ideas that we do
not have as much backing on.
Deliberative town halls, we have done, I forget how many
now, and none have gone badly. There is some----
Chairwoman Bice. Define ``gone badly.''
Mr. Neblo. OK. Define--that is a great question. In no--in
no case has a Member not gained trust approval, voting rates,
voting for the Member rates. Now, in some cases it is small. In
other cases it is eye-popping. Gone wrong would be the Member
stuck their neck out, tried something new, and it hurt them in
the eyes of their constituents. That is how I would define it.
That has not happened once.
Chairwoman Bice. How do you ensure--with a particular
platform that you are utilizing, is it--are you able to ensure
that the individuals that you are connecting with are
constituents of that particular Member?
Mr. Neblo. Yes. That is one of the really nice things about
doing the online town halls and doing them by invitation. In
principle, somebody that we give the invitation to and have the
verified link could give it to somebody else but not be on at
the same time themselves, right. There is a little shadow of a
possibility once in a while, but we have reason to think that
we are talking about tiny numbers, maybe no one, on that.
The results are really quite large. Your predecessors on
the Select Committee did a joint bipartisan town hall, and 2
weeks after it, affective polarization, dislike of the out
party relative to the in party, was as if 38 years ago. Thirty-
eight--I mean, that--over 100 studies have been published
trying to lower affective polarization. This is the largest
one. Most of the other large ones, you cannot talk about
politics. We need to learn how to talk about politics.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you very much, Dr. Neblo. I
appreciate that.
I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mrs. Torres, for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you again. I am really excited to hear
more about this developing technology. Certainly, you know, the
in-person town halls have caused a lot of security concerns.
They require law enforcement presence, security presence, not
just for the Member but for the attendees. To be able to have a
conversation with constituents, for me it has been a lot more
work because that means that we have to limit information to
maybe 120 people in a smaller setting or we do a lot more
roundtable discussions with 30, 40 people versus doing a town
hall that can bring in, you know, 4-, 600 people. I look
forward to continue and to hear more about that.
On the issue of securing data, I think we--you and I talked
a little bit, Mr. Ward, about some of my concerns that I have.
We have a lot of casework that is open. Some of it is 10 years
old. It takes that long to get some of the cases completed. I
want to be able to, when a constituent calls my office, for
anyone in the office to be able to respond to that constituent
so that constituent do not have to wait for the caseworker
assigned to their individual case to get a response. You know,
we are still researching your information. We are still waiting
for the agency to reply to us. We cannot check back in for
another 3 or 4 days.
How do I ensure that anyone who answers the call in my
office, in any one of my offices--and many times, they are
interns answering the phone--has some data available that they
can immediately respond to that caller but not be able to see
specific data, such as a Social Security or identifiable
information for that constituent?
Mr. Ward. OK. Well, a couple things. I think, you know,
with what we are proposing, one of the benefits of what we are
proposing is to be able to have governance that is specific to
different parts of that data. We are not certainly proposing
taking all this data and putting it in a large language model,
for example. With a data lake, you can have different settings
and different governance on different segments of data and
sharing, similarly, you know, what people can see. Now, that
will require some integration with the service providers, make
sure that there is integration there. That is very feasible.
There is also potential to have more self-service
capabilities for citizens. They can go to a portal and access
the status as well.
Mrs. Torres. The constituent----
Mr. Ward. Correct.
Mrs. Torres [continuing]. themselves. OK. Where they would
be able to input their personal data so the bot or the
computer--the system knows that it is responding to the correct
person.
Mr. Ward. That is right. They would have to authenticate
into the system. But, you know, for example, with our FlagTrack
product, a little--much different, but we are proposing
expanding that so citizens can, you know, self-service checking
the status of those orders. Something similar could exist for
casework.
Mrs. Torres. Right. Nearly one in three working Americans
have very little digital skills. We learned the hard way about
this when the VA made a change requiring digital IDs instead of
ID cards. My office had created a system that we could go to
any location and be able to get a constituent a real ID that
they can carry in their pocket, that they can show for their
benefits and other public benefits--public and private benefits
that are available to them. You know, we have to create systems
that do not shut them out completely.
Outside of going out and training our constituents on how
to create a screen name or, you know, an email address, how do
you propose that we jump through some of these hoops that are
also challenges?
Ms. Noveck, you seem to really be involved in the
constituency part of this.
Ms. Noveck. We have rolled out a program that we call our
Civic AI training program. It works via WhatsApp in multiple
languages that was designed to teach people what AI is but how
to use it to engage and interact with Government. It is
specifically for that purpose. We designed it, actually, with
families in California, in fact, as part of a program where we
co-designed together with those families tools using AI to help
understand their child's individualized education program, the
document you get from Government, the 100-page PDF you get
about the services to which you are entitled when your child
has a--is differently-abled.
We believe that citizens are smart. They want to learn.
They are capable of not just understanding what these tools are
but helping to build them. That is why we are rolling out via
the mobile phone multilingual support in--free--in how to use
AI to interact with----
Mrs. Torres. What is the program called?
Ms. Noveck. Sorry. Civic AI.
Mrs. Torres. Civic AI. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member.
At this time, I recognize Representative Carey for 5
minutes for questions.
Mr. Carey. Thank you. I want to thank the Chair and the
Ranking Member.
Doctor, I am going to start with you. Of course, knowing
where you are from, I have to start off with OH. All right. We
all know that the public trust in Congress is much lower than
we would like it to be, and that continues to be a cause of
concern. I was struck by the survey finding that 70 percent of
respondents are willing to engage more directly with elected
officials on important issues. Now, to me, that is a positive
sign.
Now, you mentioned deliberative town halls as an effective
form of two-way engagement. At this time, could you talk maybe
a little bit more how those might work?
Mr. Neblo. Sure. Thank you for the opportunity.
The real difference in--there are a few differences in
deliberative town halls. One of them is that, as if we were
doing a survey, we try to get a real random sample of the
entire constituency and affirmatively and personally invite
them. It turns out that it could seem like there is a
contradiction, citizens saying they do not think Members care
what they think and yet, you know, they want to engage, right.
The distinction is that when the Member affirmatively reaches
out and says, No, really, I want to hear what you have to say,
how does Tuesday at 7 sound? The citizen says, Oh, OK, they are
one of the good ones.
It is very, very fragile, very, very easy to get them to
believe that you do care. That is where the apathy/frustration
difference is really important. Affirmatively inviting a very
broad sample.
The broad sample also tremendously alters the dynamics.
Your average constituent does not want to yell at you. Your
average constituent has not even necessarily made up his or her
mind on the issue. They are not there to necessarily give you a
piece of their mind. They want to hear what you have to say
before making up their mind, which is why this interactive
dialog is so valuable. You get to hear from them about their
concerns, their values, their questions. They actually want to
hear from you too, right.
We do a survey beforehand. These are real field
experiments. There is also a control group that we survey.
People attend. Then there is a survey usually about 2 weeks
later of everybody again. The forums are online on a secure
platform. We are building a bespoke platform. It is very, very
easy to use, will be linked to the 14 most spoken languages in
the United States. My grandfather was illiterate. You know, we
have oral versions. We have real-time captioning for the
hearing impaired. We are very serious about trying to really--
any enfranchised citizen should be able to talk to their Member
of Congress.
Mr. Carey. I appreciate that. I am going to be cutting
short on time here.
Now, there is, of course--I mean, you have seen this, you
have all seen this in the press, there is a real concern about
Member safety. You know, I think that we on this Committee on
House Admin work very hard to increase the security budget of
most of our Members. Like many Members, we have had death
threats. We now have to have a security detail, which we never
thought we would have to have before.
In the two-way communication forums, are there effective
ways--I know you only have a minute--to take down the
temperature from the onset of those forums?
Mr. Neblo. That is really one of the most extraordinary
things that we found, is that when you get a random sample--as
I said, your average constituent does not want to yell at you.
They do not want to throw bombs.
Very quickly. We had a provision in the first very study we
did, an NSF-funded project built these. If a question or
comment was considered abusive, inciting, or vulgar, we had to
pull it out. Over 1,400 questions submitted in the first round
that we did. Zero. Not once did we have to pull it out. That
tells you the difference of the--of the people who are the
frequent flyers--and some of them are great. They are active
citizens. We have got to represent them too--or you have to
represent them too.
The random sampling helps a lot. Online helps a lot.
Moderation helps a lot. They look around--even people who might
be inclined look around, and their fellow citizens are being
civil and behaving, or the Members are treating each other with
dignity.
Mr. Carey. Doctor, I want to thank you for your time.
Chair, with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Carey.
At this time, we do have time for a second round of
questions. I will recognize myself for an additional 5 minutes
of questions.
Ms. Wilson, I want to direct this to you. You have worked
with legislatures around the world. What lessons from global
experiments with AI do you think that Congress can uniquely
position--is uniquely positioned to maybe adopt?
Ms. Wilson. Thank you so much for these questions.
I will start by saying that our work with international
legislatures has actually been an extremely eye-opening
experience, especially as a prior congressional staffer. I
think that I took for granted the incredibly robust IT
infrastructure and all of the benefits that this body has. I
think that that is in itself a lesson to learn from.
A lot of the legislatures that we work with, the way that
they are implementing AI is to rapidly modernize their internal
processes in the practice, which is digitizing documents,
making data accessible, getting up-to-date websites, things
that we really do take for granted, I think, as a U.S.
Congress. That really, I think, showcases that the fact that
the U.S. Congress already has such a strong IT foundation lets
you kind of build on top of that.
While other countries are using AI to kind of build that
foundation, we actually have the ability to experiment and to
be the people who do design the future of constituent
engagement. I would say that that is kind of the first--the
first element.
The second element is one of the biggest kind of difference
makers with international institutions that I have been able to
kind of move more agilely is having internal processes that
allow them to test and experiment and adopt new tools. A lot of
that comes back down to kind of your internal authorization and
security protocols. With that, having kind of a tiered system
has really helped kind of expedite the ability for new tools to
be tested that are low risk and be more quickly adopted so that
then they can be implemented and staff and Members can start
benefiting from them.
Chairwoman Bice. That was an incredible segue into my next
question to the panelists, so thank you for that.
There is a couple things that we think about when we are
trying to launch new technology within the House. Specifically,
cybersecurity becomes a big topic of conversation. I think
the--for the panel, I would ask you all, you know, there are
rigorous standards to become a vendor for the House. Some of
the individuals that want to partner with us may have their
particular platform rejected for a variety of reasons.
This is going to be a couple of--maybe parts of a question.
One, is there a way for us to speed up that approval process?
Two, are the individuals, the vendors that are wanting to
partner with us, are they able to know and learn why they may
have been denied? What should we be thinking about as a
Committee to try to help improve the process and/or the
recruitment of vendors that potentially have innovative
technologies that the House could be utilizing? It is a lot,
but I will throw it open to anyone who wishes to answer.
Mr. Ward and Dr. Noveck seem to be looking at each other.
Mr. Ward. We have a number of different processes that
depend a little bit on what the technology is. For example,
with CMS, there is a specific process for that, and there is
other processes for other cloud services.
Chairwoman Bice. Can I ask a question on that? How often is
the process reviewed, would you say?
Mr. Ward. Well, the CMS contract is, you know, typically
issued for like a 6-year term with option years, but every
option period, every 2-year option period it is reviewed. The
cloud approval process we are always kind of looking at. That
is a House information security policy of the Committee. There
is work underway now, I think you are aware of, in
collaboration with your staff to look at that.
You mentioned two things that I think will be realized in
the new year, which is more information on House.gov for
vendors, more information on HouseNet for staff to understand
those processes. What we propose with the CMS modernization is
a part of a larger puzzle of doing business with the House that
we want to improve.
Chairwoman Bice. Dr. Noveck.
Ms. Noveck. I am happy to take offline the question of how
we streamline that process in New Jersey for making it faster
for vendors.
Let me just speak to the public engagement pilot idea. This
is not something that needs to integrate with core systems, and
therefore it should be something that is easy to try
effectively tomorrow----
Chairwoman Bice. A standalone.
Ms. Noveck. Sorry?
Chairwoman Bice. It is a standalone.
Ms. Noveck. One can do something in a sandboxed environment
that is a standalone that allows you to test processes while
you work in parallel to figure out then how would you integrate
technologies. It could stand alone. Because you are talking
about public comments, not something that involves private
information--and, by the way, you can use AI to filter out any
private information or Social Security numbers that someone
does accidentally type in. That is something fairly easy to do.
That would be something relatively quickly to stand up as a
pilot without worrying about integration with back-end systems.
Chairwoman Bice. I think that is the end of the questions
that I have at the moment.
Mrs. Torres, would you like to----
Mrs. Torres. Yes, just----
Chairwoman Bice. I recognize Mrs. Torres----
Mrs. Torres. Thank you. I just want to do a follow-up.
Is 6 years too long to give someone an opportunity to
improve their systems? How do we get feedback from the actual
users? Are we constantly requesting that input from the users
so that we are improving systems or ensuring that our vendors
are meeting the moment or the contract?
Mr. Ward. Yes, absolutely. I think that with this--what the
CAO is doing is trying to be more and more engaged with staff
and users of these services to constantly learn. What we are
proposing is a response to that, to bring more options and more
flexibility and more capability.
Mrs. Torres. Yes. I just want to ensure that we are
constantly asking for input from the users to ensure that we
are utilizing the best applications out there for our needs.
Everything that was said today sounds wonderful. We are
really moving into a new digital world that would help us be a
bit more responsive to our constituents. All of that is only as
good as the internet services that service our communities
could withstand. I can tell you that I chose the location of my
district office to be directly across from an international
airport thinking, you know, it would be a great place to have
the best WiFi and the best internet services in this suburb.
Unfortunately, that is not the case and, you know, we are
constantly having to deal with a 3- or 4-minute delay just to
send an email from one--from the D.C. office to the district
office.
I just want to remind my colleagues that investing in the
infrastructure across America, especially for, you know, to
meet that--to close that digital divide is so critically
important. Suburbs as well as, you know, States that are very
rural I think deserve to have an opportunity to also hear from
their Representatives.
With that, I yield back to the Chair. Thank you.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member Torres.
I want to thank the panelists for joining us, for having
this important conversation. I think you have given us a lot to
think about as we are looking to continue to innovate within
the House infrastructure and provide the best possible
constituent engagement that we can, keeping in mind that
technology changes rapidly. There are certain limitations and
challenges that we have, including the cybersecurity piece of
this. There is a lot of innovation happening right now and
incredible opportunity for us to be able to leverage and
utilize that because, after all, this is the people's House.
With that, this Subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]