This method of conflict resolution uses a neutral mediator to help legislators build agreements. The inclusion of a neutral mediator is intended to get opposing sides to talk to each other constructively. This usually entails getting participants to clarify their basic interests and then helping them to identify overlapping interests and to discuss options for accommodating those interests. Mediation would help make the goal of committee markups reaching a compromise, rather than just scoring political points. In other words, members of Congress would not be giving up any of their authority or jurisdiction over an issue by allowing a facilitator into the committee room.
Legislators are of course free to accept, modify or reject proposals that result from the process.
And it's a process that could be open to media coverage or not, depending on the particular committee and the issues at stake. I don't want to suggest that every issue would be amenable to negotiated agreement. State legislatures have had the most success with the use of facilitators when communication between parties was at an impasse, when the issue was a recurring one that had gone unresolved for several sessions, when the issue was a negotiable one, and when the heavy influence of certain interest groups had made it difficult to reach agreement in the past. Moreover, the process won't work well if there are unreasonable time constraints or if there is not broad public concern about reaching a solution. Most importantly, members of these state legislatures say that the use of mediators measurably helped improve working relationships between members .