Subcommittee on Modernization and Innovation Hearing: “The Future of Constituent Engagement with Congress.”

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                       THE FUTURE OF CONSTITUENT5                        ENGAGEMENT WITH CONGRESS6=======================================================================78                                HEARING910                               BEFORE THE1112                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION13                             AND INNOVATION1415                                 OF THE1617                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION1819                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2021                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2223                             FIRST SESSION2425                               __________2627                           December 17, 20252829                               __________3031      Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration3233[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3435                             www.govinfo.gov36                           www.cha.house.gov3738                                __________3940                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4162-407                       WASHINGTON : 202642-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4344                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION4546                    BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman4748LAUREL LEE, Florida, Vice Chair      JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,49BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia                 Ranking Member50H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama51GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          NORMA TORRES, California52STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             JULIE JOHNSON, Texas53MARY MILLER, Illinois54MIKE CAREY, Ohio5556                       Mike Platt, Staff Director57                  Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director5859                                 ------6061              SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION AND INNOVATION6263                  STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma, Chairwoman6465MIKE CAREY, Ohio                     NORMA TORRES, California,66                                          Ranking Member67                                     JOSEPH MORELLE, New York6869               Jordan Wilson, Subcommittee Staff Director7071                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S7273                              ----------74                                                                   Page7576                           Opening Statements7778Chairwoman Stephanie Bice, Representative from the State of79  Oklahoma.......................................................     180    Prepared statement of Chairwoman Stephanie Bice..............     381Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Modernization and82  Innovation Norma Torres, Representative from the State of83  California.....................................................     384    Prepared statement of Ranking Member Norma Torres............     485Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on House Administration Joseph86  Morelle, Representative from the State of New York.............    6887    Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle..........    698889                               Witnesses9091Dr. Michael Neblo, professor, The Ohio State Institute for92  Democratic Engagement and Accountability.......................     693    Prepared statement of Dr. Michael Neblo......................     994Mrs. Aubrey Wilson, Director of Global Initiatives, POPVOX95  Foundation.....................................................    2296    Prepared statement of Mrs. Aubrey Wilson.....................    2497Dr. Beth Simone Noveck, Chief AI Strategist, State of New Jersey.    3498    Prepared statement of Dr. Beth Simone Noveck.................    3699Mr. Ken Ward, Director of House Digital Services, CAO............    60100    Prepared statement of Mr. Ken Ward...........................    62101102                        Questions for the Record103104Mr. Ken Ward answers to submitted questions......................    78105Mrs. Aubrey Wilson answers to submitted questions................    84106Michael Neblo and Laura Moses answers to submitted questions.....    96107Dr. Beth Simone Noveck answers to submitted questions............   100108109           THE FUTURE OF CONSTITUENT ENGAGEMENT WITH CONGRESS110111                              ----------112113                           December 17, 2025114115        Subcommittee on Modernization and Innovation,116                 Committee on House Administration,117                                  House of Representatives,118                                                   Washington, D.C.119    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in120room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Bice121[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.122    Present: Representatives Bice, Carey, Torres, and Morelle.123    Staff present: Michael Platt, Staff Director; Rachel124Collins, General Counsel; Abby Salter, Deputy General Counsel;125Jordan Wilson, Director of Member Services, Modernization and126Innovation; Marian Currinder, Senior Professional Staff;127Kristen Monterroso, Director of Operations; Annemarie Cake,128Professional Staff and Deputy Clerk; Jamie Fleet, Minority129Staff Director; Sarah Nasta, Minority Senior Advisor and130Director of Outreach; Kwame Newton, Minority Oversight Counsel.131132  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHANIE BICE, CHAIRWOMAN OF THE133     SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION AND INNOVATION, A U.S.134                  REPRESENTATIVE FROM OKLAHOMA135136    Chairwoman Bice. Good morning. The Subcommittee on137Modernization and Innovation will come to order.138    The title of today's hearing is ``The Future of Constituent139Engagement with Congress.'' I note that a quorum is present.140    Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any141time. Also, without objection, the hearing record will remain142open for 5 legislative days so that Members may submit any143materials they wish to be included therein.144    At the beginning of the 119th Congress, we decided to145update the Subcommittee's name to the Subcommittee on146Modernization and Innovation. The behind-the-scenes work of147closing out recommendations made by the Select Committee on148Modernization continues, but we also need to look forward and149determine how we can ensure that House technologies and systems150continue to evolve instead of getting stuck in time. This is151where innovation comes into play. Bringing Microsoft Copilot152into the House community is a great example of how the153Subcommittee is leaning into this work.154    For the past couple of months, we have worked closely with155the CAO on a comprehensive plan to provide Copilot licenses and156targeted training to our House staff. As of today, 150 Member157offices have licenses, and in January, licenses will be158available to every Member, Committee, Leadership, and House159support office. Integrating AI technologies into House160operations is really a game-changing first step in making the161House a more efficient and effective institution.162    Constituent engagement, the topic of today's hearing, is163another area that is ripe for innovation. There are all kinds164of innovative tools and technologies that we could be using165right now rather than scrambling to play catch-up later.166    Communicating with our constituents is absolutely essential167for doing our jobs, the jobs we were elected to do. Assisting168with casework, responding to questions, and explaining our169positions on the issues of the day requires interacting with170our constituents in effective and meaningful ways. As we all171know, the communications landscape is evolving at a rapid pace,172and there are now many different ways to engage and share173information.174    Our constituents are exposed to new technologies daily,175whether they are scheduling appointments, ordering food, or176using AI tools that work. The forms of communication they177encounter outside of Congress are much less common inside of178Congress. Rather than assume that they will read our letters179and emails, we should figure out how to meet our constituents180where they are at today, tomorrow, and into the future. If we181do not begin to incorporate new and emerging technologies and182platforms into our constituent outreach strategies, we risk183losing the ability to effectively connect with the people we184need to hear from the most.185    For decades, the House has relied on a small number of186constituent management systems, or CMS, for handling Members'187constituent engagement and outreach needs. While these systems188have added different features and upgrades over time, I do not189think that any of us would call these systems cutting edge.190That is not at all a criticism as much as it is a reflection of191the fact that the market here is limited and it lacks the kind192of competition that is typically needed to spark innovation.193    All of this presents us with a real opportunity to194reimagine constituent engagement. Members represent vastly195different districts and constituencies, so maybe a, quote,196build-your-own system makes more sense than a one-size-fits-197all. That way Members could choose technologies and platforms198that best meet the needs of their districts and constituents.199    More options could encourage real innovation, and that is200really what we want. I am looking forward to learning more201about public views on the current and future states of202constituent engagement as well as what other countries and203States are doing that is innovative and effective. The204discussion today will help inform the Subcommittee's205exploration of how the House can innovate to improve how we206connect with all of the people that we represent.207    I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Torres for the208purpose of providing an opening statement.209    [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Bice follows:]210211    PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON212          MODERNIZATION AND INNOVATION CHAIRWOMAN BICE213214    At the beginning of the 119th Congress, we decided to215update the Subcommittee's name to the Subcommittee on216Modernization and Innovation. The behind-the-scenes work of217closing out recommendations made by the Select Committee on218Modernization continues, but we also need to look forward and219figure out how to ensure that the House's technologies and220systems continue to evolve instead of getting stuck in time.221This is where innovation comes into play. Bringing Microsoft222Copilot to the House community is a great example of how the223Subcommittee is leaning into this work.224    For the past couple of months, we have worked closely with225the CAO on a comprehensive plan to provide Copilot licenses and226targeted training to House staff. As of today, 150 Member227offices have licenses and in January, licenses will be228available to every Member, Committee, Leadership, and House229support office. Integrating AI technologies into House230operations is a game-changing first step in making the House a231more efficient and effective institution.232    Constituent engagement, the topic of today's hearing, is233another area that is ripe for innovation. There are all kinds234of innovative tools and technologies that we could be using235now, rather than scrambling to play catch-up later.236Communicating with our constituents is absolutely essential for237doing the jobs we were elected to do. Assisting with casework,238responding to questions, and explaining our positions on the239issues of the day requires interacting with our constituents in240effective and meaningful ways. As we all know, the241communications landscape is evolving at a rapid pace and there242are now many different ways to engage and share information.243    Our constituents are exposed to new technologies daily,244whether they are scheduling appointments, ordering food, or245using AI tools at work. The forms of communication they246encounter outside of Congress are much less common inside of247Congress. Rather than assume they'll read our letters and248emails, we should figure out how to meet our constituents where249they are at today, tomorrow, and in the future. If we do not250begin incorporating new and emerging technologies and platforms251into our constituent outreach strategies, we risk losing the252ability to effectively connect with the people we need to hear253from most.254    For decades, the House has relied on a small number of255constituent management systems (CMS) for handling Members'256constituent engagement and outreach needs. While these systems257have added different features and upgrades over time, I do not258think any of us would call them ``cutting edge.'' That is not a259criticism as much as it's a reflection of the fact that the260market here is very limited and lacks the kind of competition261that is typically needed to spark innovation.262    All of this presents us with a real opportunity to263reimagine constituent engagement. Members represent vastly264different districts and constituencies so maybe a ``build-your-265own'' system makes more sense than a ``one-size-fits-all''266system. That way, Members could choose technologies and267platforms that best meet the needs of their districts and268constituents. More options could encourage real innovation and269that is what we want.270    I am looking forward to learning more about public views on271the current and future states of constituent engagement, as272well as what other countries and States are doing that is273innovative and effective. The discussion today will help inform274the Subcommittee's exploration of how the House can innovate to275improve how we connect with the people we represent.276277 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NORMA TORRES, RANKING MEMBER OF THE278     SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION AND INNOVATION, A U.S.279                 REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA280281    Mrs. Torres. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Chairwoman282Bice, and thank you so much to our distinguished witnesses for283taking the time to share your insights with us today.284    I am glad to be here working together with my colleagues on285these--and experts on the most fundamental goals of an elected286Representative. How can we listen to our constituents, and how287can we build the trust that we need with them?288    I worry that faith in Government is broken. We know that289too many people feel like their Government fails them, that we290just simply do not listen to them, that they do not hear from291us, they do not unders--we do not understand their complicated292lives, and that whatever we do does not help them with their293challenges. When they do reach out to us, they feel--will they294feel heard? I am not sure that that is a true statement. I295think that at least the constituents in my district want to296feel that there is a human on the other side representing them.297    I represent a district about an hour east of Los Angeles,298where Latinos make up more than two-thirds of the population.299At a time when Americans need to be able to connect with their300elected Representatives in a straightforward, efficient way,301the disconnect between Washington and my constituents in the302Inland Empire can often feel as an uncrossable divide.303    This hearing is an opportunity to confront the reality of304record low trust in Government and determine how Congress can305improve its approach to constituent engagement through306modernization and innovation. What I do believe is that we need307to meet people where they are. The goal is to create systems308that make it easier for people to be heard. We need tools to309better listen, to better hear the American people, and to310better serve them.311    I must say very loud and clear that a faster system that312still excludes people is not progress. We need to design tools313that are accessible, transparent, and responsible to the lived314experiences of our constituents. These new methods of315engagement must also protect constituents' privacy and personal316information when necessary.317    If Congress is serious about strengthening democracy and318encouraging civic participation, we must build the tools that319do not just work on paper in Washington, but they actually work320in our communities. These tools need to work in practice for321every American who needs to be heard, because when a322constituent finally takes that step to reach out to their323Government, that moment matters. How we respond may determine324whether they ever try again.325    A good example of a broken system--and that is not just326here in Congress--this year, as of August of this year, we had327returned over $23 million to our constituents. We can say328congratulations to my office, to my employees, to the329caseworkers. I want to look at it as a failure of agencies that330have failed to respond in a timely manner and a respectful331manner and have failed to truly hear the needs of that332constituent. Shouldn't take a Member of Congress to have to333play lobbyist for our constituents. If they deserve certain334benefits, they should get them. A system that could help me335deliver even more money to my constituents is what I am here336for.337    I am going to turn it back to our chairwoman, and I look338forward to listening to the conversation today.339    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Torres follows:]340341  PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON342           MODERNIZATION AND INNOVATION NORMA TORRES343344    I am glad to be here working together with my colleagues on345these--and experts on the most fundamental goals of an elected346Representative. How can we listen to our constituents, and how347can we build the trust that we need with them? I worry that348faith in Government is broken. We know that too many people349feel like their Government fails them, that we just simply do350not listen to them, that they do not hear from us, they do not351understand we do not understand their complicated lives, and352that whatever we do does not help them with their challenges.353When they do reach out to us, they feel--will they feel heard?354I am not sure that that is a true statement. I think that at355least the constituents in my district want to feel that there356is a human on the other side representing them.357    I represent a district about an hour east of Los Angeles,358where Latinos make up more than two-thirds of the population.359At a time when Americans need to be able to connect with their360elected Representatives in a straightforward, efficient way,361the disconnect between Washington and my constituents in the362Inland Empire can often feel as an uncrossable divide.363    This hearing is an opportunity to confront the reality of364record low trust in Government and determine how Congress can365improve its approach to constituent engagement through366modernization and innovation. What I do believe is that we need367to meet people where they are. The goal is to create systems368that make it easier for people to be heard. We need tools to369better listen, to better hear the American people, and to370better serve them. I must say very loud and clear that a faster371system that still excludes people is not progress. We need to372design tools that are accessible, transparent, and responsible373to the lived experiences of our constituents. These new methods374of engagement must also protect constituents' privacy and375personal information when necessary.376    If Congress is serious about strengthening democracy and377encouraging civic participation, we must build the tools that378do not just work on paper in Washington, but they actually work379in our communities. These tools need to work in practice for380every American who needs to be heard, because when a381constituent finally takes that step to reach out to their382Government, that moment matters. How we respond may determine383whether they ever try again.384    A good example of a broken system--and that is not just385here in Congress--this year, as of August of this year, we had386returned over $23 million to our constituents. We can say387congratulations to my office, to my employees, to the388caseworkers. I want to look at it as a failure of agencies that389have failed to respond in a timely manner and a respectful390manner and have failed to truly hear the needs of that391constituent. Shouldn't take a Member of Congress to have to392play lobbyist for our constituents. If they deserve certain393benefits, they should get them. A system that could help me394deliver even more money to my constituents is what I am here395for.396397    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member Torres.398    Our first witness is Dr. Michael Neblo, director of the399Ohio State University Institute for Democratic Engagement and400Accountability, IDEA, an alumni-endowed professor at Okla--I am401sorry--at Ohio State University. I have Oklahoma State402University on the brain. I just graduated a child from there on403Saturday, so my apologies--at Ohio State University.404    Dr. Neblo has designed ``Deliberative Town Halls'' for the405U.S. Congress, the Chilean Constitutional Convention, and the406Australian, Nigerian, and U.K. legislatures. He has further407projects planned for Malawi, Korea, and the European Parliament408and Commission.409    Our next witness is Ms. Aubrey Wilson. Aubrey is Director410of Global Initiatives for the nonpartisan, nonprofit411organization POPVOX Foundation. In this role, she leads the412Digital Parliaments Project, which is focused on directly413assisting legislatures around the world in adopting technology414to improve operations, transparency, and continuity. In recent415years, this work has had a heavy emphasis on AI, leading Aubrey416to present AI training to parliamentarians around the world.417    Prior to joining POPVOX, Aubrey served as a deputy staff418director and director of oversight and modernization for the419Committee on House Administration. Welcome back.420    Our next witness is Dr. Beth Noveck. Dr. Noveck is the421chief AI strategist for the State of New Jersey and the founder422of InnovateUS, which delivers free AI training to States and423cities across the United States. Her newest book is ``Reboot:424The Race to Save Democracy with AI,'' that will appear with the425Yale Press this summer.426    Our final witness is Ken Ward, senior director of House427Digital Services. Drawing from his Hill experience and computer428science degree from Georgetown University, Mr. Ward founded429Fireside 21 in 2007. He led the company for over a decade as it430deployed a broad scope of constituent products still used by431House offices today. Mr. Ward returned to the Hill in 2020 and432has since led a team of technologists to deliver high-impact433technology products for the House community. Welcome. We are434glad to have you.435    Thank you to the panel of witnesses for all being with us436today. Please remember to press the button on the microphone in437front of you so that the green light is on. When you begin to438speak, the timer in front of you will turn green, and after 4439minutes it will turn yellow. When the red light comes on, your4405 minutes have expired, and we would ask you to please kindly441wrap up.442    At this time, I now recognize Dr. Neblo for 5 minutes.443444  STATEMENTS OF DR. MICHAEL NEBLO, PROFESSOR, THE OHIO STATE445 INSTITUTE FOR DEMOCRATIC ENGAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY; MRS.446     AUBREY WILSON, DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL INITIATIVES, POPVOX447FOUNDATION; DR. BETH SIMONE NOVECK, CHIEF AI STRATEGIST, STATE448  OF NEW JERSEY; AND MR. KEN WARD, DIRECTOR OF HOUSE DIGITAL449                         SERVICES, CAO450451                   STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NEBLO452453    Mr. Neblo. Chairwoman Bice, Ranking Member Torres, Members454of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak today.455    Our Founders famously established a republic, fearing456direct democracy would lose sight of the common good. Less457famously, they feared that if Government were too indirect,458Congress would lose touch with the common people. They proposed459capping the number of residents per district. Instead, Congress460capped the number of districts. Americans today believe461Congress has lost touch. You represent 280 times the Founders'462limit. How could you stay in touch?463    This hearing turns that rhetorical question into a real464question. How could future engagement help you stay in touch?465How can technology help reconnect Congress to constituents?466    We partnered with this Committee and the House Digital467Services on a survey of 1,000 citizens to find answers. At468best, only one in five contacted their Member last year. What469about the other four? Their silence does not mean they are470satisfied because only 13 percent trust Congress to do what is471right. Are they apathetic? No. The vast majority are472frustrated. They are frustrated because they believe Congress473does not care what people like them think and only listens to474organized interests and party activists, so they see no reason475to engage.476    We have worked with enough offices to know Members care477very much. As average citizens withdraw, however, only478organized interests and party activists remain to tell Congress479what they want. We have fallen into a self-reenforcing cycle.480    There is good news. Governments around the world have used481new approaches in technology to engage citizens in meaningful482two-way communication. We could easily adapt them, and citizens483are eager to try.484    Unlike apathy, frustration creates energy for change. Only4859 percent of our survey respondents said they would not be486willing to engage if they were invited to what they thought was487an authentic and consequential forum. Our research shows that488is not cheap talk. When we invite ordinary constituents to489online deliberative town halls, previously disengaged citizens490prepare, show up, and contribute more than those who already491call your office. They find the forums so transformative that49294 percent say they are, quote, very valuable for our democracy493and they want to participate in more.494    Think about that. In an era when only 13 percent of495citizens trust Congress, you can create spaces where 94 percent496of citizens say the experience is so worthwhile they would do497it again. That 81-percent gap tells us everything about what is498possible.499    Participating Members and staff have also found the forums500valuable but simply lack the time and resources for ongoing501deliberation. Yet in our surveys, citizens rated such forums as502the most legitimate and effective way to communicate. Mass503emails and social media scored lower, and at the bottom, 80504percent of citizens told us that AI chatbots were not505acceptable for matters of substance.506    This finding is crucial. AI can transform how staff manage507the deluge of routine requests. It is a deluge. Unless we use508the freed up time the right way, AI will not dent the core509problem. A customer service model makes sense for many510important constituent service tasks: scheduling Capitol tours,511tallying issue sentiments from correspondents, et cetera.512    Think about what customer service implies about513representative Government. You own the company, and citizens514can take or leave what you are selling. An office could have515stellar customer service and constituents will still find that516problematic. Lobbyists might be clients of Congress, but517citizens want to be partners in self-government. I know that518most Members want to be such partners too.519    Engagement that treats them like partners produces lasting520gains in their political knowledge, trust, voting rate,521civility, and willingness to work together. These patterns hold522in forums with over 7,000 citizens. Mr. Kilmer and Mr. Timmons'523national forum with the predecessor to this Committee rolled524back 38 years worth of rising partisan animosity, the largest525decline in polarization ever documented.526    Citizens also reward and encourage legislative expertise527and collegiality in these formats. We have had similar success528with official forums as part of the Chilean Constitutional529Convention, the Good Friday Accords in Northern Ireland, and530many others, with several more projects planned.531    Citizens are so frustrated with representative democracy532that they are prepared to work around it through referenda and533the like, and an alarming number are now willing to consider534alternatives to democracy itself. Like our Founders, the vast535majority would rather work with and through their536Representatives--that is, if we reimagine what that entails.537    I am so grateful for this opportunity to testify because I538believe the future of American democracy depends much more than539we realize on the future of constituent engagement. The540technology exists, the models are proven, your constituents are541ready and waiting if you are ready to meet them. I know that542all of us on this panel stand ready to help you do that.543    Thank you very much.544    [The prepared statement of Mr. Neblo follows:]545546              PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NEBLO547[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]548549    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Dr. Neblo.550    I now recognize Ms. Wilson for 5 minutes.551552                   STATEMENT OF AUBREY WILSON553554    Ms. Wilson. Chairwoman Bice, Ranking Member Torres, and555Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to556be part of today's hearing. I am Aubrey Wilson, director of557global initiatives at POPVOX Foundation and, as previously558stated, a former House staffer, had the immense pleasure of559working for the Committee on House Administration during the560117th and 118th Congresses.561    At POPVOX, our mission is to help democratic institutions562keep pace in a rapidly changing world. The majority of our team563are prior congressional staffers, but our love for legislative564institutions has expanded, leading us to work directly with565parliaments around the world to transform their internal566operations, helping them leapfrog from paper to cutting edge.567    Over the last 2 years, much of our work has focused on568legislatures' adoption of AI, specifically as it relates to569improving internal operations. I have been asked to share570international examples of how emerging technologies improving571constituent engagement in ways that could benefit Congress.572    Chatbots represent one of the lowest hanging fruit. They573are familiar to users, quickly deployable, and capable of574providing 24/7 assistance regardless of users' age, language,575or education level. Estonia has developed two AI legislative576systems for MPs and staff that search through parliamentary577legislative data bases to find information about current laws,578legislative proposals, and amendments. While not currently579public facing, these chatbots are a model for how constituents580might one day be able to interact with data on Congress.gov to581understand which bills have been introduced and how those laws582may affect them.583    Estonia has also launched a public-facing chat interface584through which citizens are able to access services across 18585agencies. Through this one point of service they can file586consumer complaints, apply for permits, renew ID cards, report587car accidents, and even borrow library books.588    This vision of constituent engagement transcends the589legislative branch by imagining Government as an integrated590service provider that could support individuals in navigating591our complex ecosystem of Federal agencies in any language at592any time.593    Beyond streamlining access to information is enabling two-594way interaction. Brazil's Ulysses Suite empowers constituents595to leave detailed remarks about legislation via online poll. AI596then groups and analyzes this broad public input and presents597it back to policymakers, giving constituents meaningful598participation while equipping legislators with actionable599insights.600    AI can also foster quality constituent interactions at601scale. In 2024, Remesh, which is a U.S.-based company,602facilitated an AI-assisted community dialog between the major603social groups in Gaza. The insights from this were aggregated604into informative data for international negotiators and went in605the ongoing peace process.606    These examples, along with the additional ones included in607my written testimony, show what is possible. They also608demonstrate that legislatures do not have to accept the all too609common public perception that they are slow to innovate. With610441 lawmakers with diverse backgrounds and expertise, the House611is already witnessing the deployment of technology in new ways612by Members and staff to engage with their constituents. The613Congressional Hackathon, House Digital Service, modernization614initiatives account, and Congressional Data Task Force615exemplify the resources available that institutionalize616innovation.617    The House has all the inspirational components it needs,618but it must go beyond one-off initiatives by adopting a new way619of doing things that allows ongoing experimentation, learning,620and refinement. As the Subcommittee evaluates next steps for621institutional modernization, we encourage you to partner with622the CAO to reform House IT procurement and introduce623transparency.624    While few tools are built specifically for legislative use,625a vibrant marketplace of tools that can be used in Congress626exists. If other institutions share open-sourced models, the627selection of customizable legislative tools will also expand.628Members who identify promising tools need a clear pathway for629institutional approval. This Subcommittee in partnership with630the CAO has a wide spectrum of potential approaches to support631responsible innovation.632    For instance, the Subcommittee can support the CAO in633exploring new contracting vehicles. It can work with CAO to634establish rapid-pilot authorities and provide guardrails on635low-risk, no- or low-code experiments. It can champion636innovative projects like House Digital Services' amazing data637lake and innovation sandboxes where Members can test new tools638before institution-wide deployment.639    Together, additionally, the Subcommittee and CAO must640prioritize the establishment of robust but expedient641cybersecurity review processes. A 1-year authorization642timelines for new tools is incompatible with 2-year election643cycles.644    Finally, building off of Catherine Szpindor's legacy, the645next CAO needs to be ready to work hand-in-hand with the646Subcommittee to usher in the next era of House innovation by647identifying actionable solutions that empower Members to pilot,648experiment, and reimagine how new tools can serve constituents.649    Around the world, legislatures are experimenting with650emerging technologies, deploying new tools, and learning from651each other about new approaches for the future of constituent652engagement. The House can benefit from this innovation but only653when it has adopted the internal processes to institutionalize654new ways of doing things.655    Thank you for being leaders in this conversation, and I656look forward to your questions.657    [The prepared statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]658659              PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUBREY WILSON660[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]661662    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ms. Wilson.663    I now recognize Dr. Beth Noveck for 5 minutes.664665                STATEMENT OF BETH SIMONE NOVECK666667    Ms. Noveck. Chairwoman Bice, Ranking Member Torres, Members668of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify669today.670    It is precisely at this moment when Congress is most671overworked, when the issues are getting ever more complex. The672Committee staff are roughly 40 percent smaller than they were673in 1980, when the support agencies, CRS and GAO and CBO, they674have shrunk 45 percent in the last generation. Public675engagement at this point really can sound like an unreasonable676burden. Frankly, it is hard enough to field more than 81677million calls coming into Congress every year from678constituents.679    Historically--let us be realistic--meaningful participation680has been too expensive. It has been too time-consuming, and it681has really lacked the structure that has made public682contributions useful for institutions. The web has made it683easier for everybody to talk, but that does not mean it has684made it easier for our institutions in our democracy to listen.685    In the State of New Jersey, what we have learned is that686pairing the right artificial intelligence tools today with a687disciplined process with the right design can actually make it688possible for Government institutions both to serve residents689better, to deliver services, but also to listen and to govern,690not only faster and more efficiently, but also more691inclusively, even at scale.692    There are two recommendations that are outstanding, 176 and693174, from this Subcommittee that provide a practical starting694point for what we might do and for that transformation.695    176 calls for exploring ways to solicit public input for696Committee hearings. Long before Generative AI, Brazil's Senate,697larger than our own, began inviting residents to submit698questions for Committee hearings both by phone and on the web.699Today, the Brazilian Senate has been integrating AI tools that700are helping staff de-duplicate comments, cluster similar701questions, and highlight those that directly are relevant to a702Committee's oversight goals. Participation has been703substantial: 46,000 questions across 546 hearings in 2023, and70469,000 questions across 440 hearings in 2024. Public input has705become so routine that the staff report to me that when they do706not get it in fast enough, the senators call them and say,707Where is my list of questions?708    This Subcommittee could begin testing recommendation 176709through a simple, low-risk pilot conducted over the course of a710few hearings that invite the public to submit questions. But,711look, until recently, the idea of putting up an open text box712on the web and say ``comment here,'' this was really an713impractical idea. AI now makes it straightforward to gather714that feedback, not just by text but by voice, to remove715duplicates, to filter off-topic comments, to cluster questions716into themes, and to synthesize learnings.717    I outline the specifics of this process in the written718remarks. Let me just add that my students in a program we call719``AI for Impact'' that we teach through Northeastern University720and our community college system in New Jersey, they are721embedded full time with Government partners, they just built a722tool, a free open-source tool called Open Feedback, which is723being deployed at scale by the city of Boston. Residents can724submit feedback in natural language, and the AI assistant725responds with clarifying questions to improve the submission.726The tool allows staff to organize comments by topic, to analyze727patterns, and to route issues to the right department for728faster feedback.729    The next AI for Impact co-op starts--cohort--excuse me--730begins in January, and we would be happy to adapt this tool for731your use and to be of use.732    Through InnovateUS, the free, nonpartisan, nonprofit, peer-733to-peer training program that I founded, where Government734professionals teach one another how to use AI and where we have735trained 150,000 people around the country now in using AI to736serve the public, we are learning from jurisdictions around the737country, from the Engaged California project, from the Bowling738Green engagement project, from work we have done in New Jersey739and around the world, about how different jurisdictions are740using AI to do engagement at scale. We are turning those741learnings into a training which we will be happy to provide on742how to effectively use AI for public engagement.743    Of course, there are risks, and Congress must guard against744hallucinations by ensuring that we are using AI to sort and to745organize and not to make decisions. The greater risk is, of746course, that we engage in ineffective or performative747engagement that is disconnected from real decision-making.748These pilots, they create an opportunity, a practical and749immediate way to tap the expertise and the lived and750credentialed experience of the American public to strengthen751lawmaking, to strengthen oversight. To quote Michael, we all752stand at the ready to assist.753    Thank you.754    [The prepared statement of Ms. Noveck follows:]755756            PREPARED STATEMENT OF BETH SIMONE NOVECK757[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]758759    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Dr. Noveck.760    Just a bit of housekeeping. You probably heard the bells.761House votes have been called. We will go ahead and finish762opening statements, along with the opening statement from763Ranking Member Morelle of the full Committee. Then we will take764a brief pause for Members to go vote, and then we will return.765    At this time, I recognize--Mr. Ward, you are recognized for7665 minutes.767768                     STATEMENT OF KEN WARD769770    Mr. Ward. Good morning. Thank you for inviting the Chief771Administrative Office to participate in today's hearing. I am772joined by our CAO, Catherine Szpindor; our chief information773officer, Jamie Crotts; our chief digital officer, Bob Barrett;774and our deputy chief information security officer, Addie775Adeniji.776    Personally, I have spent my entire career in and around the777legislative branch. I worked in a Member office. I founded the778citizen engagement software company Fireside 21, and I served779as CEO for 10 years. I have spent the last 5 years here at the780CAO and lead our House Digital Service. I have had a front row781seat to see how technology has changed and impacted Member782offices.783    The era dominated by landlines and letters is certainly784over, and today, citizens and advocacy groups are already785leveraging AI to reach and influence Congress. Here in the786House, the CAO has been bringing new methodologies and787technologies online: human-centered design practices, business788automation, cloud integration, and responsible AI, just to name789a few.790    These innovations bring new possibilities for our products791and services, and today, we are sharing a new vision to help792Members and their staff improve constituent engagement while793continuing to ensure the privacy and security of the sensitive794data.795    In the unique environment of the House, the nonpartisan CAO796plays the role of both innovator and host when it comes to797innovation. As an innovator, we build and maintain custom798applications, like the Communicating with Congress API, e-Dear799Colleague System, House Cal, LegiDex, and Quill. Over the past800several years, in large part because of this Subcommittee and801the previous Select Committee on Modernization, the House has802advanced constituent-focused technology as well. We launched803FlagTrack, which helps offices manage flag requests from804constituents, and we are piloting Case Compass, an initiative805to aggregate and analyze casework to help Members better806understand trends and conduct oversight of the executive807branch.808    In our other role as host to innovation, the CAO809facilitates access to commercial technologies, like office810productivity suites, photo and video editing software,811collaboration tools, and correspondence management systems, the812CMS systems your offices use daily.813    The current contract structure for CMS is designed so every814Member's constituent data resides within one of a few815proprietary systems, and now this design is limiting our816innovation because other vendors cannot access your data to817provide new or improved services. To be clear, we are not818blaming CMS vendors. They are all operating within the819framework that the House has required for several decades that820ensures the protection of your data. However, with recent821advancements in secure storage and computing technologies, the822House can and should explore making changes that could spur823Members' access to more innovation, most notably, by changing824the way constituent data is stored and accessed.825    As you know, we have proposed creating a secure, House-826controlled constituent data lake for each Member that can be827leveraged by multiple House and vendor applications if and as828authorized by each Member.829    In short, your constituent data would be hosted in a way830that gives you control over who can securely access your831office's data, and that shared access will allow you to pick832from a variety of vendors, offering a range of constituent833engagement services. This concept will open the door to new834technologies and greater interoperability with existing House835applications.836    Just this past September, over 20 innovators pitched new837Congress-specific applications at the Congressional Hackathon.838Presenters shared tools that use AI to identify constituent839sentiment, automate sorting, and show real-time analytics. A840data lake would help bring these new innovations to Congress841and provide opportunities to enhance numerous other internal842applications. For example, you can imagine receiving an eDear843Colleague and that invitation to cosponsor a new bill already844having data from your citizens who support and oppose that845bill.846    We think our issue is not a lack of innovation. It is just847an access to this innovation. Migrating to a House-controlled848data lake will require a multiyear investment. However, our849iterative approach will not only validate ongoing investment850but also deliver new capabilities along the way, new851capabilities that will be available to all Member offices852without the need to switch your CMS.853    If done correctly, building a data platform that focuses on854security, governance, users, and constituents, the House will855spur both internal and external innovation in constituent856engagement. It is a future where Members are more empowered857with a wider range of options to best serve and interact with858the American public.859    Again, thank you for today's invitation, and happy to860answer your questions.861    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ward follows:]862863                 PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEN WARD864[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]865866    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Ward.867    Thank you to all the panelists for those opening868statements.869    At this time, I am going to recognize Ranking Member of the870full Committee on House Administration, Mr. Morelle, for an871opening statement.872    Mr. Morelle.873874OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF THE875 COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM876                            NEW YORK877878    Mr. Morelle. Thank you. I will be very brief given that we879have votes. I appreciate the witnesses for being here on a880really important subject, and certainly to you, Madam Chair,881for your continued good work in helping to modernize Congress,882and certainly to my friend, Ranking Member Torres, as well for883your leadership.884    I do want to acknowledge Catherine Szpindor who is retiring885in the next few days and thank her for her long service to the886Congress. We are very, very grateful. Wish her the very best as887she transitions to the next phase of her life.888    I also just want to acknowledge Mike Carey who keeps adding889layers of clothing because it is so damn cold on that side of890the room, and the House Administration Committee ought to do891something about it.892    In a serious mode, I think of, as I was thinking about this893in my head, how constituents engage with Congress. I am sure894there are many different buckets, but the four that I am895particularly interested in--one is just access to information896about Congress, what bills are happening, making it easy to897access that so it is not as bewildering as it may seem to898people.899    The second is sort of the interaction with Members,900engaging us in terms of providing perspective on issues before901the House, issues before the country, what they think we ought902to be doing, and for us to be able to engage with constituents.903That interaction is very important.904    Then the last two are related. One is access to Government905services. How do people know how to connect with all the things906that we offer, both Federal, State, local?907    Then the final, which is related and adjacent, but it is908access to community services. How do I know--if I am suddenly909in crisis, how do I know to engage? I think many times when we910do constituent services, people reaching out because they are911entering into a system that is, to them, bewildering.912    At a time when we have clearly lost the faith and913confidence of the American people institutionally as914Government, that last--those last two buckets may be, in some915ways, the most important just because as people are in crisis,916our family members are in crisis, how do they engage? I have917some real thoughts on that.918    The introduction of AI clearly is critical, and I would919love to learn more about it. I will admit, many websites I go920to where I am doing a chatbot, and it is clearly a chat921assistance, I find incredibly frustrating. I do not feel like--922I feel like I might as well read the frequently asked questions923because there is no other engagement other than the frequently924asked questions being regurgitated to me. That will get better.925Clearly, having humans engaged in this is going to be a big926deal. I appreciate all of what you have to say, and I am927looking forward to, after votes, coming back and engaging928again.929    Madam Chair, thanks for giving me the opportunity to say a930few words.931    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]932933PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE934                 ADMINISTRATION JOSEPH MORELLE935936    I do want to acknowledge Catherine Szpindor who is retiring937in the next few days and thank her for her long service to the938Congress. We are very, very grateful. Wish her the very best as939she transitions to the next phase of her life. I also just want940to acknowledge Mike Carey who keeps adding layers of clothing941because it is so damn cold on that side of the room, and the942House Administration Committee ought to do something about it.943    In a serious mode, I think of, as I was thinking about this944in my head, how constituents engage with Congress. I am sure945there are many different buckets, but the four that I am946particularly interested in--one is just access to information947about Congress, what bills are happening, making it easy to948access that so it is not as bewildering as it may seem to949people.950    The second is sort of the interaction with Members,951engaging us in terms of providing perspective on issues before952the House, issues before the country, what they think we ought953to be doing, and for us to be able to engage with constituents.954That interaction is very important. Then the last two are955related. One is access to Government services. How do people956know how to connect with all the things that we offer, both957Federal, State, local? Then the final, which is related and958adjacent, but it is access to community services. How do I959know--if I am suddenly in crisis, how do I know to engage? I960think many times when we do constituent services, people961reaching out because they are entering into a system that is,962to them, bewildering. At a time when we have clearly lost the963faith and confidence of the American people institutionally as964Government, that last--those last two buckets may be, in some965ways, the most important just because as people are in crisis,966our family members are in crisis, how do they engage? I have967some real thoughts on that.968    The introduction of AI clearly is critical, and I would969love to learn more about it. I will admit, many websites I go970to where I am doing a chatbot, and it is clearly a chat971assistance, I find incredibly frustrating. I do not feel like--972I feel like I might as well read the frequently asked questions973because there is no other engagement other than the frequently974asked questions being regurgitated to me. That will get better.975Clearly, having humans engaged in this is going to be a big976deal.977978    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member Morelle.979    I want to second the comments that you made about Catherine980Szpindor and her departure from the CAO. It has been a joy and981pleasure working with the entire CAO staff but particularly982Catherine on these endeavors. Your presence will be noted as983you depart for greener pastures potentially.984    With that, we are going to take a recess of the985Subcommittee, and we will return upon the conclusion of votes.986    The Subcommittee will now come to order.987    We will now move to questions for the witnesses, beginning988with me, followed by the Ranking Member Torres, Mr. Carey, and989Mr. Morelle. Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions,990so I ask to please keep your responses concise. I now recognize991myself for the purpose of questioning the witnesses.992    First of all, thank you for the very insightful testimony.993I think that we can agree that AI is certainly becoming a994useable tool as we look to improve constituent engagement995across the House.996    My first question, though--and this may be more for Dr.997Noveck or Mr. Ward--is, how do you build a platform that would998be useful as an AI tool, for example, using a chatbot, that999could actually give responses that are going to be accurate1000and/or make sense? Are you looking at building some sort of1001customized element to actually interact with the House website?1002    Second, how could you ensure that the responses that are1003being given are going to be customized to each office? Because,1004for example, Mrs. Torres and I may have a different perspective1005on an ag issue. Can you talk a little bit about how you might1006do that?1007    Ms. Noveck. No red light on my end.1008    I--thank you for the question. I think one of the things1009that we have done in New Jersey, first of all, and that we have1010done through our work building tools for other States as well1011is to start with internal-facing chatbots. I think it is really1012important to recognize that these tools are extremely good for1013synthesizing information and that is what has made it possible1014to do things like train an AI tool on a specific corpus of1015documents.1016    That would mean a Member could--and it is something, by the1017way, that together with POPVOX, the AI for Impact program built1018the first and tested the first chatbot for a Member, where we1019loaded it with all of that Member's position statements, bill1020drafts, et cetera. Then--the tools are getting much better at1021restricting responses only to what is on--what is in that1022corpus of knowledge. That is one way to avoid the hallucination1023problem, No. 1.1024    No. 2, internal-facing tools, so that what you are doing is1025giving staff a tool that they can use to quickly give answers1026to people. In New Jersey, for example, we are not using1027chatbots to answer constituent calls. You are not getting, you1028know, a machine. What you are getting is a human who in turn1029has a good lookup tool on their end that is allowing them to1030synthesize a lot of information. I think the best place to1031start is with those tools for the people answering the phone,1032to make their jobs easier. The tools are allowing us to get1033better, especially when you train them to restrict their1034answers to a specific corpus of knowledge. That is also what1035has allowed us in New Jersey to bring down the time it takes to1036answer a call from 40 minutes to now 3 minutes and modernize1037all of our call centers using some of these practices.1038    Chairwoman Bice. Fantastic. Would you like to add anything,1039Mr. Ward?1040    Mr. Ward. I would just echo that. I think we have a lot of1041opportunities here internally for those chatbots. There is a1042use case where staff is trying to find House operational1043information; that could be on HouseNet. There is the data that1044is private to your office; that could be a different chatbot.1045There is data in your CMS; that could be a separate chatbot. It1046is just about structuring data the right way to enable those1047services.1048    Chairwoman Bice. Perfect. Thank you.1049    Dr. Neblo, I want to pivot to you. Your testimony1050highlighted the mismatch between public frustration and1051Congress' current engagement methods. What specific1052institutional reforms would help bridge this gap and make1053constituent input more actionable for Members?1054    Mr. Neblo. Thank you. That is a--that is a great question.1055    At the Institute so far, we have had a relatively small set1056that we have implemented and have hard evidence on. I try to1057follow a kind of political science Hippocratic oath, so I will1058separate a little bit between what I have firsthand, you know,1059scientific evidence about and then some other ideas that we do1060not have as much backing on.1061    Deliberative town halls, we have done, I forget how many1062now, and none have gone badly. There is some----1063    Chairwoman Bice. Define ``gone badly.''1064    Mr. Neblo. OK. Define--that is a great question. In no--in1065no case has a Member not gained trust approval, voting rates,1066voting for the Member rates. Now, in some cases it is small. In1067other cases it is eye-popping. Gone wrong would be the Member1068stuck their neck out, tried something new, and it hurt them in1069the eyes of their constituents. That is how I would define it.1070That has not happened once.1071    Chairwoman Bice. How do you ensure--with a particular1072platform that you are utilizing, is it--are you able to ensure1073that the individuals that you are connecting with are1074constituents of that particular Member?1075    Mr. Neblo. Yes. That is one of the really nice things about1076doing the online town halls and doing them by invitation. In1077principle, somebody that we give the invitation to and have the1078verified link could give it to somebody else but not be on at1079the same time themselves, right. There is a little shadow of a1080possibility once in a while, but we have reason to think that1081we are talking about tiny numbers, maybe no one, on that.1082    The results are really quite large. Your predecessors on1083the Select Committee did a joint bipartisan town hall, and 21084weeks after it, affective polarization, dislike of the out1085party relative to the in party, was as if 38 years ago. Thirty-1086eight--I mean, that--over 100 studies have been published1087trying to lower affective polarization. This is the largest1088one. Most of the other large ones, you cannot talk about1089politics. We need to learn how to talk about politics.1090    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you very much, Dr. Neblo. I1091appreciate that.1092    I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mrs. Torres, for 51093minutes.1094    Mrs. Torres. Thank you again. I am really excited to hear1095more about this developing technology. Certainly, you know, the1096in-person town halls have caused a lot of security concerns.1097They require law enforcement presence, security presence, not1098just for the Member but for the attendees. To be able to have a1099conversation with constituents, for me it has been a lot more1100work because that means that we have to limit information to1101maybe 120 people in a smaller setting or we do a lot more1102roundtable discussions with 30, 40 people versus doing a town1103hall that can bring in, you know, 4-, 600 people. I look1104forward to continue and to hear more about that.1105    On the issue of securing data, I think we--you and I talked1106a little bit, Mr. Ward, about some of my concerns that I have.1107We have a lot of casework that is open. Some of it is 10 years1108old. It takes that long to get some of the cases completed. I1109want to be able to, when a constituent calls my office, for1110anyone in the office to be able to respond to that constituent1111so that constituent do not have to wait for the caseworker1112assigned to their individual case to get a response. You know,1113we are still researching your information. We are still waiting1114for the agency to reply to us. We cannot check back in for1115another 3 or 4 days.1116    How do I ensure that anyone who answers the call in my1117office, in any one of my offices--and many times, they are1118interns answering the phone--has some data available that they1119can immediately respond to that caller but not be able to see1120specific data, such as a Social Security or identifiable1121information for that constituent?1122    Mr. Ward. OK. Well, a couple things. I think, you know,1123with what we are proposing, one of the benefits of what we are1124proposing is to be able to have governance that is specific to1125different parts of that data. We are not certainly proposing1126taking all this data and putting it in a large language model,1127for example. With a data lake, you can have different settings1128and different governance on different segments of data and1129sharing, similarly, you know, what people can see. Now, that1130will require some integration with the service providers, make1131sure that there is integration there. That is very feasible.1132    There is also potential to have more self-service1133capabilities for citizens. They can go to a portal and access1134the status as well.1135    Mrs. Torres. The constituent----1136    Mr. Ward. Correct.1137    Mrs. Torres [continuing]. themselves. OK. Where they would1138be able to input their personal data so the bot or the1139computer--the system knows that it is responding to the correct1140person.1141    Mr. Ward. That is right. They would have to authenticate1142into the system. But, you know, for example, with our FlagTrack1143product, a little--much different, but we are proposing1144expanding that so citizens can, you know, self-service checking1145the status of those orders. Something similar could exist for1146casework.1147    Mrs. Torres. Right. Nearly one in three working Americans1148have very little digital skills. We learned the hard way about1149this when the VA made a change requiring digital IDs instead of1150ID cards. My office had created a system that we could go to1151any location and be able to get a constituent a real ID that1152they can carry in their pocket, that they can show for their1153benefits and other public benefits--public and private benefits1154that are available to them. You know, we have to create systems1155that do not shut them out completely.1156    Outside of going out and training our constituents on how1157to create a screen name or, you know, an email address, how do1158you propose that we jump through some of these hoops that are1159also challenges?1160    Ms. Noveck, you seem to really be involved in the1161constituency part of this.1162    Ms. Noveck. We have rolled out a program that we call our1163Civic AI training program. It works via WhatsApp in multiple1164languages that was designed to teach people what AI is but how1165to use it to engage and interact with Government. It is1166specifically for that purpose. We designed it, actually, with1167families in California, in fact, as part of a program where we1168co-designed together with those families tools using AI to help1169understand their child's individualized education program, the1170document you get from Government, the 100-page PDF you get1171about the services to which you are entitled when your child1172has a--is differently-abled.1173    We believe that citizens are smart. They want to learn.1174They are capable of not just understanding what these tools are1175but helping to build them. That is why we are rolling out via1176the mobile phone multilingual support in--free--in how to use1177AI to interact with----1178    Mrs. Torres. What is the program called?1179    Ms. Noveck. Sorry. Civic AI.1180    Mrs. Torres. Civic AI. Thank you.1181    I yield back.1182    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member.1183    At this time, I recognize Representative Carey for 51184minutes for questions.1185    Mr. Carey. Thank you. I want to thank the Chair and the1186Ranking Member.1187    Doctor, I am going to start with you. Of course, knowing1188where you are from, I have to start off with OH. All right. We1189all know that the public trust in Congress is much lower than1190we would like it to be, and that continues to be a cause of1191concern. I was struck by the survey finding that 70 percent of1192respondents are willing to engage more directly with elected1193officials on important issues. Now, to me, that is a positive1194sign.1195    Now, you mentioned deliberative town halls as an effective1196form of two-way engagement. At this time, could you talk maybe1197a little bit more how those might work?1198    Mr. Neblo. Sure. Thank you for the opportunity.1199    The real difference in--there are a few differences in1200deliberative town halls. One of them is that, as if we were1201doing a survey, we try to get a real random sample of the1202entire constituency and affirmatively and personally invite1203them. It turns out that it could seem like there is a1204contradiction, citizens saying they do not think Members care1205what they think and yet, you know, they want to engage, right.1206The distinction is that when the Member affirmatively reaches1207out and says, No, really, I want to hear what you have to say,1208how does Tuesday at 7 sound? The citizen says, Oh, OK, they are1209one of the good ones.1210    It is very, very fragile, very, very easy to get them to1211believe that you do care. That is where the apathy/frustration1212difference is really important. Affirmatively inviting a very1213broad sample.1214    The broad sample also tremendously alters the dynamics.1215Your average constituent does not want to yell at you. Your1216average constituent has not even necessarily made up his or her1217mind on the issue. They are not there to necessarily give you a1218piece of their mind. They want to hear what you have to say1219before making up their mind, which is why this interactive1220dialog is so valuable. You get to hear from them about their1221concerns, their values, their questions. They actually want to1222hear from you too, right.1223    We do a survey beforehand. These are real field1224experiments. There is also a control group that we survey.1225People attend. Then there is a survey usually about 2 weeks1226later of everybody again. The forums are online on a secure1227platform. We are building a bespoke platform. It is very, very1228easy to use, will be linked to the 14 most spoken languages in1229the United States. My grandfather was illiterate. You know, we1230have oral versions. We have real-time captioning for the1231hearing impaired. We are very serious about trying to really--1232any enfranchised citizen should be able to talk to their Member1233of Congress.1234    Mr. Carey. I appreciate that. I am going to be cutting1235short on time here.1236    Now, there is, of course--I mean, you have seen this, you1237have all seen this in the press, there is a real concern about1238Member safety. You know, I think that we on this Committee on1239House Admin work very hard to increase the security budget of1240most of our Members. Like many Members, we have had death1241threats. We now have to have a security detail, which we never1242thought we would have to have before.1243    In the two-way communication forums, are there effective1244ways--I know you only have a minute--to take down the1245temperature from the onset of those forums?1246    Mr. Neblo. That is really one of the most extraordinary1247things that we found, is that when you get a random sample--as1248I said, your average constituent does not want to yell at you.1249They do not want to throw bombs.1250    Very quickly. We had a provision in the first very study we1251did, an NSF-funded project built these. If a question or1252comment was considered abusive, inciting, or vulgar, we had to1253pull it out. Over 1,400 questions submitted in the first round1254that we did. Zero. Not once did we have to pull it out. That1255tells you the difference of the--of the people who are the1256frequent flyers--and some of them are great. They are active1257citizens. We have got to represent them too--or you have to1258represent them too.1259    The random sampling helps a lot. Online helps a lot.1260Moderation helps a lot. They look around--even people who might1261be inclined look around, and their fellow citizens are being1262civil and behaving, or the Members are treating each other with1263dignity.1264    Mr. Carey. Doctor, I want to thank you for your time.1265    Chair, with that, I yield back.1266    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Carey.1267    At this time, we do have time for a second round of1268questions. I will recognize myself for an additional 5 minutes1269of questions.1270    Ms. Wilson, I want to direct this to you. You have worked1271with legislatures around the world. What lessons from global1272experiments with AI do you think that Congress can uniquely1273position--is uniquely positioned to maybe adopt?1274    Ms. Wilson. Thank you so much for these questions.1275    I will start by saying that our work with international1276legislatures has actually been an extremely eye-opening1277experience, especially as a prior congressional staffer. I1278think that I took for granted the incredibly robust IT1279infrastructure and all of the benefits that this body has. I1280think that that is in itself a lesson to learn from.1281    A lot of the legislatures that we work with, the way that1282they are implementing AI is to rapidly modernize their internal1283processes in the practice, which is digitizing documents,1284making data accessible, getting up-to-date websites, things1285that we really do take for granted, I think, as a U.S.1286Congress. That really, I think, showcases that the fact that1287the U.S. Congress already has such a strong IT foundation lets1288you kind of build on top of that.1289    While other countries are using AI to kind of build that1290foundation, we actually have the ability to experiment and to1291be the people who do design the future of constituent1292engagement. I would say that that is kind of the first--the1293first element.1294    The second element is one of the biggest kind of difference1295makers with international institutions that I have been able to1296kind of move more agilely is having internal processes that1297allow them to test and experiment and adopt new tools. A lot of1298that comes back down to kind of your internal authorization and1299security protocols. With that, having kind of a tiered system1300has really helped kind of expedite the ability for new tools to1301be tested that are low risk and be more quickly adopted so that1302then they can be implemented and staff and Members can start1303benefiting from them.1304    Chairwoman Bice. That was an incredible segue into my next1305question to the panelists, so thank you for that.1306    There is a couple things that we think about when we are1307trying to launch new technology within the House. Specifically,1308cybersecurity becomes a big topic of conversation. I think1309the--for the panel, I would ask you all, you know, there are1310rigorous standards to become a vendor for the House. Some of1311the individuals that want to partner with us may have their1312particular platform rejected for a variety of reasons.1313    This is going to be a couple of--maybe parts of a question.1314One, is there a way for us to speed up that approval process?1315Two, are the individuals, the vendors that are wanting to1316partner with us, are they able to know and learn why they may1317have been denied? What should we be thinking about as a1318Committee to try to help improve the process and/or the1319recruitment of vendors that potentially have innovative1320technologies that the House could be utilizing? It is a lot,1321but I will throw it open to anyone who wishes to answer.1322    Mr. Ward and Dr. Noveck seem to be looking at each other.1323    Mr. Ward. We have a number of different processes that1324depend a little bit on what the technology is. For example,1325with CMS, there is a specific process for that, and there is1326other processes for other cloud services.1327    Chairwoman Bice. Can I ask a question on that? How often is1328the process reviewed, would you say?1329    Mr. Ward. Well, the CMS contract is, you know, typically1330issued for like a 6-year term with option years, but every1331option period, every 2-year option period it is reviewed. The1332cloud approval process we are always kind of looking at. That1333is a House information security policy of the Committee. There1334is work underway now, I think you are aware of, in1335collaboration with your staff to look at that.1336    You mentioned two things that I think will be realized in1337the new year, which is more information on House.gov for1338vendors, more information on HouseNet for staff to understand1339those processes. What we propose with the CMS modernization is1340a part of a larger puzzle of doing business with the House that1341we want to improve.1342    Chairwoman Bice. Dr. Noveck.1343    Ms. Noveck. I am happy to take offline the question of how1344we streamline that process in New Jersey for making it faster1345for vendors.1346    Let me just speak to the public engagement pilot idea. This1347is not something that needs to integrate with core systems, and1348therefore it should be something that is easy to try1349effectively tomorrow----1350    Chairwoman Bice. A standalone.1351    Ms. Noveck. Sorry?1352    Chairwoman Bice. It is a standalone.1353    Ms. Noveck. One can do something in a sandboxed environment1354that is a standalone that allows you to test processes while1355you work in parallel to figure out then how would you integrate1356technologies. It could stand alone. Because you are talking1357about public comments, not something that involves private1358information--and, by the way, you can use AI to filter out any1359private information or Social Security numbers that someone1360does accidentally type in. That is something fairly easy to do.1361That would be something relatively quickly to stand up as a1362pilot without worrying about integration with back-end systems.1363    Chairwoman Bice. I think that is the end of the questions1364that I have at the moment.1365    Mrs. Torres, would you like to----1366    Mrs. Torres. Yes, just----1367    Chairwoman Bice. I recognize Mrs. Torres----1368    Mrs. Torres. Thank you. I just want to do a follow-up.1369    Is 6 years too long to give someone an opportunity to1370improve their systems? How do we get feedback from the actual1371users? Are we constantly requesting that input from the users1372so that we are improving systems or ensuring that our vendors1373are meeting the moment or the contract?1374    Mr. Ward. Yes, absolutely. I think that with this--what the1375CAO is doing is trying to be more and more engaged with staff1376and users of these services to constantly learn. What we are1377proposing is a response to that, to bring more options and more1378flexibility and more capability.1379    Mrs. Torres. Yes. I just want to ensure that we are1380constantly asking for input from the users to ensure that we1381are utilizing the best applications out there for our needs.1382    Everything that was said today sounds wonderful. We are1383really moving into a new digital world that would help us be a1384bit more responsive to our constituents. All of that is only as1385good as the internet services that service our communities1386could withstand. I can tell you that I chose the location of my1387district office to be directly across from an international1388airport thinking, you know, it would be a great place to have1389the best WiFi and the best internet services in this suburb.1390Unfortunately, that is not the case and, you know, we are1391constantly having to deal with a 3- or 4-minute delay just to1392send an email from one--from the D.C. office to the district1393office.1394    I just want to remind my colleagues that investing in the1395infrastructure across America, especially for, you know, to1396meet that--to close that digital divide is so critically1397important. Suburbs as well as, you know, States that are very1398rural I think deserve to have an opportunity to also hear from1399their Representatives.1400    With that, I yield back to the Chair. Thank you.1401    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member Torres.1402    I want to thank the panelists for joining us, for having1403this important conversation. I think you have given us a lot to1404think about as we are looking to continue to innovate within1405the House infrastructure and provide the best possible1406constituent engagement that we can, keeping in mind that1407technology changes rapidly. There are certain limitations and1408challenges that we have, including the cybersecurity piece of1409this. There is a lot of innovation happening right now and1410incredible opportunity for us to be able to leverage and1411utilize that because, after all, this is the people's House.1412    With that, this Subcommittee is adjourned.1413    [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]14141415                    QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD1416[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]14171418                                 [all]