Reclaiming the First Branch: Eight House Rules Changes for the 120th Congress
Summary
POPVOX Foundation recommends eight changes to the Rules of the House for the 120th Congress, which begins on January 3, 2027. Each one amends a rule the House already has, focusing on updating language written for an earlier era of paper and stenography. Together, they empower Congress to increase its capacity by giving committees better information about how the laws they write are working, keep the House’s records usable as tools change, and give both parties’ committee staff the room to do the work.
The 120th must work differently
Technology and the economy change faster than Congress can oversee them, legislate, and make changes based on evidence. At the same time, executive agencies run programs through data systems and, more and more, through artificial intelligence. They see problems in close to real time. Congress usually learns about the same problems years later, through an Inspector General report or a news story.
Members and their staff recognize Congress’ atrophy. Committees still depend on stenographic transcripts. Legislative documents often circulate only as PDFs attached to emails. Committee staff ceilings in Rule X were set decades ago.
The House Rules package is a starting point for empowering the People’s House. The changes below are modest fixes to the House’s own operations. These are actions the House can take on its own on the first day of the 120th Congress.
By supporting these updates to the House Rules Package, all Members can say their first vote in Congress was one to strengthen the institution during this critical era.
The eight proposals at a glance
The Proposals
The proposals below follow the order of the House rules they amend, from Rule II through Rule XIII. The Rules of the 119th House of Representatives can be reviewed here. Each entry describes the change, explains why it is worth making, and provides draft text.¹
1. A current register of reports owed to Congress
Rule II, clause 2(b)
Congress requires thousands of reports from agencies and offices. Rule II requires the Clerk to list them at the start of each session, but the list shows only what is owed to Congress as a whole (not including the reports that are specified to specific committees), and not the reports themselves. Reports that are delivered reach committees as individual letters and PDFs that are not easily searchable or digestible. The result is that mandated reports rarely inform oversight, authorization, or appropriations work.
This proposal turns the Clerk’s list into a working system, modernizing the intent behind the original rule. The Clerk tracks what is owed, what has arrived (including reports due to committees), and works with GAO to ingest each report into a searchable, machine-readable form, and provides each committee a live view of the reports in its jurisdiction, with due dates, status, recommendations, and changes from prior submissions. The build can start from existing resources across the Legislative branch. The Clerk already receives executive communications, and GPO’s Congressionally Mandated Reports collection publishes agency submissions with metadata available in bulk through the GovInfo API. This update and clarification to the existing rule would increase accountability under the Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports Act by increasing transparency around what reports are actually due to Congress, what has been delivered, and what information has been transmitted.
Draft Text
Strike clause 2(b) and insert:
(b)(1) At the commencement of every regular session of Congress, the Clerk shall make and cause to be delivered to each Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner a list of the reports that any officer or Department is required to make to Congress and congressional committees, citing the law or resolution in which the requirement may be contained and placing under the name of each officer the list of reports required to be made by such officer. The Clerk shall make the list publicly available in a searchable, machine-readable form.
(2) The Clerk shall maintain the list as a current register throughout each Congress, identifying for each report, to the extent ascertainable, its due date and whether it has been received.
(3) To the extent practicable, and in coordination with the Government Accountability Office, the Clerk shall make each report received available in a searchable, machine-readable form and linked to from the current register. The Clerk shall provide each committee, for reports within its jurisdiction, with current information on due dates, status, recommendations, and changes from prior submissions.
(4) Nothing in this paragraph requires public disclosure of a report, or of information about a report, if disclosure is prohibited by law or by a rule or order of either House. Access to classified or otherwise restricted reports shall conform to applicable law and the rules of the House.
(5) The Clerk shall carry out this paragraph in consultation with the Committee on House Administration and, to the extent practicable, using existing resources and systems.
2. Congressional Capacity and Technology Office
New Rule II clause
As the House approves AI tools for use, Members and staff are exploring adoption without consistent skills-based education. The Congressional Capacity and Technology Office (C-TECH) would be a concentrated, independent, nonpartisan office under the oversight of the Committee on House Administration. This office would provide voluntary training and practical assistance with technology the House has approved, and proactively create educational materials for Members, committees, and staff of both parties on emerging technologies. As an independent office separate from the CAO, C-TECH would have the agility to forecast evolving needs and remain an innovation hub unharnessed from the multi-tier organizational structure of the CAO. It would not buy technology, run systems, or set cybersecurity rules; those stay with the Chief Administrative Officer and the Clerk.
In the 119th Congress, the CAO began creation of the AI Center within the House Information Resources with limited resources. C-TECH would be an expansion upon the mission of the AI Center, but establish it as an agile, independent support office.
The House has created offices through its rules package before. The 116th Congress established the Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds this way. A rule gives C-TECH a clear mandate and keeps it outside any one officer’s chain of command. Our FY2027 Legislative Branch testimony estimates about $1 million for a six-person first phase.
Draft Text
Add at the end of rule II:
(a) There is established the Congressional Capacity and Technology Office. The Speaker, after consultation with the Minority Leader and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration, shall appoint a Director, who may appoint staff subject to the availability of appropriations.
(b) Subject to the policy direction and oversight of the Committee on House Administration, the Office shall provide voluntary, nonpartisan training and assistance to Members, committees, officers, and employees of the House on the responsible use of artificial intelligence and other technologies approved for official House use, and shall report annually to that committee on its work and on barriers to adoption.
(c) The Office may not administer House information systems, approve or procure technology, establish cybersecurity requirements, or provide legislative policy advice. The Office may not disclose information obtained in assisting a House office except with that office’s consent, as required by law or rule, or in aggregate form.
3. Technology-neutral official transcripts
Rule VI, clause 1; Rule XI, clause 1(c)
Rule VI still refers to “stenographers of committees,” and Rule XI pays for “stenographic services.” Speech recognition and recording now produce searchable transcripts far faster, and the House should be able to use them. The change would let the Clerk authorize other methods, under standards for accuracy, security, and correction, while a person designated by the Clerk remains responsible for every official transcript. The existing requirement for a substantially verbatim account does not change.
Additional funding for the Clerk to invest in tools for transcription modernization is necessary to be included in the Legislative branch appropriations bill. Because official transcripts are part of the House record, a first-session pilot could compare current and digitally assisted methods on accuracy, speed, and cost before any change becomes standard.
Draft Text
In clause 1 of rule VI, strike “including stenographers of committees” and insert “including official reporters for committees,” and add at the end:
The Clerk may authorize methods of preparing an official transcript that use a recording, speech-recognition technology, or other technology, if a person designated by the Clerk remains responsible for its accuracy. The Clerk, in consultation with the Committee on House Administration, shall establish standards for accuracy, security, correction, and preservation.
In clause 1(c) of rule XI, strike “stenographic services and transcripts” and insert “official reporting and transcription services.”
Separate order.
During the first session of the 120th Congress, the Clerk, in consultation with the Committee on House Administration, shall conduct a pilot comparing existing and digitally assisted methods of preparing official committee transcripts, assessing accuracy, time to publication, accessibility, security, and cost, and shall make a public summary of the findings available before the end of that session.
4. Oversight plans that track results
Rule X, clause 2(d); Rule XI, clause 2(m)
Each standing committee adopts an oversight plan at the start of a Congress, but the plans rarely say which program outcomes or Executive branch results the committee will watch and what information it lacks to perform proper oversight or perform data-driven policymaking. The 120th Congress will be the first to oversee an Executive branch in which agencies are increasingly using automated systems for programmatic decision-making.
This proposal turns the committee authorization and oversight plan into a continuing monitoring plan. Where deemed appropriate, each committee would identify the outcomes it will track and the data it needs, set a schedule for recurring review, assess agencies’ use of automated systems, plan for its own responsible use of House-approved AI tools, and assess whether executive or judicial actions call for a legislative response to preserve Congress’ Article I authority. Each committee still decides which programs to cover and retains authority over its oversight activities. A companion clarification in Rule XI confirms that a committee may ask for records in a usable electronic form, with documentation of the systems that produced them.
Draft Text
In clause 2(d)(2) of rule X, add after subdivision (E):
(F) for programs and activities selected for review during the Congress, the principal outcomes the committee intends to monitor, the information needed to assess those outcomes, and significant gaps in the committee’s access to that information;
(G) a schedule or method for recurring review of the implementation of major laws, programs, and delegations of authority within its jurisdiction, including developments in technology, the economy, or society that may have made a law outdated or ineffective, and circumstances that would prompt the committee to consider a legislative correction;
(H) an assessment of significant uses of artificial intelligence or other automated systems by agencies in administering laws within its jurisdiction, including whether authorizing law should provide authority to verify the operation of such systems, and a plan for oversight of such uses;
(I) a plan for the committee’s responsible use of House-approved artificial intelligence and data-analysis tools, including staff training, protection of committee information, and human review of material prepared with such tools; and
(J) an assessment of whether rules, regulations, executive actions, or judicial decisions within the committee’s jurisdiction warrant legislative action to clarify or preserve the authorities of Congress under article I of the Constitution.
Add at the end of clause 2(m) of rule XI:
(4) A request or subpoena under this paragraph may specify production of an electronic record in a reasonably usable form, including associated metadata, data dictionaries, and documentation of a system used to administer a law or program. Nothing in this subparagraph alters the requirements for issuance or enforcement of a subpoena.
5. A publication standard with authoritative sources
Rule X, clause 4(d)(1)(E)
Rule X already directs House Administration to set standards for making House documents available in electronic form. The posted standards date to 2011 and still deem a searchable PDF acceptable. The House, through the laudable work of the Congressional Data Taskforce, has done strong work since then, including the U.S. Legislative Markup (USLM) standard and the long-running effort to publish committee votes as data, but the rule itself sets no floor or schedule for ensuring the House upholds modern practices.
Committees are required to post the same schedules and hearing details on separate websites, which creates more work and potential for error. And where the House has invested in rich data, few users can find it.
This proposal ensures a standard for data access is established and maintained, while leaving the technical detail to House Administration. Material the House creates as structured text or data would also be published in a nonproprietary, machine-readable form, with stable identifiers and version information, publicly accessible. House Administration would update the standard each Congress so it keeps up with practice, and report annually on which offices and committees meet it. The standard would also designate one authoritative source for each category of key information, such as schedules and hearing notices, and require a public index of the data the House publishes. A separate order would set a first deadline.
Researchers, the press, and the AI tools that staff and the public use every day depend on House data that machines can read.
Draft Text
Strike clause 4(d)(1)(E) and insert:
(E) establish and maintain standards for making documents and data of the House and its committees publicly available in electronic form. The standards shall provide, for material created as structured electronic text or data, for a nonproprietary machine-readable version in addition to any human-readable version; stable identifiers and version information; and public bulk access without a fee or registration. The standards shall also designate, for each category of information the committee identifies, including schedules and hearing notices, a single authoritative source from which other House and committee websites draw, and shall provide for a public index of the data the House and its committees publish. The committee shall review and readopt the standards at the beginning of each Congress and shall publish annually a report on compliance by House offices and committees. This subdivision does not require publication of material protected by law or by a rule or order of the House.
Separate order.
Not later than 180 days after adoption of this resolution, the Committee on House Administration, in consultation with the Clerk and the committees of the House, shall publish the standards required by clause 4(d)(1)(E) of rule X and a schedule for bringing House and committee systems into compliance, giving priority to committee votes, amendments, and hearing notices.
6. Committee staff sized to the work
Rule X, clause 9(a)
Rule X caps each standing committee at 30 professional staff, a number the House set decades ago, while the agencies those committees oversee have grown in size and complexity. The minority may hire up to 10 or one-third, whichever is fewer. Committees already hire additional staff through their expense resolutions, so the cap no longer controls spending, budgets do.
This proposal removes the fixed headcount and lets the budget govern. Each side decides how to use its share, the chair for the majority and the ranking member for the minority. One committee may invest in analysts, data experts and tools. Another may hire multiple researchers. The rule no longer sets a number for either side, and the split between majority and minority stays where practice puts it today.
Draft text
In clause 9(a)(1) of rule X, strike “not more than 30 professional staff members” and insert “such number of professional staff members as the committee determines within the amounts provided in its expense resolution.”
Amend clause 9(a)(2) to provide:
The ranking minority member shall select and appoint staff for the minority, and shall determine their number and compensation, within the amounts allocated to the minority under the committee’s expense resolution.
7. Outcome statements for new programs
Rule XII, clause 7(c); Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4)
Since 2011, every bill introduced in the House has carried a constitutional authority statement explaining the sponsor’s view of Congress’ power to act. An outcome statement would answer a different question: what is the bill meant to accomplish, and how will Congress know?
To keep the requirement clear and limited, it would apply only to bills that create a new federal program or office, or grant an agency new rulemaking authority. The statement would include describing the congressional intent behind the legislation: the problem, the intended result, who is affected, and the information Congress could use to judge results.
For bills that come out of committee, Rule XIII already requires a statement of performance goals in the committee report. That statement would gain a baseline, the data source, and a date for Congress to look again. Where numbers would mislead, a committee or bill sponsor could describe a qualitative measure instead.
In response to Loper Bright, the House Office of Legislative Counsel is discussing updating their drafting guidelines to include statements of purposes and findings in bill text. The House Rules Committee should consult with HOLC in developing that guidance and the need for outcome statements.
Draft text
Add at the end of clause 7(c) of rule XII:
(3) The sponsor of a bill or joint resolution that establishes a new Federal program or office, or confers new rulemaking authority on an executive agency, shall submit to the Clerk a brief statement identifying the problem addressed, the intended result, the persons or interests principally affected, and the information by which Congress could assess results. The Clerk shall make the statement publicly available with the measure. The statement is explanatory and is not part of the text of the measure.
Add at the end of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII:
The statement shall, to the extent practicable, identify the baseline against which progress will be assessed, the information needed for assessment and the entity expected to maintain it, and a time for congressional review. If the committee determines that a quantitative measure would misdescribe an objective, the statement may describe a qualitative means of assessment.
8. Transparent, Member-first review of technology requests and annual hearing on Article I functions related to technological capacity
Rule X, clause 4(d)
Administrative review of technology requests from Member and committee offices is slow, opaque, and risk-focused, with limited regard for the needs and autonomy of duly elected Members. Staff in both parties describe long waits for software approvals, blocked websites they need for oversight work, and unclear answers about AI tools. No forum lets Members question these decisions. Every House officer exists to help Members and committees carry out the duties Article I vests in Congress. Cybersecurity and continuity of operations are key concerns for the House, however, officers should weigh them against that purpose, document the specific risk behind each denial, and answer for the result.
This proposal requires the Committee on House Administration to hold a hearing on Article I functions of the House related to technological capacity no less than once per year. Any Member may testify or submit questions, and officers must respond in writing when a Member contests a denial. Before each hearing, the Chief Administrative Officer, the Clerk, and other designated officers will report on requests received, approved, denied, and pending, the time taken to decide them, and the documented basis for each denial that materially impaired an official or representational function. The Committee Members can perform oversight of the officers’ decisions against the standard. The House has required Member Day hearings every Congress since 2019, and this applies the same approach to House operations.
In addition to this proposal, the Committee on House Administration should require the Chief Administrative Officer and the House Clerk to hold no less than one Member listening session and one staff listening session a year to gather information regarding existing pain points and hear proposals for technological advancement.
Draft text
Add at the end of clause 4(d) of rule X:
(3) The Committee on House Administration shall hold, not less than once each session, a hearing on the extent to which the services provided by officers and offices of the House enable the legislative, oversight, and representational functions of the House, its Members, Delegates, and Resident Commissioner, and its committees. The committee shall direct officers of the House, in reviewing such requests, to give priority to enabling the legislative, oversight, and representational functions of the requesting office and to document the specific risk supporting any denial or restriction.
Any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may testify at the hearing or submit questions for the record.
An officer shall respond in writing within 30 days to a request for reconsideration of a denial or restriction, stating the documented risk and the mitigation measures considered.
Before each hearing, the Chief Administrative Officer, the Clerk, and other officers designated by the committee shall submit to the committee, and make publicly available, a report on--
(A) requests for technology, access to information, and other services received, approved, denied, and pending, and the time taken to decide them;
(B) each denial or restriction, including the documented risk, whether the measure applied to shared House infrastructure or to the use of a lawful tool by a Member or committee, and the mitigation measures considered;
(C) significant changes to policies or configurations affecting Members’ and committees’ access to tools or information, and how each was assessed; and
(D) policy changes being currently considered, how long they have been in consideration for, and factors being weighed in the decision;
omitting information for which disclosure would materially increase a security risk.
Companion steps outside the rules
The House Rules Package directs House offices and committees. It cannot appropriate money, require agencies to hand over data, or bind the Senate. To truly increase the long-term institutional capacity of the House, several of the proposals above require a Legislative Branch appropriations request or legislation moving alongside them.
¹ The draft text is a starting point for the Rules Committee and Legislative Counsel staff, who will know best how it fits with the rest of the rules and with current practice.
