[House Prints, 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[COMMITTEE PRINT]
117th Congress} { C.P. 117-2
1st Session } HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
======================================================================
RECOMMENDATIONS TO FOSTER COLLABORATION
AND CIVILITY IN CONGRESS, TO MODERNIZE
THE CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT AGENCIES, AND
TO ENCOURAGE EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY-
MAKING
__________
R E P O R T
__________
THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
December 8, 2021.--Ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-273 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
----------
December 8, 2021
Page
I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY...............................................1
II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR RECOMMENDATIONS...........................1
III.HEARINGS..........................................................5
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................7
V. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION AND VOTES................................16
VI. APPENDIX.........................................................17
117th Congress} { C.P. 117-2
1st Session } HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
======================================================================
RECOMMENDATIONS TO FOSTER COLLABORATION
AND CIVILITY IN CONGRESS, TO MODERNIZE
THE CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT AGENCIES, AND
TO ENCOURAGE EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY-
MAKING
_______
December 8, 2021.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Kilmer, from the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress
(Select Committee or Committee) has been charged with the
important responsibility of recommending improvements to the
U.S. House of Representative to help members of Congress and
their staff better serve the American people. During the 116th
Congress, the Select Committee passed 97 recommendations to
make Congress a more efficient and effective institution. These
recommendations addressed many issues within the Select
Committee's jurisdiction and were detailed in the Committee's
Final Report for the 116th Congress. On July 29th, 2021, the
Select Committee met and issued its sixth set of
recommendations focused on increasing staff capacity, diversity
and inclusion, and expanding accessibility to Congress for
staff as well as the general public.
The Select Committee met on December 8, 2021, to pass its
seventh package of recommendations, the second set of the 117th
Congress. The recommendations broadly focus on enhancing
civility and collaboration, bolstering the effectiveness of the
congressional support agencies, and promoting the collection
and use of impartial data and analysis in the policymaking
process. The recommendations address issues the Select
Committee took up in public hearings, member meetings, and in
meetings with stakeholders.
II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Enhancing civility and collaboration, modernizing the
congressional support agencies to best meet the needs of an
evolving Congress, and improving the use of data and analysis
in policymaking will help improve the way Congress works on
behalf of the American people. The Select Committee identified
the following specific issues to be addressed with
recommendations:
1. New Member Orientation is what sets the tone for
members-elect after the election. Some members have
expressed to the Committee that the existing
orientation program and schedule divide
representatives-elect into partisan camps rather than
teach them about civility, congressional traditions,
and how to work collaboratively to achieve legislative
success.
2. Members have expressed frustration that there are
not enough voluntary professional training
opportunities provided by the institution. They note
that private sector companies often provide resources
for training and best practices in areas like
negotiation, conflict resolution, fostering
collaboration, and leadership development.
3. Members contribute to the legislative process when
bills they've previously introduced are incorporated
into larger bills. The public, however, has limited
options for tracking these individual member
contributions to larger legislation. The Committee
received testimony supporting a better and clearer
accounting that enhances transparency and makes member
involvement in legislation clearer, particularly when
standalone bills are incorporated into larger
legislation or ``omnibus'' packages. While members can
currently publicize their own contributions through
press releases and other means, there is no formal,
publicly accessible way for tracking detailed
legislative history. Furthermore, the ``related bills''
tab on Congress.gov does not provide sufficiently
comprehensive information and does not always
accurately encapsulate all or most related bills,
particularly across multiple sessions of Congress. At
the Committee's Member Day Hearing on April 15, 2021,
it was suggested that incorporating hyperlinks and
implementing a track changes style system for
Congress.gov would provide transparency and a clearer
accounting of the legislative process.
4. There is currently no tool offered to committee
chairs and/or ranking members who wish to solicit
private feedback from committee members on committee
operations.
5. The House's Committee's Congressional Handbook
currently restricts committees from paying for
committee business events and working meetings unless
outside speakers or participants are present or unless
the event is part of a ``legislative planning session
meeting'' (with a limit of two such planning meetings
per year).
6. The culture within Congress has devolved much more
than in many state legislatures. Congress does not have
a formal process for learning about and potentially
adopting best practices from state legislatures.
7. Although there occasionally may be bipartisan
events for House members sponsored by outside entities,
there is no neutral party within the House of
Representatives offering regular, bipartisan gatherings
focused on helping members find common ground and
mutual understanding.
8. The House currently lacks a dedicated office or
individual focused on learning and promoting best
practices for improving collaboration and civility
within the institution.
9. Members and staff can have difficulty identifying
colleagues who share mutual policy interests, which can
inhibit productive collaboration on policy. Informal
collaboration happens through caucuses, listservs, the
e-dear colleague system, and organically through member
and staff-level relationships, but it can still be
difficult to identify members to collaborate that have
interests in specific topics. Some of these current
tools, such as email listservs and the e-dear colleague
system, are outdated or inefficient ways to find
partners for collaboration at the beginning stages of
the legislative process.
10. Several outside organizations have created models
for facilitating private conversations between members
with the goal of identifying and fostering common
ground. However, there is a lack of awareness about
these resources, in part because the House does not
provide information on formal opportunities for
facilitated conversations for members wishing to use
them.
11. Partisan committee websites may encourage more
extreme rhetoric and make it more difficult for the
public to learn about the activities of a committee.
Additionally, partisan websites have led to some
committee materials, including for example, minority
oversight reports, press releases, or entire websites
disappearing from the House system when committee
leadership changes or chamber majorities switch.
12. Without some agreed upon norms regarding how
House committee members are going to treat one another,
there will be regular misunderstandings as complex and
difficult issues are debated. Generic civility rules
for large organizations (like the House of
Representatives, for instance) rarely work in the long-
term, due to their lack of specificity.
13. Even as the private sector experiments with and
sees success with flexible shared workspaces that
foster collaboration and creativity, the House remains
very traditional in how it assigns its very limited
office space for its staff. Currently the only flex
space available is set up for short meetings and there
is no place on the House campus designed specifically
for staff from multiple offices to work together and
collaborate on an idea.
14. Members become disengaged from the process when
bills become stuck in the Senate, even bills that have
bipartisan support. Members know their districts' needs
best but can struggle to get their ideas passed in the
Senate.
15. Congress.gov, administered by the Library of
Congress (LOC), does not always display non-partisan
summaries prepared by the Congressional Research
Service (CRS) for bills receiving a vote on the House
floor.
Without a nonpartisan bill summary, members, staff,
media, and the public are left with summaries
distributed by the majority and minority of a
committee.
16. A consistent theme the Committee heard in
testimony on the support agencies was the importance of
ensuring the agencies have timely, reliable access to
data--particularly, data that is (or should be)
maintained by federal agencies. The information and
expertise that congressional support agencies provide
is only as good as the data on which it is based. Each
agency has experienced its own unique hurdles and
delays in accessing data. The agencies need consistent
and dynamic access to high-quality, real-time data to
serve Congress in a timely and accurate way.
17. The culture at the CRS should be oriented toward
meeting the diverse and evolving research and analysis
needs of members and staff. At the Committee's hearing
on modernizing the support agencies, numerous customer
service issues were identified. There are limited
opportunities for members and staff to provide feedback
on products and services to CRS, and as a result, the
agency misses critical end-user feedback that could
help improve services.
18. The General Accountability Office (GAO) is a
vital resource for Congress and American taxpayers;
however, the Committee understands that congressional
staff may not be sufficiently aware of the resources
and support GAO provides and may not know how best to
contact agency experts. In addition, opportunities are
limited for members and staff to provide feedback to
the agency on how they can improve their services.
19. GAO's recommendations help ``congressional and
agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight
activities, as well as help improve government
operations.'' While the agency provides regular
reporting on the cost savings achieved through the
implementation of its recommendations, there is not a
consolidated, regular report on estimated costs by
agency of unimplemented recommendations.
20. There may be areas where congressional action
would be helpful or necessary to implement GAO
recommendations. Congressional committees can utilize
technical assistance to address open priority GAO
recommendations within their jurisdiction. By
presenting legislative options annually as technical
assistance to the committees on priority open
recommendations and areas on the High-Risk List within
their jurisdiction, GAO could spur legislative efforts
to reform government and save taxpayer dollars.
21. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and its
scoring processes and methodologies are not always well
understood by rank-and-file members or staff.
Furthermore, many staff haven't been fully informed
about the hierarchy of statutorily defined priorities
by which CBO is obligated to provide scores, how to
interpret and understand CBO scores and methodologies,
and the other functions and services CBO provides for
staff and members. Without a clear understanding of how
CBO operates, it can be difficult for staff to craft
legislation or adequately brief members on relevant CBO
reports. Bolstering legislative outreach at CBO to help
answer questions and engage in proactive outreach with
congressional staff about CBO's work, and to solicit
regular feedback, would help staff get their questions
answered, could direct analyst-or score-specific
inquires, would help manage expectations on the scoring
process, and in general would help CBO be a more
effective, and better understood, resource for staff
and members.
22. The absence of a central legislative staff
directory makes it difficult for congressional staff to
identify and connect with experts across the
legislative branch. While partial solutions are
available inside Congress, there is no comprehensive
resource available to staff. As a result, individual
offices either purchase access to costly third-party
databases or do without vital information.
23. The needs of Congress from the support agencies
continuously change, and the legislative tools they
have to meet those needs have not been systematically
reviewed to ensure that their mission and mandate is
addressing the changing needs of the Congress. For
example, GAO was created in 1921 through the Budget and
Accounting Act. The 1921 Act provides GAO with a broad
mandate to investigate how federal funds are spent.
Later legislation clarified or expanded GAO's duties
(and changed the agency's name). GAO now provides a
variety of services to Congress that extend beyond its
original functions, but the 1921 Act continues to serve
as the basis for the agency's activities. Further, CRS
was renamed and directed to put more resources toward
research and analysis in 1970. There have been small
adjustments through Legislative Branch appropriations
bills but the main statutory obligations and agency
directives have not been reassessed since 1970.
CBO was established under the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974. Other than attempts to alter how the
agency scores legislation, its authorities have not
been reexamined since its creation. The only exception
to this was in 1995 when the agency was charged with
including state and local government impacts into its
cost estimates.
24. The Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics
(STAA) team within GAO has recently expanded its
mission and services to provide technology policy
support and related services to members and staff.
However, defining STAA's mission, role, and services,
as well as how it will operate within GAO long-term,
has not been addressed through the authorization
process. The Committee received several specific
recommendations for strengthening STAA within GAO and
providing much-needed technology policy support to
Congress in the absence of a reestablished Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA). The Committee strongly
supports the STAA's mission and the important services
it provides to Congress, and the issues surrounding its
current authorities, structure, oversight, and funding
should be properly addressed through an authorization
process in the committee of jurisdiction and in
consultation with the House Committee on Science, Space
and Technology.
25. The Commission on Evidence Based Policymaking,
established by Congress in the Foundations for
Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-435)
generated numerous recommendations for increasing the
use of data and evidence in the executive branch. A
similar effort to examine the needs of Congress would
help the legislative branch improve its use of
impartial data and evidence in the policymaking
process. Evidence-based policymaking is a complex,
multi-faceted topic and recommendations for
congressional action should come from an expert
commission.
III. HEARINGS
The Select Committee has continued to use its unique
roundtable format to conduct its formal hearings. In addition
to the formal hearings, the Select Committee held a listening
session with members of the Fix Congress Cohort which helped
further inform these recommendations. The hearings included:
``Building a More Civil and Collaborative
Culture in Congress,'' on June 17, 2021. The Select
Committee received testimony from:
Dr. Yuval Levin, Director of
Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at
the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Dr. Molly Reynolds, Senior
Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings
Institution
``Rethinking Congressional Culture: Lessons
from the Fields of Organizational Psychology and
Conflict Resolution,'' on June 24, 2021. The Select
Committee received testimony from:
Dr. Kris Miler, Associate
Professor in the Department of Government and
Politics at the University of Maryland
Dr. Adam Grant, Professor at the
Wharton School at the University of
Pennsylvania
Dr. William Doherty, Co-Founder
of Braver Angels
Amanda Ripley, author of High
Conflict: Why we get Trapped and How we get Out
``Enhancing Committee Productivity,'' on
July 20, 2021. The Select Committee received testimony
from:
Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-
CO)
Congressman Fred Upton (R-MI)
Jenness Simler, former Staff
Director for the House Committee on Armed
Service
Warren Payne, former senior
staff member for the House Committee on Ways
and Means
Dr. E. Scott Adler, Professor of
Political Science at the University of
Colorado, Boulder
``Pathways to Success: How Practicing
Civility, Collaboration, and Leadership Can Empower
Members,'' on September 23, 2021. The Select Committee
received testimony from:
Shola Richards, CEO and Founder
of Go Together Global
Liz Wiseman, CEO of the Wiseman
Group
Dr. Alison Craig, Assistant
Professor of Political Science at the
University of Texas at Austin
``Modernizing the Congressional Support
Agencies to Meet the Needs of an Evolving Congress,''
on October 21, 2021. The Select Committee received
testimony from:
Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General
of the United States and head of the Government
Accountability Office (GAO)
Dr. Mary Mazanec, Director of
the Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Dr. Phillip Swagel, Director of
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
Dr. Wendy Ginsberg, Staff
Director of the Government Operations
Subcommittee on the House Committee on
Oversight and Reform, testifying on her own
behalf
Zach Graves, Head of Policy at
Lincoln Network
Dr. Philip Joyce, Senior
Associate Dean of the School of Public Policy
at the University of Maryland
``Strengthening the Lawmaking Process: How
Data Can Inform and Improve Policy,'' on October 27,
2021. The Select Committee received testimony from:
Dr. Nick Hart, President of Data
Foundation
Poppy MacDonald, President of
USAFacts
Tara McGuinness, Fellow and
Senior Adviser at New America
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Select Committee made the following 25 recommendations
to address the problems identified above (see II. BACKGROUND
AND NEED FOR RECOMMENDATIONS):
Foster Collaboration and Civility in Congress
(1) Recommendation: New Member Orientation should
strive to promote civility, collaboration, and
leadership skills and sessions should be held
separately from and at times that do not conflict with
party leadership events.
Specifically . . . Changing the tone, structure, and
coursework at orientation to include leadership, civility,
history, and collaboration would positively impact culture and
norms in Congress and help foster relationship building across
the aisle. This recommendation expands on the Committee's
previous recommendation (#14) that New Member Orientation
``include a session on House Rules of Decorum and Debate and
other practices to promote civility in Congress.''. Based on
testimony received by the Committee, topics to consider
piloting in future new member orientations include a leadership
training module; historical perspectives on Congress;
perspectives on social media; and demonstrations on how
civility and collaboration can increase member effectiveness
through case studies, videos, and stories from House
colleagues. To the extent possible, orientation sessions should
be separated from party leadership events.
(2) Recommendation: The proposed Congressional
Leadership Academy (CLA) and Congressional Staff
Academy (CSA) should offer voluntary training to
members and staff to promote civility, collaboration,
and leadership skills.
Specifically . . . The Committee received several
suggestions for providing members and staff additional training
opportunities on current best practices that could further
support and enhance civility and bipartisan collaboration in
the House, including leadership development, conflict
resolution, and meeting facilitation skills. The CLA, which was
proposed by the Committee in the 116th Congress, should develop
and offer voluntary continuing education and one-on-one
training programs for members who are interested in learning
current best practices for legislative cooperation and
developing additional skills in these areas.
Staff also benefit from continuing education and skills
building in these areas. The CSA should continue offering staff
trainings in a bipartisan, collaborative fashion including de-
escalation training which is popular among district staff. The
Committee is encouraged by staff interest shown in the
bipartisan CSA coach program launched in July 2021. The
Committee encourages the CSA to continue the good work they've
done and consider expanding those offerings.
The Committee believes the programs offered through the
proposed CLA and CSA should be based on demand and need. CSA
continually tracks interest and demand for course offerings and
CLA should develop their own methods for tracking Member
interest and effectiveness of course offerings. The Committee
also believes the proposed CLA and the CSA should continue to
solicit feedback and track program performance metrics and
effectiveness, to ensure program offerings are meeting defined
goals.
Suggested topics for training by CLA and CSA mentioned in
expert testimony received by the Committee include but are not
limited to, 1) best practices for facilitating forums that
bring constituents with opposing views together to promote
dialogue and understanding, 2) fostering bipartisan
collaboration as a chair and/or ranking member, 3) perspectives
on social media distortions, 4) leadership development,
including legislative effectiveness, and 5) conflict
resolution.
(3) Recommendation: The Library of Congress website
(Congress.gov) should provide a clearer accounting of
member contributions in legislation.
Specifically . . . The Committee received testimony
supporting a better and clearer accounting that enhances
transparency and makes member involvement in legislation
clearer, particularly when standalone bills are incorporated
into larger omnibus packages. The Committee believes this can
be done through improved technology and tracking on
Congress.gov's ``related bills'' tab to better reflect when
standalone bills are incorporated into larger omnibus packages.
Relatedly, the Committee received testimony supporting more
robust committee reports that more clearly highlight member
involvement in committee-produced legislation. The Committee
understands that some committees already provide this
information in their reports and believes that a significantly
improved and enhanced accounting of related legislation at
Congress.gov would make it easier for committee staff to track
and provide that information in their reports, which in turn,
will provided added transparency and help better account for
member contributions in committee-prepared reports.
(4) Recommendation: The House of Representatives
should develop and provide tools for committee
leadership to receive member feedback on committee
operations.
Specifically . . . Committee chairs and ranking members
could benefit from rank-and-file member feedback and could
adjust and improve leadership style and committee operations.
The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) should develop and
provide an optional tool for committee chairs and ranking
members to solicit private feedback from members and staff on
committee operations. Envisioned as a customer service tool, it
would focus on operations, not policy or legislative agendas,
providing committee leaders an optional way to survey members
and staff and identify opportunities for improvement.
(5) Recommendation: Committees should have
flexibility to host occasional events to foster
collaboration and further develop working relationships
among committee members.
Specifically . . . The House of Representatives should
consider changes to the Committee Handbook to provide
flexibility for committees to host occasional bipartisan,
collaboration-building events. The additional flexibility
envisioned would maintain existing related Committee Handbook
policies, including the prohibition on using committee funds to
purchase alcohol, and include additional guardrails that would
prevent excessive spending and limit spending to official
committee business. Handbook changes should limit events to
those held on Capitol grounds. This change would also support
committees to provide for members during extended hearings/
markups creating an informal and more impromptu way for
committees to foster working relationships at the staff and
member levels. More bipartisan brainstorming and relationship
building events may lead to increased trust and more
collaboration.
(6) Recommendation: The House of Representatives
should survey and examine best practices from state
legislatures.
Specifically . . . Many state legislatures manage to
sustain relatively functional cultures of bipartisan work
despite deep divisions. Congress could learn from them, and the
process of such learning could itself be helpful to the culture
of the institution. Members should be encouraged, through a
formal process, to bring to the attention of their colleagues'
best practices in their state legislatures that Congress might
consider. This could take the form of a hearing either in the
House Committee on Rules or the Committee on House
Administration, inviting states to testify and share lessons.
Members may also visit their state capitols and bring
information back to share with Congress.
(7) Recommendation: The Library of Congress is
encouraged to explore expanding its regular, bipartisan
events for small groups of members to include events
specifically focused on promoting relationship building
and collaboration.
Specifically . . . In 2013, the LOC began hosting a dinner
series for members called ``Congressional Dialogues.'' The
stated purpose of these dinners is, ``to provide the members
with more information about the great leaders and events in our
country's past, with the hope that, in exercising their various
responsibilities, our senators and representatives would be
more knowledgeable about history and what it can teach us about
future challenges.'' A secondary goal was to reduce partisan
rancor by bringing members together in a nonpartisan setting.
Though it took a few years for these dinners to catch on with
members, they are now wildly popular. The LOC could build on
this successful model and host a ``Civility Dialogues'' dinner
series, where the specific focus would be on fostering
civility, collaboration, and trust. The dinners or events would
be on a much smaller scale, for 10-20 members at a time, and
feature experts who would engage with the members on various
topics connected to the overall theme of civility.
Implementation of this recommendation would not require any new
appropriated funding and should ensure compliance with House
Ethics guidelines.
(8) Recommendation: The House should include within
the portfolio of an institutional office
responsibilities to provide best practices to members
and staff seeking advice, support, and workshops that
encourage bipartisan collaboration in the House.
Specifically . . . The House should investigate providing
an institutional office with direction to focus on and carry
out the task of promoting collaboration best practices. The
House should make clear that this is a nonpartisan
responsibility.
(9) Recommendation: The House of Representatives
should offer technology tools to facilitate member
collaboration on legislation and issues of mutual
interest.
Specifically . . . The House, through the CAO, should
develop and deploy new technology tools to better enable
members and staff to identify policy areas of common interest
on which to collaborate. Members and staff who voluntarily
choose to participate would be able to, anonymously if desired,
share or select issues of interest and identify other members
who share those interests. Additionally, this system should
provide up to date information on which caucuses Members serve
on. Attempts at issue ``match-making'' already happen through
caucuses, listservs, the e-dear colleague system, and
organically through member and staff-level relationships, but
it can still be difficult identifying members to collaborate
with that have interests in specific topics. However, a new
tool, for those who choose to participate, could help speed up
the process and make it easier for members, especially new
members without an established network, to identify areas of
mutual interest and expertise.
(10) Recommendation: The House of Representatives
should provide information on organizations and
resources members can utilize to participate in
facilitated conversations with the goal of fostering
common ground.
Specifically . . . Several outside organizations have
created models for facilitating private conversations between
members with the goal of identifying and fostering common
ground. In offering these voluntary opportunities, rather than
building an in-house capability, the House could, consistent
with House rules, collaborate with established outside entities
who may already be providing a variety of these services to
interested members and provide a menu of options for members
and staff. This information should be available for all members
and may be provided at New Member Orientation and/or the
proposed bipartisan biennial retreat. There should be
guardrails for the information provided to ensure there is no
undue influence by outside organizations. Outside organizations
must be vetted and approved by the Committee on House
Administration and information must be provided in accordance
with House Ethics guidelines.
(11) Recommendation: Committees should have a
bipartisan, public-facing website with basic,
nonpartisan information about the committee and its
operations.
Specifically . . . For committees that choose to do so,
this change would bring the committee website in line with
Senate committees, which have one bipartisan website for each
committee. Additionally, the Modernization Committee only has
one website, and its used mainly to house reports and committee
activity. Nothing in this recommendation would preclude a
committee majority and/or minority from having a partisan
website, in addition to a non-partisan, largely administrative
website that houses committee documents and resources and
doesn't largely change content as the majority changes between
party hands.
Having one website also promotes transparency by retaining
the information within the House. This would not preclude a
committee majority or minority from having a partisan website
in addition to the non-partisan website.
(12) Recommendation: The House of Representatives
should provide resources and guidance to committees
seeking to create tailored, mutually developed,
civility norms.
Specifically . . . The Committee received testimony on the
benefits for organizations that adopt accepted norms of
behavior and civility. The recommendation is for the House to
provide resources and guidance to committees wishing to develop
and adopt civility norms for and within their committee. These
norms may be established by committees during each new session
of Congress. Importantly, this is not a Code of Conduct.
Traditionally, Codes of Conduct are created by the leaders of
an organization, with the expectation that those within the
organization will follow the codes that they created. Civility
norms, on the other hand, would be created by the members of
each committee for the members of each committee.
This information may be provided at a committee retreat
and/or at the proposed biennial bipartisan retreat. The Select
Committee previously proposed that committees meet to determine
goals for the year, and to discuss how the members will treat
each other in public and in private, and how the committee will
treat witnesses during hearings.
(13) Recommendation: The House of Representatives
should explore bipartisan co-working spaces for staff.
Specifically . . . Flexible shared workspaces open to all
staff could help break down norms that staff can only work near
and collaborate with people from the same party. The co-working
spaces for staff should be centrally located, usable, and
convenient for staff. While the House office buildings have
self-reserve rooms and other public spaces in and near the
cafeterias where staff can sit and meet, there are currently no
spaces designed specifically to facilitate staff working
outside of their office and/or to collaborate, formally or
informally, with other staff. The committee previously
recommended that the House's physical workspace be updated and
noted that members and staff ``desire private bipartisan spaces
to work together.'' This recommendation further develops this
idea.
(14) Recommendation: A bicameral group of members,
including majority and minority members of the House
and Senate Rules Committees, should convene to discuss
joint rules changes in each chamber that would require
widely supported, bipartisan legislation passed in one
chamber to receive expedited consideration in the other
chamber.
Specifically . . . Representatives of the House and Senate
should convene to discuss a reciprocated rule change in each
chamber that would take effect only upon mutual adoption in
both chambers. This rule change under discussion should provide
for each chamber to expedite consideration of all legislation
that has passed in the originating chamber by unanimous
consent, or with at least \2/3\ of its members voting in the
affirmative.
Modernize Congressional Support Agencies
(15) Recommendation: The Library of Congress should
prioritize ensuring that bills to receive a floor vote
have nonpartisan summaries available.
Specifically . . . Improving the availability of Library of
Congress legislative summaries would ensure members, staff,
media, and the public have access to nonpartisan summaries
before legislation is passed. In a discussion with the LOC they
indicated that this is a capacity issue and that it can be
difficult to assign staff to bills that were added to a voting
schedule with very little notice. This recommendation asks the
LOC to prioritize this, and if necessary, to seek additional or
reallocated resources.
(16) Recommendation: CRS, GAO, and CBO should each
report to committees of jurisdiction on access to
federal data, including any challenges to accessing
that data, and identify whether Congress can take any
actions to ensure agencies have continuous and real-
time access to high-quality federal data and the staff
who maintain and can provide insight into that
information.
Specifically . . . The CRS, GAO, and CBO all have unique
data access challenges in conducting their work. The Committee
understands each agency has experienced hurdles and/or delays
in accessing the data they need, including examples below.
CRS: To get access to federal data, the Committee
understands CRS sometimes is instructed to file a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request or must get the signature of
committee chairs on information request letters, which can lead
to delays. CRS requests are not treated as originating in
Congress.
GAO: The GAO has well-established statutory authority to
access agency records while carrying out its audit, evaluation,
and investigative duties (see, 31 U.S.C. 716(a)). However, the
Committee understands GAO may face challenges accessing
information and experts in specific areas on which Congress may
choose to take action. GAO access authority should be broadened
in at least three areas First, GAO access to agency records
should explicitly include access to and authority to make and
retain copies of data and records created and maintained in
digital form in IT systems including machine readable,
structured data (e.g., CSV, XML). Second, GAO access authority
should also explicitly extend to interviewing officers and
employees of federal agencies as well as employees from certain
non-federal entities (e.g., state/local agency, contractor,
grantee, recipient) necessary to carry out an audit,
evaluation, or investigation of a federal program or activity
or use of federal funds, including private entities receiving
such funds. Third, GAO access should include the authority to
inspect facilities and examine property necessary to carry out
its work for Congress and the American taxpayer.
CBO: Analysts should continue to have electronic access to
data, rather than being required to access federal data in
person. CBO also needs streamlined access to federal agency
experts. With enhanced data and expert access, CBO may be able
to produce distributional analyses. The FY21 appropriation bill
for the legislative branch requested information about the
CBO's access to data from federal agencies, including data
sources and data sets. CBO reported on this information in June
2021.
Consistent access to federal data and experts will help the
support agencies produce higher quality products that inform
Congress's work. Therefore, the Committee recommends each
agency report to the committees of jurisdiction on the specific
access challenges they face, the legislative remedies they may
need, if any, and whether in some cases an MOU may provide a
solution to provide necessary data access. The Committee hopes
the reports provide the committees of jurisdiction a roadmap
for potential action to address these issues.
(17) Recommendation: CRS should ensure that its
products and services are designed to adapt and meet
the ever-changing needs of an evolving Congress and
develop real-time customer feedback tools to improve
and continually update the services and products it
provides to Congress.
Specifically . . . By developing a customer-focused
approach to the provision of its products and services, the
agency can better tailor its work to meet the diverse and
evolving needs of members and staff. CRS's culture should be
oriented toward meeting the diverse and evolving research and
analysis needs of members and staff. To this end, the agency
should regularly and proactively engage in outreach efforts to
Congress to determine where improvements can be made and where
new approaches are appropriate. Customer oriented reforms
mentioned during the Committee's hearing include the following:
emphasize more concise reports, videos, and
podcasts;
improve the functionality of CRS.gov;
tailor products to staff's knowledge-level;
proactively get CRS products to staff;
employ technology to survey staff directly
and regularly on CRS products and services, including
interactions with individual analysts;
ensure analysts are continuously up to date
in their field by allowing participation in academic
conferences;
take steps to build a more diverse
workforce;
allow analysts to detail to congressional
committees;
improve ease of access to agency reports and
other information via web portals;
routinely seek member and staff input to
improve CRS.gov.
Additionally, the Library of Congress Inspector General
should play a role in helping the Committee on House
Administration oversee CRS and all aspects of the Library,
including accessing and providing needed information that will
help evaluate and enhance the customer service experience.
(18) Recommendation: The Government Accountability
Office should boost initiatives to meet Congress'
information needs and assess member and staff awareness
of and satisfaction with its products and services.
Specifically . . . The GAO should go further to inform
Congress about its products and services. The Committee
understands that staff may not be sufficiently aware of the
resources and support provided by GAO and how best to contact
experts. Possible initiatives could include:
Hosting a session on GAO's role, products
and services, and protocols and processes at New Member
Orientation, as well as an information session for all
members at the start of each Congress;
improve the public-facing GAO.gov and the
Congress-facing ``watchdog'' websites to enhance staff
ability to search for reports by topic area, locate and
contact experts, and submit service requests and
feedback;
explain formal mechanisms to collect and
assess customer feedback on products and services;
outreach to assess member and committee
priorities and interests and continuous learning
initiatives for members and staff including one-pagers
and coordinating regular briefings on critical topics
with CRS and the National Academies;
employ technology to survey staff directly
and regularly on products and services including
interactions with individual analysts;
explore adding a physical GAO presence in
the House to improve visibility and awareness of GAO's
products and services.
(19) Recommendation: The Comptroller General should
provide an annual report to committees on unimplemented
GAO recommendations and the estimated cost savings, by
agency.
Specifically . . . According to GAO, as of November 23,
2021, ``there are 4661 open recommendations, of which 482 are
priority recommendations.'' Further, recommendations remain
open until they are designated as ``Closed-implemented'' or
``Closed-not implemented.'' An annual report on unimplemented
recommendations, and associated costs, could inform and spur
Congressional oversight and reforms, improving agency
performance and saving taxpayer dollars. Associated costs
should be included where feasible. Similarly, the report
accompanying the FY2022 legislative branch appropriations bill
directs the Comptroller General to provide committees with a
report estimating the financial costs of unimplemented GAO
recommendations by agency.
(20) Recommendation: The Government Accountability
Office should annually report to Congress on
legislative options to address open priority
recommendations as well as related work from the
``High-Risk List.''
Specifically . . . GAO's recommendations can provide a
starting point for bipartisan legislative reform. Every two
years the agency reports on federal programs and operations
that are vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement,
or that need broad reform in their High-Risk List which could
form the basis of legislative options.
(21) Recommendation: The Congressional Budget Office
should expand its congressional outreach to provide
additional information and assistance to members of
Congress and staff.
Specifically . . . A larger, more robust, proactive
congressional outreach program would provide much needed
insight for staff and members into the agency's protocols,
processes, and work. Bolstering legislative outreach at CBO to
help answer questions and engage in proactive outreach with
congressional staff about the agency's work, and to solicit
regular feedback, would help staff get their questions
answered, could direct analyst-or score-specific inquires,
would help manage expectations on the scoring process, and in
general would help CBO be a more effective, and better
understood, resource for staff and members.
(22) Recommendation: Congress and congressional
support agencies should establish a web portal with
staff contact information that is managed and updated
by the House, Senate, congressional support offices,
and support agencies to enhance the exchange of
information and policymaking process.
Specifically . . . It is important to facilitate the
ability of congressional staff to easily identify and connect
with other congressional staff--including across the chambers--
and with the staff of the support agencies (and for support
agency staff to directly contact congressional staff). Where
feasible, the portal (or directory) should include the name,
title, office, phone number, email address, and issue/area of
expertise for each employee from the House, Senate, support
offices, and support agencies. Information should be able to be
filtered by office, title, party, issue/area of expertise, and
continuously updated. Access to the directory should be
permissioned and limited to authorized users.
(23) Recommendation: The committees of jurisdiction
should examine the support agencies' authorities and
determine if they are sufficient or need to be updated
so that the agencies can better serve an evolving
Congress.
Specifically . . . As Congress continues to examine whether
the agencies are meeting the needs of an evolving Congress, it
would be helpful to examine whether the underlying authorities
are effectively serving the purposes envisioned and to consider
potential reforms. By regularly reviewing and assessing these
agencies, Congress and the committees of jurisdiction can
identify areas where agencies could expand or revise services,
policies, and/or operations to better serve Congress. In the
116th Congress, the Committee recommended that GAO, CBO, and
CRS evaluate their missions, how they have evolved over time,
and if there is a further need to modernize, and incorporate
the results of this review in their budget justifications to
the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations and other
relevant committees. This information, and the perspectives
provided by the agencies, should be helpful to the committees
of jurisdiction as they examine the underlying statutes and
consider potential reforms.
(24) Recommendation: The Science, Technology
Assessment, and Analytics program (STAA) should be
authorized by Congress and made a permanent part of
GAO.
Specifically . . . The Committee strongly supports the
STAA's mission and the important services it provides to
Congress. Through the authorization process, Congress can
clarify and strengthen the support the STAA provides to meet
the needs of an evolving Congress.
Encourage Evidence-Based Policymaking
(25) Recommendation: Congress should establish a
bipartisan, bicameral Commission on Evidence-Based
Policymaking to encourage and facilitate better use of
data in the legislative process.
Specifically . . . A commission could assist Congress in
determining how to best incorporate evidence-based approaches
into its policymaking, policy evaluation, and oversight work.
The commission should make recommendations on how to
incorporate outcomes measurement, rigorous impact analysis, and
implementation aligned language into the lawmaking process; for
how Congress can access and incorporate real-time, structured,
and machine-readable data into the lawmaking process; evaluate
the need for and potential duties of a Chief Data Officer,
including whether the officer should be located in a stand-
alone office or housed within another existing agency, and how
such an office would function with existing data and
information units in the House (e.g. CAO, Bulk Data Taskforce);
assess ways to increase data expertise in Congress through the
incorporation of technologists, data scientists, and engineers
to assist in policy evaluation and legislative drafting; and,
examine how Congress may encourage federal agencies to produce
evidence on effectiveness for major new programs and
reauthorizations.
V. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION AND VOTES
Consideration
On December 8, 2021, the Select Committee held a Business
Meeting, a quorum being present, and reported favorably the
recommendations contained in this report.
Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, recommendations 1-12 and 15-25
herein contained in this report were adopted by voice vote,
two-thirds being in the affirmative.
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, recommendations 13 and 14 herein
contained in this report were adopted by roll call vote, with
Reps. Kilmer, Timmons, Cleaver, Perlmutter, Davis, Joyce,
Phillips, and Williams voting aye and Reps. Reschenthaler and
Van Duyne voting no.
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, a recommendation to expand
primary sponsor designations to two members of different
parties for bipartisan bills failed on a roll call vote, with
Reps. Kilmer, Timmons, Cleaver, Perlmutter, Phillips, and
Williams voting aye and Reps. Reschenthaler, Davis, Joyce, and
Van Duyne voting no. Due to unforeseen circumstances, Reps.
Lofgren and Latta were unable to participate in this vote. The
Appendix contains letters submitted for the record by Reps.
Lofgren and Latta, respectively, that explain their positions
on this recommendation.
A motion by Chair Derek Kilmer of Washington to report the
recommendations herein contained in this report to the House of
Representatives was adopted by voice vote, two-thirds being in
the affirmative.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]