[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MODERNIZING THE CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT
AGENCIES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF AN EVOLV-
ING CONGRESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS
OF THE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 21, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-11
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Modernization of
Congress
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-121 WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS
DEREK KILMER, Washington, Chair
ZOE LOFGREN, California WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina,
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri Vice Chair
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado BOB LATTA, Ohio
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia DAVE JOYCE, Ohio
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
COMMITTEE STAFF
Yuri Beckelman, Staff Director
Derek Harley, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Chairman Derek Kilmer............................................ 1
Vice Chairman William Timmons.................................... 2
WITNESSES
The Honorable Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General, Government
Accountability Office (GAO)
Oral Statement............................................... 3
Written Statement............................................ 5
Dr. Mary Mazanec, Director, Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 38
Dr. Phillip Swagel, Director, Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
Oral Statement............................................... 45
Written Statement............................................ 47
Discussion....................................................... 50
Mr. Zach Graves, Head of Public Policy, Lincoln Network
Oral Statement............................................... 64
Written Statement............................................ 67
Dr. Wendy Ginsberg, Staff Director, House Committee on Oversight
and Reform
Oral Statement............................................... 77
Written Statement............................................ 80
Dr. Philip G. Joyce
Oral Statement............................................... 86
Written Statement............................................ 89
Discussion....................................................... 99
APPENDIX I: ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
The Honorable Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General, Government
Accountability Office (GAO).................................... 110
Dr. Mary Mazanec, Director, Congressional Research Service (CRS). 119
Dr. Phillip Swagel, Director, Congressional Budget Office (CBO).. 120
APPENDIX II: ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
Statement by Rep. Zoe Lofgren.................................... 124
MODERNIZING THE CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT AGENCIES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF AN
EVOLVING CONGRESS
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2021
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on the
Modernization of Congress,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:01 a.m., in Room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Derek Kilmer
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kilmer, Perlmutter, Phillips,
Williams, Timmons, Davis, and Joyce.
The Chairman. Okay. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
So one of the most amazing things about serving in
Congress is the access Members have to expertise on every issue
imaginable. The range and complexity of issues that Members
encounter on a daily basis can be totally overwhelming, and
schedules leave little, if any, time for doing independent
research. So the ability to call on subject-matter experts for
nonpartisan analysis on issues before Congress and in their
districts back home undoubtedly helps Members do their jobs
better.
Expertise also helps Congress do its job better. This
committee has done a lot of work focused on strengthening
Congress's Article I capacities, and ensuring that Congress is
well-staffed with expertise is an important part of that. The
legislative branch's informational and analytical capabilities
need to be on par with those of the executive branch if
Congress is to fulfill its obligations as a co-equal branch of
government.
The legislative support agencies make Congress and its
Members smarter. Armed with budget scores, policy analyses,
legal assessments, and accountability measures, Members are
better equipped to make informed decisions on behalf of the
American people.
So today's hearing is about showcasing the terrific work
that GAO, CRS, and CBO are doing and highlighting the
innovative steps they are taking to update their products and
services. This committee recognizes the tremendous value these
agencies provide to Congress, and we are looking forward to
supporting their work in any way we can.
Today's hearing will also consider how Congress's support
agencies can adapt to best meet the needs of an institution
that is constantly evolving. Quick accessibility to information
is key for Members and staff who spend much of their days on
the go. If a question comes up in the middle of a hearing,
staff should be able to instantly find an answer using their
phones.
Expertise that meets Members and staff where they are is
also important. A junior staffer in a personal office probably
has different informational needs than senior committee
staffers. And while some Members want verbal briefings, others
prefer dense reports. Tailoring information to the end user's
needs facilitates learning and ultimately helps Members and
staff better serve the American people.
The expertise that is available to Congress is truly
remarkable; it is also somewhat of a mystery to many who work
on the Hill. I am hoping we can also discuss how the agencies
can ensure that Members and staff know about the incredible
array of resources available to them.
The committee will once again make use of the committee
rules we adopted earlier this year that give us the flexibility
to experiment with how we structure our hearings. The goal is
to encourage thoughtful discussion and the civil exchange of
ideas and opinions.
So here is the wonky part. Therefore, in accordance with
clause 2(j) of House rule XI, we will allow up to 30 minutes of
extended questioning per witness. And, without objection, time
will not be strictly segregated between the witnesses, which
will allow for extended back-and-forth exchanges between
members and the witnesses.
Vice Chair Timmons and I will manage the time to ensure
that every member has equal opportunity to participate. Any
member who wishes to speak should signal their request to me or
Vice Chair Timmons.
Additionally, members who wish to claim their individual 5
minutes to question each witness pursuant to clause 2(j)(2) of
rule XI will be permitted to do so following the period of
extended questioning.
I feel like I really nailed that, you guys.
All right. I would like to now invite Vice Chair Timmons
to share some opening remarks.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. Great to be with you. Sorry for the schedule
change. We appreciate you all accommodating it. And, really, I
just want to say thank you so much for coming, yourselves. It
means a lot.
And we are here to discuss what additional tools and
resources you all need to do your jobs better. And we have been
trying to fix the same problems for decades. Immigration comes
to the front of mind--debt, healthcare. We are not really
getting very far, and we have to change the way we are doing
things in Congress.
And so the purpose of this committee is how to make
Congress more effective, efficient, and transparent for the
American people. That is the tag line. But, really, it is, how
do we solve these big challenges that we are facing? And,
honestly, your role in how to make Congress do its job better
could not be more important. The resources that you all provide
really make a big difference.
And the question is, what can we do to help Members of
Congress and to help your various groups, support agencies,
make us better at our job? And so, really, we appreciate you
taking the time. Our hope is to figure out what we can do to
help you do your jobs better so Congress can do its job better.
So, again, just thank you so much for taking the time to
come, yourselves. And we look forward to learning more. And be
prepared; this is not a normal hearing. We will all ask
questions, and we will go back and forth, and it is really more
of a roundtable setting. So it should be fun, and, again, thank
you for being here.
The Chairman. Terrific.
We have two panels today. I am honored to welcome our
first panelists who are here to share with us the efforts their
agencies are taking to continue providing top-notch support to
Congress.
Witnesses are reminded that your written statements will
be made part of the record.
Our first witness is Gene Dodaro, the Comptroller General
of the United States and the head of the Government
Accountability Office. He has served in that role since
December of 2010. Previously, he served as Acting Comptroller
General and as the Chief Operating Officer of the GAO.
Mr. Dodaro, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE GENE DODARO, COMPTROLLER GENERAL,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; MARY MAZANEC, PH.D.,
DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE; AND PHILLIP SWAGEL,
PH.D., DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GENE DODARO
Mr. Dodaro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Timmons. Good to see you both this morning. I appreciate the
opportunity to talk about GAO's service to the Congress.
GAO has evolved over the past century--and, this year, we
celebrate the 100th anniversary of the GAO--to provide a wide
range of services to the Congress. For example, we deploy
multidisciplinary teams of subject-area and technical experts
to look at hundreds of Federal programs and activities every
year. Now, these audits result in tens of billions of dollars
in financial benefits to the government, as well as over a
thousand improvements to government operations, public safety,
improvement of services to the American people.
Secondly, we have developed the capabilities, evolved over
time, in order to monitor, real-time, what is happening,
particularly in national emergencies. For example, on the
coronavirus issues now, we have been giving monthly briefings
to the Congress. Since the March 2020 CARES Act, we have been
reporting bimonthly. We have issued over 100 reports to the
Congress, made over 200 recommendations to improve the Federal
response to the coronavirus issue as well as increase the
transparency and accountability of the $4.8 trillion that
Congress has appropriated for those funds.
We have also greatly expanded our capabilities in the
science and technology area. We are doing many more reviews,
technology assessments--artificial intelligence, quantum
computing, 5G. We have many underway. We have increased the
short-term and medium-term products to the Congress in the
technology area based upon a need that was demonstrated
recently, and also to provide more technical assistance to the
Congress.
We are on track to enhance our operations in the science
and technology area with a plan that we were asked to provide
to Congress in 2019, so we will more than double the size of
that group by the end of this fiscal year. And I have asked for
additional resources from the Congress. This is a top priority
for me, and I believe we need to be able to provide this for
the Congress as well.
We have also developed the capability to identify overlap,
duplication, and fragmentation in the Federal Government. Our
work there has resulted, in the last decade, in 1,200
recommendations. And Congress has acted, either fully or
partially, and the administration, on over 70 percent of those,
and it has already resulted in half a trillion dollars in
financial benefits to the government.
Now, of course, we provide our traditional financial
management operations as well. We audit the financial
statements of the government. We give advice to the Congress on
the fiscal trajectory issues, the debt issues, and other
factors.
And then we also act as guardians of the role of the
Congress to control the power of the purse. We issue legal
opinions on the impoundment issues, on antideficiency issues,
any appropriation law issues. We have a wide range of services.
Now, I would say, we are also well-postured in order to
continue to evolve to meet the needs of the Congress as they
change. You know, GAO has a unique structure. The Comptroller
General is selected from a bipartisan, bicameral congressional
commission, you know, confirmed by the Senate, for a 15-year
term. So we have more continuity than any other Federal agency,
and it is important, then, to use that wisely to continue to
enhance our services.
We have a tremendous, dedicated, talented,
multidisciplinary task force with all sorts of skills. We have
a strong strategic planning and strategic foresight operation.
We have been ranked consistently in the Best Places to Work in
the Federal Government. This year, we were ranked number one in
midsize agencies across the government. We have an extensive
network of experts who work with the private sector, academia,
the National Academies, and other services.
So I am happy to be here. I appreciate the interest in
GAO. And I would be happy to enter into a discussion, dialogue,
about how we can continue to work on evolving to meet the
Congress's needs.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Our next witness is Mary Mazanec. Dr. Mazanec has served as
Director of the Congressional Research Service since December
2011.
Before joining CRS, Dr. Mazanec served as a Deputy
Assistant Secretary and Director of the Office of Medicine,
Science, and Public Health in the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of
Health and Human Services.
Dr. Mazanec, welcome. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARY MAZANEC, PH.D.
Ms. Mazanec. Chairman Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons----
Mr. Dodaro. Press it one more time. There we go.
Ms. Mazanec. Is it on?
Mr. Dodaro. Yep.
The Chairman. Now it is on.
Ms. Mazanec. Anyway, thank you for the opportunity to speak
with you today about the efforts of the Congressional Research
Service to optimize its services for Congress.
In addition to addressing your questions, I will highlight
some of the initiatives CRS has undertaken to ensure that we
continue to provide exceptional support to a 21st-century
Congress. I will also outline some of the challenges that CRS
faces as it strives to keep pace with the evolving needs of
Congress.
Since its establishment in 1914, CRS has diligently carried
out its mandate to provide Congress with timely, objective,
nonpartisan research, analysis, and information. However, the
current Congress operates in a markedly different environment
than that of its predecessors. In addition, Congress continues
to grapple with increasingly complex public policy issues in a
period of constrained resources.
Also, technological advancements provide Congress immediate
access to more information sources than at any prior time in
history. However, not all of these sources are authoritative
and without bias. Also as a result of advances in IT,
congressional offices can now instantly communicate by way of
email, the internet, and other web-based applications. These
innovations have created expectations on the part of
congressional users that the information, analysis, and
consultative support they need will be readily available and
accessible whenever and wherever they wish to retrieve it.
To this end, as Congress has evolved and in response to
feedback from congressional stakeholders, the Service has
undertaken a number of initiatives. And I want to give you some
examples.
In order to meet the diverse needs of congressional users,
in addition to our longer analytical reports, the Service has
developed shorter, more concise products to provide timely
information and analysis on emerging issues.
Also, CRS has diversified its product line, creating and
piloting new visual and audio formats such as instructional
videos, interactive graphics, and podcasts. These newer
products enable Members and staff to access the Service's
expertise at their convenience and in a format that they
prefer.
In response to congressional interest, CRS has instituted
hiring actions to bolster expertise in emerging or expanding
policy areas. For example, CRS created 12 additional positions
to strengthen our support on science and technology issues.
The Service continues to work with the Library's Office of
the Chief Information Officer to modernize its IT
infrastructure. This multiyear initiative will provide CRS
staff with the best resources to create and deliver products
and services to Congress.
Finally, CRS continues to collaborate with the Legislative
Branch Bulk Data Task Force, the House Clerk, and the House
Legislative Counsel to implement modern legislative data
interchanges and develop tools and data standards that are
critical to analyzing the impact of proposed legislation.
Now I would like to turn and flag three pressing challenges
that the Service faces.
First, continued recruitment and retention of a dedicated,
professional workforce is essential to the Service's mission
and is a top priority for CRS. Given the current market for
talent, this will require resources to bolster and replenish
the analytical capacity necessary to support the Congress.
Additionally, CRS recognizes that Congress represents an
increasingly diverse constituency. Therefore, it is imperative
that the Service continues to build and maintain a diverse
workforce. As such, CRS is implementing a number of strategies
to address this other top priority.
Second, preserving CRS's institutional knowledge is an
important component to our ability to serve you. CRS is
developing and implementing strategies to manage the knowledge
that it creates, including the capture of tacit knowledge held
by senior analysts, attorneys, and information professionals.
Third, our experience during the pandemic only reinforced
the fact that information technology is a critical tool that
the Service employs to accomplish its mission. Implementing and
maintaining useful technology is costly and labor-intensive yet
mandatory to support our work for you.
Finally, I want to thank you for allowing me to contribute
to this discussion today, and I will be happy to respond to
your questions.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Mazanec.
And our final witness on this panel is Phillip Swagel. Dr.
Swagel has served as the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office since June of 2019.
Prior to joining CBO, he was a professor of international
economics at the University of Maryland's School of Public
Policy. He previously served as the Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury for Economic Policy from 2006 to 2009. Dr. Swagel has
also served as chief of staff and as a senior economist at the
White House Council of Economic Advisers.
Dr. Swagel, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PHILLIP SWAGEL, PH.D.
Mr. Swagel. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Kilmer, Vice Chair
Timmons, and members of the select committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the efforts of the Congressional Budget
Office to enhance our transparency, our effectiveness, and
efficiency.
Today, I will highlight four aspects of our work.
First, CBO is focused on responsiveness and on
transparency. Beginning in fiscal year 2019, the Congress
increased our budget to bolster that process, to expand
staffing in high-demand areas, such as healthcare and
immigration, to organize our staff to work on broader shared
portfolios, and to publish more data and documentation about
our methods. And we report to the Congress about our work in
progress every 3 months.
We work hard to make our work accessible. We have improved
access to our cost estimates, in particular, on our website,
for example, by improving our search function and adding more
information to the web pages for each bill. There is a link to
the bill text and other information on Congress.gov from the
CBO landing pages.
Okay. So that is one, on responsiveness and transparency.
Second, we are working, you know, as my colleagues here in
the other agencies have said, to increase the diversity of our
workforce. And attracting and retaining a diverse workforce, it
helps us have the best possible staff, and our work benefits
from these different perspectives and different experiences.
So, last year, in 2020, we created a diversity and
inclusion working group. And the mandate of that group includes
recommending ways to increase the representation of diverse
staff--of women, minorities, people with disabilities--in our
agency's workforce and then, on the substance of what we do, to
ensure that all staff can contribute successfully to our work
and to our culture.
So that is number two.
Number three is, we at CBO are increasing access to data.
We have in place more than three dozen data agreements for
protected information, and we are working to arrange agreements
that allow our analysts even greater access to data, especially
remote data. We have done a lot during the pandemic to enhance
our ability to access information remotely and to do it
securely, as well, to guard against cyber threats.
And fourth and lastly, we continue to make organizational
changes and operational changes to better serve the Congress.
And part of that is that, as legislation has grown more
complex, we are just doing more work and spending more time
providing technical assistance during the drafting stage of
legislation. You know, so it doesn't always result in a cost
estimate, but our work will be generally with the committee
staff while they are developing legislation.
On cost estimates, we have prepared cost estimates more
often for bills that are heading for votes without being marked
up for committees. And we strive to do this to meet the needs
of the Congress while fulfilling our statutory requirement to
prepare cost estimates for bills approved by committees and
other reports specified in law about the budget and the
economy.
We have reorganized our staff as well. You know, part of it
is to address three priority areas that we see the Congress
focusing on. One is healthcare, second is income security, and
a third is the combination of climate, energy, and
infrastructure. And then we have also created a new unit in our
Budget Analysis Division focused on education, housing, and
finance, essentially to improve our capacity to do cost
estimates in those areas.
So let me finish there. In conclusion, CBO remains
committed to becoming even more transparent, more effective,
and more efficient, and we will continue to innovate to best
support the Congress.
Thank you.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you.
I now recognize myself and Vice Chair Timmons to begin a
period of extended questioning of the witnesses. Any member who
wishes to speak should just signal their request to either me
or to Vice Chair Timmons.
So I have two threads I want to pull, and then I am eager
to kick it to others.
One, I just want to give you an opportunity--we are going
to hear from a second panel of folks who have looked at your
agencies from the outside and maybe have some ideas around
areas we could optimize, better support your missions. I know
you had a chance to look at their testimony, and I just wanted
to invite--if you have insights into anything that they are
going to tell us, I want to give you an opportunity to swing at
that pitch. So anybody have anything they want to say on that
front?
Yeah, go ahead. And I will just go down the line.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. First, I appreciate the interest, always,
from anybody, and ideas. And that is the way you improve your
operations.
The person who will be testifying regarding GAO is, you
know, complimentary of the accomplishments of the agency and is
advocating for additional resources and makes a number of
suggestions. I am, obviously, very supportive of the increased
resources there.
There is one proposal, though, a major proposal, that is
made that I am not in favor of at all. And that is creating a
separate entity within GAO for science and technology policy
issues.
This is how duplication and overlap start in the Federal
Government. We have issued hundreds of reports on these issues
over the years, and this is not a good idea. And I also don't
think that--placing a decades-old model that Congress has
decided not to fund for 25 years in GAO is not my idea of
modernization. And I just think it would be a bad idea.
I think that the independent study done by the National
Academy of Public Administration that concluded that Congress
support GAO and CRS and, if they wanted additional--if Congress
wanted an additional resource, to create a small office in the
Congress for technology absorption issues, I think that is a
better approach in those areas.
And so, you know, I mean, to take, you know, as I am
saying, an old model and put it in an otherwise well-
functioning organization, it reminds me of the Hippocratic
Oath, you know, ``First, do no harm.'' And I think that that
would harm GAO's reputation over time.
And I am happy to talk to Congress and focus on what
outcomes that you want, as opposed to what kind of process, you
know, that we decide, you know, and how we manage the agency.
But bifurcating an agency is not a good idea.
The Chairman. Uh-huh.
Go ahead.
Ms. Mazanec. Okay. So I read with great interest----
The Chairman. You may want to move the mike closer. It may
be on, but just far away.
Ms. Mazanec. Is it on?
The Chairman. That is on. Yeah.
Ms. Mazanec. Okay. Thank you.
I take feedback about CRS very seriously, and I wish we
could actually get more feedback from congressional users so
that we can help you better.
There are some points in her testimony that I agree with,
and then there are other points that I do not concur with.
So I agree with the fact that Congress needs shorter
products. We recognized this need about 5, 6 years ago and
started to create shorter products. We serve a diverse
congressional user population, and they have varying needs.
I do not agree that the longer analytical reports are not
being read. I have heard from Members and from congressional
staff that they do read our longer analytical reports.
We are always trying to present our research and analysis
in different and new formats to be digested by the
congressional user in the way that they find best for them.
So that is one point.
An issue was raised about a timeliness of a product. And
that was the first I heard about that. Timeliness is one of our
core values. We do whatever we can to meet your deadlines.
However, we are a high-volume operation. In fiscal year
2020, we had over 75,000 targeted research requests, and we
have limited staff. And so we do prioritize, starting with
requests that are time-sensitive--if they are tied to floor
action, a markup, or something that is moving.
We do talk to the requester. We try to come up with an
agreed-upon approach moving forward. We try to meet your
timeline, like I said, with what we can deliver on your
timeline. Because we know you have deadlines that you have to
meet.
The other issue that was surprising to me is an issue that
was raised about gender issues and gender equity. As the first
woman to head up CRS since its beginning, I take that very
seriously. And, in fact, last spring, we did look at hiring,
salary, and promotion with respect to gender, and we did not
find a consistent pattern that would suggest that there is a
gender equity issue. But we are always tracking that and
watching that.
Like most Federal agencies, we are challenged by the
diversity issue. We want to recruit and retain a diverse
workforce, and that would include women. Actually, we are
predominantly women; we are 57 percent women at this point in
time. So we have a strategic initiative focused on that.
So I think those are the points that I would mention at
this point, but I am happy to follow up on other ones if you
have specific questions.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Swagel. Yeah, great, thank you. And, yeah, I thought
Phil Joyce's testimony was excellent. And, I mean, he has
written the book on CBO, so it is not surprising.
I will just mention two things from his testimony.
One, you know, the first one, I just deeply agree on, and
this is the key aspect of making sure our work is nonpartisan
and objective. And, you know, obviously, that is my foremost
responsibility as Director. You know, fortunately, it is deeply
embedded in the agency, in the DNA of the agency.
So, you know, I think that is number one. And this is where
we are the opposite of Gene and opposite of GAO, right? You
know, such a valuable part of the work at GAO are the
recommendations, right? Here is a problem, here are suggestions
on how to fix it. And, you know, we stay away from that. And,
again, it is just a different--it is a different mission.
The other aspect of Phil's testimony that I think is really
interesting and, again, I agree with is the thinking about the
broader issues, you know, so the benefits. And, of course, you
know, at CBO, our bread and butter is the cost, you know, how
much does something cost. But, of course, we know Members want
to know, well, what are the benefits? And that, we strive to
provide as much information as we can--you know, first explain
the costs and then provide the completeness on what are the
impacts.
And, of course, the thing we need to stay away from is
saying it is worth it or it is not worth it. Because, you know,
intrinsically, that is up to you, up to policymakers, and not
up to us. So that is just the balance we are trying to
maintain. And, again, I agree with what he put.
On broader issues, the other one that is something I have
been thinking a lot about is, what more information can we
provide? And, of course, there is a lot of interest in the
Congress on distributional analysis. And we have been
increasing our capacity to do that. You know, we have
longstanding reports on distributional issues, but we are
trying to do more, and not just by income but by geography, by
race, by other dimensions. And the data can be a challenge, but
we are working on that.
And the challenge is, there are just these limitations. You
know, there is no distributional baseline. We don't know the
distribution of the existing, you know, current law, so it is
hard to say how the distribution changes for every single piece
of legislation. But it is something we are working on.
And kind of the same thing applies to regulation, that the
idea of having us analyze every regulation is kind of beyond
the edge of what we do or what we are set up to do. We can do
it in limited fashion. If there is legislation to undo a
regulation, well, of course we would analyze that and provide
the costs and the impacts of that, but it would be hard for us
to do it more broadly.
The Chairman. I want to just piggyback on the point you
just made, because I think--I can't remember if it is the next
or one of the next hearings we are going to have is related to
evidence-based policymaking. It seems like one of the things
that Congress grapples with as an institution. Members can't
even agree on some of the facts and problem definition, let
alone solutions. And so looking at how we elevate that issue is
something that this committee is going to look at.
Mr. Swagel. Uh-huh.
The Chairman. You know, a few of you mentioned in your
testimony, you know, trying to get more data analytic
capabilities, access to data sets.
I just want to ask hopefully a short, directed question,
because I want to get to other members.
Do you need anything further from Congress to be able to
drive that kind of 21st-century data analytic capabilities
within your institutions, or do you have it covered? Do you
need more access to data sets? Do you need more access to data
scientists? Do you need more access to--what?
Ms. Mazanec. All of the above.
So we do deal with data sets, and we use it both for our
research but we also use it to track usage and utilization of
our products and services so that we can better position
ourselves to support the Congress.
I think not only resourcing the technology that is needed
to mine the trends--we do have a balanced scorecard initiative
at CRS that is in pilot phase--but also personnel, data
personnel, data scientists, would also be helpful.
So I agree with that. The more information we can get out
of the data that we sit on, or data sets that other people have
that we can obtain--and that would go to our research needs,
which are expensive. Some of the research materials that we
need to purchase are expensive. So that would be helpful.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. As part of our effort to enhance our
capabilities, we have set up an innovation lab in our science
and technology function, and this would take a lot of data
sets.
I have hired our first chief data scientist at GAO from the
private sector, a well-qualified individual. We are bringing
the data scientists. It is on our plan for this fiscal year to
hire six or seven more data scientists. So we are in the midst
of doing that, and I have asked for additional resources from
the Congress to expand it.
Now, this data lab, so far, I mean, we are working on
identity verification issues as part of a joint project with
OMB and the Treasury Department to really figure out, you know,
with all the fraud that occurs, to try to use data matching
better to do identity verification, how to audit blockchain
technologies. We have issued a first foundational document on
how to audit artificial intelligence algorithms and have a
framework for that. So we are off to a very good start with
this activity.
Now, we have asked for some access modernization, and we
have given Congress draft legislation to give us access to
people and electronic data more. We have pretty good access to
information throughout the Federal Government. We have unique
access that, really, a lot of other people don't have. And so
it is very important.
But we are augmenting that with additional data collection.
I mean, as you know, the amount of data that is available
exponentially grows every year, and your ability to absorb it
is very important.
So we have started on this journey. We have a good plan; we
are off to a good start. We could use some additional resources
and help modernizing our access legislation.
The Chairman. Great.
Mr. Swagel. Access to data is something I think about a
lot. We get access in two ways. One is from executive-branch
agencies, and then two is from the statistical agencies.
You know, generally, the executive-branch agencies are
pretty helpful. Just as an example that we are working on right
now is on the toxic exposure legislation. There are bills in
both the House and the Senate on this. And we have gotten a lot
of information from the VA, the Veterans Administration, and it
is incredibly helpful. It is complex data we are asking for,
you know, sort of very detailed financial and health
information. It has taken them a while, but they have basically
come through. So that is the kind of success; it has just taken
a while. But they have been helpful.
The stats agencies--we get a lot of information from the
Census and the IRS. And, of course, the challenge is the data
security issue, right? We have to be good stewards of that and
the security. And we are, and we work carefully with those too.
And as the Congress wants more from us, that is something I
would have to start thinking about, is, you know, if we are
asked to do more distributional work, well, we might need more
access to data as a result.
And we are not there yet, so I am not asking for more. And,
again, I would want to make sure that any data we get are just,
sort of, as limited as possible. So distinguish us from, you
know, say, JCT, our sister agency, that has much broader access
to tax information. And, you know, that is their business, and
I just want to stay limited. But it is something I am thinking
about.
Ms. Mazanec. Can I----
The Chairman. Go ahead. Yeah, sure.
Ms. Mazanec. Can I add----
The Chairman. Sure.
Ms. Mazanec [continuing]. Something? After listening to my
colleagues, I would like to make another point.
We also rely on data from executive-branch agencies to
inform our work for you. It is critical that we have access to
the data. Occasionally, executive-branch agencies are reluctant
to share data with us. They ask us to submit a formal FOIA
request, or they ask us why we need the data, who is it for, or
they try to put restrictions on use of the data, where they
don't want us to share it with third parties. All of that would
make it more difficult for us to support you.
My authority to get information from the executive-branch
agencies is in the organic statute. It is derived from the
committees, and the committees have to authorize or I have to
act as an agent of the committee. I do not have subpoena power.
So anything to strengthen the authority that I have or the
ability for me to get the data would be appreciated.
The Chairman. Okay.
Go ahead.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
Well, first, you said you liked feedback at CRS. Let me
give you my feedback. I have had an incredible time working
with some of your cybersecurity experts. Probably spent, I
don't know, 6 or 8 hours with them. And they are extremely
knowledgeable and generous with their time. So I have had a
great experience.
Along those lines, what percent of Congressmembers or staff
do you--offices--do you think reaches out to CRS on an annual
or a 2-year basis?
Ms. Mazanec. So, every year, virtually 100 percent of
Members' offices and committees use CRS in some manner. I think
the real challenge is making congressional users aware of the
full spectrum of support that we offer to them and that it is
not just our written products.
And so we have intensified our outreach, especially at the
beginning of a Congress or the beginning of a session, to try
to make them aware of everything that we can do to support
their work for the American people.
Mr. Timmons. I am surprised at that answer, but I think
that is fantastic. Thank you.
Each of your agencies mentioned retention and recruitment
as an issue. Obviously, during the pandemic, we saw the
capabilities of videoteleconferencing. And do you anticipate
offering telework positions?
Obviously, you are somewhat limited with your resources,
but I have to tell you, the dollar goes a lot further in South
Carolina than it does here in Washington.
So, you know, is that something you all are looking at to
try to facilitate better staffing opportunities?
Mr. Swagel. I can answer first.
Yes, it is. And, you know, we anticipate, as we continue to
come back into the office, you know, more fully, that we will
have some positions that staff have the option to be fully
remote. It is going to be, you know, a limited number, and we
are going to look at it carefully and start carefully, but I do
anticipate that.
And then it could be for spans of work. It could be someone
is going to be able to work for a couple weeks remotely, you
know, maybe, if not full-time. So we do see doing that.
Ms. Mazanec. So we were in a hybrid situation pre-pandemic.
We had a telework option. Within a 24-hour period at the start
of the pandemic, we transitioned to a virtual environment. And
I think we have done fairly well.
Telework is governed by a side agreement to our CBA. We are
in the middle of negotiations. We are also within the Library,
and the Library has a framework for telework.
We certainly have learned a great deal about the experience
during a pandemic. I suspect that, post-pandemic, we will have,
again, a hybrid work environment with increased flexibilities.
We will not--we will have telework within the capital
region, but, at this point, we are not planning to offer
telework at a distance.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. First, you know, we don't have a problem
with recruitment and retention. I mean, our retention rate is
94 percent. Past few years, it has gone down. I mean, we are
only, like, you know, 5 percent attrition, we are expecting.
We have been able to attract and retain a very diverse
workforce in GAO. We have 58 percent women, 34 percent
minorities. We have been ranked number one in the government
for several years on commitment to diversity, equity, and
inclusion issues.
We allowed telework pre-pandemic in a very generous way.
People could work up to, you know, 66 out of 80 hours in a 2-
week pay period remotely and telework. I expect that to
continue. That is why we didn't have much problem moving to
telework.
Now, what we have learned, though, in the pandemic, as you
are saying, Congressman Timmons, is that, when we opened up
recruitment, particularly for interns, which is our main
pipeline for hiring, we were able to get a more diverse group
of interns by not having them be in our field offices or in GAO
headquarters. So we are moving to have our internship program
be open for more remote learning as well.
And I have a group studying what the operating posture
would look like when we come out of the pandemic, and then we
will have to negotiate with the union. But these are very
important issues, so I am open to considering these things.
But, you know--so we will work through them.
But on the intern thing, I think it is a great idea. And I
have talked to a number of other Members who have the same
views that you do.
Mr. Timmons. Great.
One other quick question. We made recommendations last
Congress regarding the schedule to essentially be here more and
travel less.
I imagine it wouldn't affect your two agencies if Congress
was here 50 percent more--for example, in 2019, we were here 65
full working days and 66 travel days. You can make some changes
to the schedule that would allow us to be here 90 days, maybe
110 full days a year. I don't think it would affect you all.
But there was talk that maybe you all have issues with the
congressional calendar and capacity. Could you speak to that?
Or is that----
Mr. Swagel. Sure, sure. I can speak.
You know, we work however the Congress works. You know, the
challenges with the calendar and the schedule come, you know,
just in terms of the budget process, right? The way the budget
process is working is not exactly the way it was set down in
the 1975 act. We will put it that way.
So that poses a challenge. I mean, even things like, when
is our next budget update? Well, knowing if the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act and whatever the next, you know,
reconciliation bill, if those are enacted or not enacted, you
know, that would affect the macro-economy, that would affect,
you know, sort of, throughout the budget. And so we are sort of
on hold with our next budget update, waiting. So that is the
kind of scheduling challenge we have.
Mr. Timmons. So it is not so much, if Congress were here
more, it would create a capacity issue. It is more whether we
do our job in a timely manner, and that is more the issue.
Mr. Swagel. Right. I mean, I think--and we support the
Congress however the Congress works----
Mr. Timmons. Okay.
Mr. Swagel [continuing]. But those are the challenges. And,
when Congress is away, you know, we are pretty engaged with the
staff, so, you know, that works fine.
Mr. Timmons. Do you all have any issues if Congress was
here 50 percent more full working days?
Mr. Dodaro. No.
Mr. Timmons. No capacity issues? Okay.
Mr. Dodaro. No.
Ms. Mazanec. No.
Mr. Dodaro. The main thing I would comment on is, if there
is anything that could be done to make sure that the
appropriations are done on time.
You know, one thing I never aspired to be in the government
is an expert managing under continuing resolutions. And that
has an effect on your ability to plan and manage. You know, I
mean, it would affect people in the private sector or affect
anybody.
And so, you know, we have been able to adapt and deal with
things, but, to me, that is the most important timing issue
that I would encourage, you know, Congress to consider.
Mr. Timmons. Sure.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Ms. Williams is on virtually.
Ms. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to apologize to all of our witnesses and the
fellow committee members this morning for being virtual and not
in person. But, going back to Mr. Timmons and talking about
scheduling, Congress needs a scheduler, because I have three
committee meetings that are running concurrently this morning
and trying to make it work.
So I apologize when I have to drop off, but I also have a
full House Financial Services Committee meeting and a T&I
subcommittee hearing on aviation, which--my district has the
world's busiest airport, and this is something that I also must
chime in on. So, again, Congress needs a scheduler.
But I am so glad to hear about the diverse hires in the GAO
office and all that you have done to make sure that your
offices are truly representative of our country and the
diversity that makes up so many of our districts, because we
know that our lived experiences that we bring to the table in
our work makes our country so much better and so much more
rich.
And so I am just wondering of some ideas and strategies
that we could share with CRS. And I am thrilled to hear that
you have such a high number of women working at CRS, but would
love to hear more around direct strategies to increase the
diversity in the office.
Ms. Mazanec. I suspect that is my question. So----
Ms. Williams. And maybe the office of GAO can give some
recommendations since they have done such a great job at
diverse hires.
Ms. Mazanec. So, right now, our staff is roughly 75 percent
White and then 25 percent non-White. And, over the last--at
least the last 6 years, diversity has been a top priority--
another top priority for us.
I stood up a diversity and inclusion workgroup to make
recommendations about how we can increase the percentage or the
number of applicants to our jobs that come from diverse
backgrounds.
And we also have expanded our outreach efforts so that we
are reaching out to entities that represent underrepresented
populations. We participated in 42 job fairs last year, many of
which were held by institutions, colleges, schools that have a
diverse student population.
We are also trying to guarantee that our hiring panels have
diversity represented.
And so, with all of that, my hope is that we will start to
see more diverse applicants in the pool. Anecdotally, the last
two hiring panels that I served on, I was very happy to see
such a diverse applicant pool.
And then, once we are able to hire individuals, we want to
also be able to retain them. So we want our workplace to be
inclusive. To that end, we have, in the past year, provided
four trainings to staff on topics such as allyship and
microaggressions, and we also added a fifth training session
for managers on conflict resolution, alternate dispute
resolution.
So I would love to hear if there are other things that we
could put in place in CRS to address the challenge of
diversity.
Ms. Williams. Thank you.
Anyone want to give any tips on how you have been
successful at increasing the diversity in your respective
agencies?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, I have made it a key priority of my
tenure. And I have a special assistant for diversity, equity,
and inclusion that reports directly to me. We have focused on
trying to drive it down through the agency. My job is to set
the right policies and tone but to have it operate at each
level.
And I have allowed people to develop communities of
practice to--for example, our African-American senior
executives decided to meet on their own. I meet with them on a
regular basis. They bring ideas, they bring new energy, they
bring things that we have been able to implement. I have had
that same experience with other groups.
I have set up a Diversity Advisory Council at GAO. We have
questions in our annual employee survey where we ask people
their views on our policies, whether their supervisor is
committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion. And we
consistently have rated over 80 percent positive response rates
on that.
We have training programs. We have a diversity, equity, and
inclusion strategic plan with performance measures and goals
that we check.
So, you know, we employ all, sort of, good management best
practices to this, but it requires a sustained commitment, and
you have to set the right tone and follow through.
Ms. Williams. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Joyce, and then I have Mr. Phillips, and
then we will move on to the next panel. If we can have short
questions and short answers. I want to keep us on track.
Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Thank you, Chairman Kilmer.
You know, one of the things I have learned since I got here
is everybody comes with great ideas on how to get things done.
And, as an appropriator, Chairman Kilmer and myself, we see a
lot of these programs, and then you try to fund them, and you
realize when you are doing that that there is a duplication,
triplication sometimes, across different agencies regarding
that.
And I was just wondering how, you know, GAO, if there is a
way that you could help us sort of streamline these programs
and how Members can tell and make these programs achieve their
outcomes but become more cost-effective in doing so.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. Actually, I mean, we spend a tremendous
amount of time doing that.
You know, one of the things that we have been doing for the
last 11 years is an annual report on overlap, duplication, and
fragmentation in the Federal Government. We have made 1,200
recommendations. About 70 percent have been fully or partially
implemented. That has saved over half a trillion dollars in
financial benefits. There are tens of billions of dollars
additionally that could be achieved by following our other
recommendations in this area.
But this is an endemic problem, not only among agencies but
within some individual agencies is a problem. And so we have
all kind of recommendations on this. We would be happy to brief
your staff or work with you on it. But that is high on our
agenda.
And a lot of our work makes things more efficient--our
recommendations makes operation more efficient, even if there
is an overlap or duplication or fragmentation in the agency.
But it is important, also, that Congress not build in new
fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in some of the new
initiatives. Because what we find, the way this happens, as you
say, everybody has a great idea, and sometimes what is in place
isn't working effectively, so, rather than try to make it work
effectively, we create a new program----
Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Right.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. Here, you know? And this is true
of--you know, we found, like, dozens of education programs
outside the Education Department. And, you know, housing
programs; science, technology, engineering, and math studies--I
mean, there is just a proliferation of these activities.
And, you know, on the legitimate side, there are a number
of problems that require multiple agencies to be involved. And,
there, you want to have good collaboration and coordination. So
you can't have everything isolated; you know, you need
multidisciplinary approaches. But you don't need unnecessary
duplication.
Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Thank you very much. And I will take you
up on that next appropriation season.
Mr. Dodaro. Sure.
Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dodaro. Happy to help, whether you are in town or not.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all. I appreciate the value you add to both
the Congress and the country.
But would any of you say that Congress takes advantage of
your respective services, educational and otherwise, in a way
that you would like to see? Do any of you feel that we really
get the most out of your respective basket of services? Any of
you?
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. Go ahead, Phil.
Mr. Phillips. Yeah.
Mr. Swagel. Okay, sure.
I mean, I feel like we do. It varies by offices. You know,
most of our work is for the chairs----
Mr. Phillips. Of course.
Mr. Swagel [continuing]. Members, and leadership, and they
do.
In some sense, the challenge for us is that we are working
so much for them--you know, say, in healthcare, you know, the
different committees in the two chambers on healthcare absorb
the, you know, time so much that it is hard for us to do other
things.
Even when we can't do a cost estimate for, you know, a
Member who is not a chair or ranker, we provide technical
assistance. And that varies. In some sense, it is probably on
me and on CBO to make sure that offices know that they can come
to us even if they are not the committee chair, and we are
probably not going to be able to do a cost estimate, but we can
do other things. And that is something I can do.
Mr. Phillips. Yeah.
And I will ask you two the same question.
And do you track engagements by--do you know how many
offices have--and can you give us a sense of how many offices--
--
Mr. Swagel. That is a good question. We do track.
Mr. Phillips. Okay.
Mr. Swagel. I don't have it, you know, off the top of my
head.
It varies by issue. On healthcare, there is so much across
the board. On an issue like opioids, or opioid use disorder, we
hear from many Members. In a sense, that is part of what we do,
is try to understand the interest in Members and build up our
technical capacity.
I would just mention one last thing, which is surprise
billing----
Mr. Phillips. Yeah.
Mr. Swagel [continuing]. Which we realized was an issue
that was building, and so we built the technical capacity. And
it was partly from our seeing what was going on in the world
but also partly from hearing from Members that they wanted to
know about it. And so we were ready.
Mr. Phillips. I appreciate it.
Either of you two, the same question. Do you think Congress
fully utilizes your services, and do you track engagement, and
what does that look like?
Ms. Mazanec. So, as I said, virtually 100 percent of
offices and committees use CRS in some manner. Not everyone
uses our full breadth of products and services, and part of
that is because they are not aware of it. So we have to be more
aggressive on outreach.
We do tailor our support to the needs of the individual
Member or congressional staffer. And since there are very
diverse needs, that is part of the challenge. Some people want,
you know, just the high points on an issue. Other people want
us to do a more deeper dive, an in-depth analysis.
Mr. Phillips. Okay.
Ms. Mazanec. And, obviously, any feedback we get from our
congressional users about what we could do to better support
them, we try to accommodate them. We try to create new products
that are useful to them.
Mr. Phillips. I appreciate it.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. You know, we regularly provide services
to 90 percent of the standing committees of the Congress and
the members of those committees. We try to outreach to as many
individual Member offices as we can with brown-bags.
We also provide training, sort of a GAO 101 training, for
new congressional staff. We provide training for congressional
staff on appropriations law and GAO's role in appropriations
law.
But I have been trying for a decade to get more GAO
involvement in the orientation to new Members. And if you could
help me there. It is not for a lack of trying, all right? I
have----
Mr. Phillips. I was hoping we might get there.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah.
Mr. Phillips. And that is exactly my point.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah.
Mr. Phillips. You know, this is my second term, and, as I
come to recognize the breadth of services that you can provide,
not to mention the education for new Members, in particular
when we are bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, is a tremendous
opportunity.
And I just encourage our chairs to consider that as you
move forward. I would have loved a little bit more deep dive
during our orientation. When Democrats and Republicans digest
information and education together, I am convinced we process
it in a much more objective fashion.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah.
Mr. Phillips. And I would strongly encourage our body to
consider how to incorporate some deep dives into the issues
facing the country during our orientation program.
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. And I would be more than happy to do
that. I have been trying.
Mr. Phillips. Well, I am going to champion it.
Mr. Dodaro. I have been trying. And I think it does have
the effect that you say.
And, plus, our policy is we try to encourage as much
bipartisan requests for our work as possible, and a lot of our
work comes in requests from committees or----
Mr. Phillips. Sure.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. Mandates from Congress, which, by
definition, are bipartisan.
So those things are very important. And I think it is
needed now more than ever because of the increased turnover in
the Congress, not only among Members, but staff are moving
around quite a bit. You know, this is my 49th year at GAO----
Mr. Phillips. Wow.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. So I have seen, you know--and it
is different now than it historically has been, and so that is
even more important.
Mr. Phillips. Well, this is my 52nd year on Earth.
But thank you, very sincerely. And, especially in an era
where there seem to be two sets of facts, increasingly, even
within this institution, the more that we can bring people
together under one set of facts, I strongly encourage.
And thank you all.
Mr. Dodaro. I agree. Sure.
The Chairman. Great.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Can you hear me? Thank you.
Sorry I am running behind. I actually wanted to get here--
great to see you all here, but--Dr. Mazanec, thank you for what
you do at CRS.
I am a little disappointed that we can't do an oversight
hearing in House Administration to talk about some of the
issues that I think that--well, I don't set the agenda there,
so I am hoping that Chairperson Lofgren will and that we can
talk a little more in depth.
I am going to submit some questions for the record, because
I know my colleagues want to get to the next panel, and I do
too.
Mr. Davis. But we have some issues with jurisdictional
issues. You know, many of my colleagues have brought up some
complaints with some of the products that are coming in, be it
timeliness, be it a possible bias, some other issues, the
quality of product, that I would really like to sit down with
you personally and talk about and be able to get some of these
questions answered--and accountability too. Whereas, we can
then achieve the same goals that I think all of us around this
table want to see CRS and every staff member in each office be
able to achieve.
So I won't take any more time, unless you wanted to make a
comment?
Ms. Mazanec. Well, I will be happy to follow up with you so
that we can have an in-depth discussion on some of the issues
you have just mentioned.
Mr. Davis. Well, I had a really good set of questions, but
because I couldn't get here on time, Chair Kilmer is doing the
right thing and not allowing me to sit and talk for 20 minutes.
So thank you for that.
And you are welcome, to everybody else.
But, Doctor, let's do that. Again, even if we could do a
one-on-one at some point, I would really, truly appreciate it,
as we move into this Congress and the next.
Thank you.
Ms. Mazanec. Okay.
Mr. Davis. I yield back.
The Chairman. I do want to actually just--and we really
have to get to the next panel, so if I can ask for just really
quick responses.
One of the points that Mr. Davis mentioned, I think, is a
thread that we could pull on. And some of you in your
testimony--and I think, Dr. Mazanec, you mentioned that, you
know, you worked with Gallup and you, you know, tried to survey
how are we doing, basically.
I guess one of the things I am interested in is: Do your
agencies get or have the opportunity for really real-time
feedback on--you know, so I got this report. You know, I mean,
there are a lot of things that I consume where I can go on Yelp
or I can, you know, provide immediate feedback. You know, when
I go through the airport, I clear. Before I am done, I have an
email saying, ``How was your experience?''
Do your agencies do something like that where, when I get a
CRS report or I get a GAO report, there is an immediate
opportunity as an end user to say this was helpful, this wasn't
helpful, here is how it could have been more helpful? Do you
already do that?
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah, we----
The Chairman. GAO does?
Mr. Dodaro. Yeah, we do at GAO. We don't get a high
response rate back from the Congress, but we ask the question.
You know, some people say, ``Well, look, we are happy. If we
are not happy, we will let you know''----
The Chairman. Yeah.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. You know? So I assume that. But we
do ask----
The Chairman. Yeah.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. Was it timely? Did it meet your
needs?
And then, you know, I try to meet with chairs and ranking
members of all the committees and get direct feedback, too,
that way. That is not the only way we do it, but we do it on
a----
The Chairman. Sure.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. Product-by-product basis as well.
Ms. Mazanec. So we do try to solicit feedback.
Congressional attendees at our seminars are asked to fill out a
form afterwards to provide us with feedback. We get a lot of
feedback. It is not officially solicited. We can explore a more
regular solicitation.
Part of the challenge we have is the response rate. Even
with the Gallup surveys that we have done every 2 years, we get
10 percent of the people that we send the survey to to actually
respond.
I would love to get more feedback from Members. I do try to
meet with Members, but you have busy schedules. I can't always
get a meeting with you. I am happy to meet with your chief of
staff or your LD to get feedback. Obviously, if you have an
issue with a report that we have issued or a response to our
request, I want to hear about it.
The Chairman. I know we have to get to the next panel,
but----
Mr. Swagel. Yeah.
The Chairman [continuing]. If you have just a quick swing?
Mr. Swagel. I will be super-fast.
We do it in two ways. One is directly. You know, if
somebody doesn't like a cost estimate or has objections with
it, they find us quickly. So that is one. We do surveys. We
track things on our website, you know, where people are coming
from. So we do a little bit.
We also work with the Budget Committees. And, you know,
both sides, all four corners of the Budget Committees are
extremely helpful for us, you know, sort of, flagging people
who are upset or building, you know, moving toward being upset
with us.
The Chairman. Terrific.
I want to thank all three of our distinguished panel
members for their testimony and for joining us to share their
insights. Thank you.
And, with that, let me invite up our second panel. And,
while they are coming up, I am going to read their bios, just
so we can stay on schedule.
We are now joined by three experts who are here to share
their ideas for modernizing the products and services the
legislative support agencies provide to an evolving Congress.
Witnesses are reminded that their written statements will
be made part of the record.
Our first witness is Zach Graves. Mr. Graves is the head of
policy at Lincoln Network. His research and advocacy focus on
the intersection of technology and governance issues, including
work to strengthen science and technology expertise and
capacity in Congress.
He is a member of the GAO's Polaris Council, an advisory
body of leading science and technology experts. In 2018-2019,
he was a technology and democracy fellow at the Harvard Ash
Center.
Mr. Graves, if you are ready--are you ready?
Mr. Graves. All set.
The Chairman. All right. Cool. We are just rolling, because
I went a little over time with that last panel.
But you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF ZACH GRAVES, HEAD OF PUBLIC POLICY, LINCOLN
NETWORK; WENDY GINSBERG, PH.D., STAFF DIRECTOR, HOUSE COMMITTEE
ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM; AND PHILIP G. JOYCE, PH.D., PROFESSOR
AND SENIOR ASSOCIATE DEAN, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF
PUBLIC POLICY
STATEMENT OF ZACH GRAVES
Mr. Graves. All right. Thank you.
Chair Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons, and members of the
committee, thank you for having me here to testify.
My name is Zach Graves. I am head of policy at the Lincoln
Network. We are a right-of-center organization working to
advance innovation, governance, and national security and work
to bridge the gap between Silicon Valley and D.C.
This year marks the 100th anniversary of the nonpartisan
Government Accountability Office. Over its history, GAO has
provided essential oversight, insight, and foresight to
Congress, supporting its legislative and oversight functions.
This work has a direct and tangible benefit to taxpayers.
Over the past 20 years, GAO's work has resulted in more than
$1.1 trillion in savings. GAO's return on investment has
consistently exceeded over $100 for each dollar of its budget.
Despite its impressive record, however, GAO's tools and
resources have not kept up with demand. Even as Federal
spending and the national debt have massively increased, GAO's
staffing level is 37 percent smaller than it was three decades
ago.
Over its 100-year history, GAO's mission, authorities,
workforce, and strategic focus have evolved significantly. The
agency was established as the General Accounting Office in the
Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, moving this function out of
the Treasury. Coming out of the New Deal and heading into World
War II, growing Federal programs placed significant new demands
on GAO, and it expanded to nearly 15,000 staff.
The next few decades saw GAO move away from its green-
eyeshade era of accounting-focused work towards program
evaluation and a more professionalized workforce. By the late
1960s, GAO was recruiting more staff trained in non-accounting
fields, including science and technology in particular.
With the backdrop of an unpopular war in Vietnam and the
aftermath of Watergate, this period also saw Congress reassert
itself. This included major reforms in the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970; increased staffing resources; the
creation of the Congressional Budget Office, which testified
earlier; and the Office of Technology Assessment, or OTA. These
reforms helped rebalance Congress's information asymmetry with
the executive branch and allowed it to reassert itself.
Coming out of the Cold War and heading into the 1990s, the
pendulum swung back away from Article I. Congress downsized GAO
and enacted across-the-board cuts to the legislative branch,
particularly in the 104th Congress. This included reductions
for committees and support agencies and the elimination of OTA.
The GAO emerged out of this period that was perhaps more lean
and responsive but also significantly more risk-averse.
Science and technology in GAO: Since OTA was defunded,
there have been numerous efforts to reestablish its function.
This led to the creation of a technology assessment pilot in
GAO in fiscal year 2002. While it had some initial success and
was praised by outside reviewers, it did languish in relative
obscurity for nearly two decades.
In January 2019, GAO elevated this program to become the
STAA, or Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics, team.
With the support of the current Comptroller General, STAA has
doubled its staff, refined its TA methodology, produced
numerous spotlights, technology assessments, and other kinds of
analysis. And its innovation lab has worked to develop
innovative new approaches to program evaluation and oversight.
A congressionally directed report by the National Academy
of Public Administration endorsed STAA but echoed longstanding
concerns about the suitability of GAO's culture and bureaucracy
for S&T work and particularly for technology assessments,
highlighting that there are some major challenges remaining to
its governance.
In my written testimony, I list actionable recommendations
to improve STAA's governance, including adopting some of OTA's
structural features, like an advisory version of its Governing
Technology Assessment Board, mirroring the relationship that
CRS has with the Library of Congress, and having an
appropriations line item and congressional budget
justification.
Importantly, these are ultimately still under the
Comptroller General's authority and not an independent office.
Providing additional bureaucratic separation is also something
that can be done as a spectrum and not an either/or.
Nor is this an original idea. In 2004 and 2005, Rush Holt
and Amo Houghton advanced a bipartisan proposal called the CSTA
that would create an OTA-like office in GAO, and it went
through several rounds of vetting by then-Comptroller General
David Walker as well as S&T experts. And there are several
iterations of this draft with commentary that I am happy to
provide.
I also list a number of low-hanging-fruit improvements to
enhance STAA, including giving it an office in the Capitol, a
separate website and internet portal, and to have it self-
initiate more reports under the CG's authority rather than to
react to issues on request, which can take a year or more to
complete and often are out of touch and not appropriately, you
know, doing horizon-scanning and the important, sort of,
foresight work that is key to science and technology issues.
I also offer recommendations to strengthen GAO writ large,
including estimating potential savings from unimplemented
recommendations, which was something that was discussed at the
earlier panel; addressing internal IT challenges; increasing
funding for the agency; and adjusting its funding model to be a
share of Federal discretionary spending so it is not
constrained by the particular political environment of the
legislative branch's 302(b) sub-allocation. I also propose a
series of reauthorization hearings to address the full range of
GAO reforms, many of which I was not able to get to in my
testimony.
Throughout its history, GAO has shown it can adapt and
restructure to meet new challenges. It has gone through several
iterations in the past. With new tools such as machine
learning, cloud-based data analytics, and others, GAO has a
monumental opportunity to modernize for the next century and
advance a vision to transform Congress's ability to understand
and oversee Federal programs in real-time.
Yet I fear the low salience of these issues, insufficient
resourcing, and institutional bias towards the status quo risks
depriving GAO of significant opportunities to stay relevant and
maximize future taxpayer savings. As we move into the future,
we must consider that risk-aversion in this domain is, itself,
a massive risk.
I look forward to the important work of this committee in
helping address these challenges, and I thank you for the
opportunity to testify.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
And I encourage folks to look at the written testimony too.
I appreciated you had a number of recommendations you
thought this committee should pursue. And I know we weren't
able to get to it in your verbal remarks, but I really
appreciate it.
Our next witness is Dr. Wendy Ginsberg. Dr. Ginsberg is the
staff director on the Government Operations Subcommittee of the
House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Prior to joining the
committee, she was a senior program manager at the Partnership
for Public Service, and, from 2007 to 2017, she served as an
analyst at the Congressional Research Service.
Members are reminded that Dr. Ginsberg's testimony today
represents her own personal thoughts and not those of this
subcommittee or the chairman.
Neither her testimony nor her responses to any questions
will touch on any specific matter the Oversight Committee has
investigated, the Oversight Committee's investigative
practices, nor any specific matter that she worked on as an
analyst at CRS. She will be limited to providing observations
and recommendations to improve the services of CRS and the
other agencies that support congressional staff.
Dr. Ginsberg, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF WENDY GINSBERG, PH.D.
Ms. Ginsberg. Thank you for that, and thanks for that
preamble. Thank you, Chairman Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons, and
other members of the select committee, for inviting me here to
testify on ways to improve Congress's service agencies.
Thank you to each of the witnesses from our first panel.
Honestly, we couldn't perform our constitutional duties
without them and the hard work of the people in their agencies.
I have been asked to testify today because of my unique
perspective on the Congressional Research Service. I proudly
served as a nonpartisan analyst for nearly a decade. Today, I
am a user of CRS's services, as the staff director of the
Committee on Oversight and Reform's Subcommittee on Government
Operations.
I proudly serve Chairman Gerald E. Connolly and this Nation
by conducting oversight of the appropriations of the entirety
of our Federal Government as well as State and local
governments. With a jurisdiction so vast, I rely on CRS, the
Government Accountability Office, and the Congressional Budget
Office to help me perform the almost insurmountable oversight
needed to ensure our government runs smoothly and effectively.
My testimony today represents my own personal thoughts and,
like Chairman Kilmer said, not the thoughts of the
subcommittee, the chairman, the full committee, or the
chairwoman.
I will make three main points about how the Congressional
Research Service could take straightforward steps to modernize
and dramatically improve its services to Congress. These
comments are laid out in greater detail in my written
testimony.
One, CRS must revamp its product line and how its products
are distributed to Members, congressional staff, and the
public. Two, CRS must transform its culture to one that is
focused on customer service. And, three, CRS must refocus its
efforts on accomplishing its core mission.
Thirty-, 40-, or even 75-page reports will not be read by
most congressional staff. I agree, there are a couple who will
read them all, but most of them won't read them. These reports
are daunting and, frankly, can confuse staff more than help
them. CRS must generate products that combine legal and policy
analysis and not make us go to several sites to figure out the
policies that we need to know about a single subject.
And did you know that CRS has podcasts? I know that Dr.
Mazanec said that on the earlier panel, but you can't find them
on the website, and there has only been one made this year--
one--in February.
Most of the videos on the website are more than an hour
long--too long to be of use to Congress and staff. The CRS
search engine puts outdated reports at the top of its results
page. And I can't even try to search for a product on the site
from my iPhone. As a former CRS analyst, it pains me that the
great CRS research done by my former colleagues is not more
easily located by decisionmakers.
Why is CRS not generating newsletters targeted to each
committee and subcommittee with products that are likely of
relevance to them?
Why is CRS not asking for Member and staff feedback on
their products and services? There is not a ``feedback'' button
on the website.
Moreover, CRS could allow its staff to serve details in
personal offices and on committees, providing CRS experts the
opportunity to understand which products work for us and how to
more effectively provide authoritative information in a timely
fashion.
My second point: CRS must evolve its culture to one focused
on customer service.
CRS's mission is to serve Congress, yet when we call CRS
analysts and attorneys, we are sometimes told that our research
question is the wrong one or that it can't be answered. I have
been told that my request is not a priority for CRS. I have had
to contact analysts and attorneys several times to track down
outstanding requests. On another request, I was told that my
request was, quote, ``too `in the weeds' for consideration.''
CRS is designed for these weeds.
There are a few simple ways CRS leadership could take
critical steps toward better customer service.
First, CRS analysts and attorneys should simply take the
initiative to place an electronic calendar hold on staff
calendars for consultation appointments. Even that is so
helpful to me.
Next, CRS should consider incorporating customer-service
metrics into performance reviews. It shouldn't be the whole
review; we shouldn't be reviewed by a panel of the many. But it
should be a component of how you are assessed as a CRS analyst.
Third, CRS must do better in helping its staff adapt to new
online platforms used by the House and Senate. CRS needs to get
technology right.
Finally, analysts and attorneys must connect Members and
staff directly with the expert or experts they need and not
send us on a goose chase to collect and find the right people
to help us answer our questions.
These actions would help defeat a culture of ``this is not
my issue'' that currently permeates CRS.
My final point: CRS must refocus its efforts on
accomplishing its core mission. CRS, at times, has allowed its
staff to stray from its mission to serve Congress or allowed
that mission to atrophy.
CRS should be anticipating the needs of Congress. Yet, in
many cases, reports on pertinent legislative and oversight
issues are released days after the relevant hearing. CRS must
observe and follow the rhythms of congressional needs and
prioritize their research and analysis accordingly.
Additionally, CRS must encourage its staff to engage in the
academic and policy debates in public forums at academic
conferences.
CRS attorneys and analysts either prevented from or
uninterested in evolving cannot provide Members and staff the
highest quality of research, analysis, and information that is
required by the agency's mission.
I end my testimony by reiterating my high regard for all of
the support agencies, particularly CRS. I want them to be the
most effective they can be to help Congress serve this Nation.
Without them, we repeat errors, we miss nuances, we would
simply be too overwhelmed to function. We must evolve and
improve together, leveraging technologies and refocusing
resources to pack the most punch for this Nation.
I look forward to the conversation today. Thank you for
inviting me to testify.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Ginsberg.
And our final witness on this panel is Philip Joyce. Dr.
Joyce is senior associate dean and professor of public policy
at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. He is
the author of ``The Congressional Budget Office: Honest
Numbers, Power, and Policymaking.''
You actually did write the book on CBO.
Dr. Joyce is a former editor of Public Budgeting and
Finance, is a past president of the American Association of
Budget and Program Analysis, and is past chair of the American
Society for Public Administration's Center on Accountability
and Performance.
Dr. Joyce has over a decade of public-sector work
experience, including 5 years as a principal analyst with the
Congressional Budget Office.
Dr. Joyce, thanks for being with us. You are now recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP G. JOYCE, PH.D.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much.
Chair Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons, members of the committee,
thank you for inviting me to share my views on the role of the
Congressional Budget Office in supporting the Congress.
I want to express at the outset my admiration for what this
committee is trying to accomplish. There is no more important
issue, in my view, facing our political system than ensuring
that the Congress remains a strong body capable of serving as
an independent voice in our political system. Weak,
understaffed, or outdated support agencies invariably would
contribute to a weaker Congress and, therefore, transfer power
to the executive branch.
I am here to talk specifically about CBO, although I am an
admirer of all the congressional support agencies. And I would
note, regarding CBO, that the Congress has a lot to be proud of
in having established and supported this agency.
There have, in fact, been many countries who have looked at
CBO's successes--Australia, Canada, Italy, Korea, and Mexico I
think are the best examples--and established similar
independent fiscal agencies. In that sense, congressional
organization has served as a model for the modernization of
legislative institutions in other countries.
I have submitted my statement for the record, but I want to
highlight three points, and then, if there are others, we can
discuss them in Q&A.
And I make these points mainly because I think it is
important that this committee focus on how we can educate
Members of Congress on why CBO exists, on how to use CBO, and
what the limitations are of CBO analyses.
First, it is important to note that history shows that CBO
has done exactly what it was intended to do, which is to
empower the Congress relative to the President and to serve as
a check on the executive branch.
When I was researching my book on CBO--and I want to say,
Mr. Chairman, that it is the best book ever written on CBO
because it is the only book ever written on CBO. It is also the
worst book ever written on CBO.
The Chairman. Oh, sorry.
Mr. Joyce. There were multiple executive-branch officials
who told me that they used the fact that there would be CBO
analyses to prevent more dishonesty in Presidential proposals.
Second, the most influential effects of having CBO have
come through its cost estimates of legislation, as Director
Swagel pointed out. To that end, I think any evaluation of its
success needs to look at how those estimates are prepared,
their accuracy, their timeliness, their consistency, and their
transparency.
I want to highlight a couple of these.
CBO has paid a lot of attention over its history to making
sure that it is using a consistent set of assumptions in
costing out proposals so that one proposal is not disadvantaged
relative to another simply because different assumptions are
used.
And while CBO, I think, has always tried to be relatively
transparent in how it presents information to the Congress
about its assumptions, it has responded, I think, to
congressional interest in more transparency in a number of ways
that Director Swagel pointed to in his testimony.
I have been particularly impressed with the attention to
data visualization in recent years, which have made CBO
products much more accessible and understandable. You see much
less now of, you know, having to read the 40- or 50-page dense
CBO report, and it gets summarized, I think, much better in a
way that can be actually accessed by more Members of Congress.
I would point out one more thing on timeliness, which is,
it is very important, I think, if the Congress is going to make
effective use of CBO, for it to avoid considering legislation
on the floor that does not have a CBO cost estimate. And I
noticed in CBO's budget justification for last year that 25
percent of its estimates were--or 25 percent of the bills that
were considered on the floor did not have a CBO cost estimate.
And I think that should be avoided.
Third, there have been criticisms that CBO analyses take an
overly narrow view by focusing largely on Federal budgetary
costs and not on the benefits of legislation. This, of course,
is what the Congressional Budget Act tells them to do, and I do
think this criticism ignores much of the broader policy
analysis work that CBO does.
But, to the extent that anybody thinks that CBO should
systematically focus on cost and benefits in its estimates of
legislation, I think that would be problematic, and I think
that would compromise its nonpartisan reputation, because you
don't have to move very far from that in order to suggest that
CBO is essentially saying the Congress ``should do this'' and
the Congress ``should not do that.''
In conclusion, far from the Congress needing to reform CBO
in any kind of major way in pursuit of modernization, CBO--and
I think the same could be said for GAO and CRS as well--is
instead one of the most important factors that contributes to
the modernization of Congress.
In short, other countries want what the U.S. has. And,
frankly, they are often flabbergasted to discover that the
Congress supports a large and influential nonpartisan agency in
the midst of such a hyperpartisan political environment.
It is important for the Congress to recognize that a
credible, nonpartisan CBO is vital to the ability of the
Congress to set its own fiscal policy and to challenge the
President--and I mean any President--on policy. If CBO ever
became viewed as one more source of partisan noise, it would be
of limited use to the Congress or the Nation.
The capacity for nonpartisan analysis from all the support
agencies, not just CBO, should be protected. Once lost, it
would not easily be regained.
Thank you, and I look forward to the conversation.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Joyce. And congratulations for
having the top-selling book on Amazon related to the CBO.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. Yeah.
The Chairman. I now recognize myself and Vice Chair Timmons
to begin a period of extended questioning of the witnesses. Any
member who wishes to speak should just signal their request to
either me or to Vice Chair Timmons.
I have one broad question and one specific question.
My broad question is, you know, these support agencies were
all founded in the early to mid- 20th century. They are largely
all still operating under the same authorizations, even as they
have had to adapt to changing circumstances.
Are there any authorities that they currently don't have
that would help them better fulfill the mandate to support
Congress? Anything we ought to be looking at in terms of
additional authorities that ought to be granted to these
agencies?
Mr. Joyce. I am happy to start.
So I do think Director Swagel sort of talked about this a
little bit in his testimony, but I think, you know, data are
available in much different ways now than they were when this
agency was created.
And I think, you know, in particular, you know, the ability
to access data electronically--my understanding is that CBO,
prior to the pandemic, actually periodically had to, sort of,
drive out to Suitland in order to get its, you know, data from
the Census, and it got temporary authority to actually access
the data electronically.
I think it would be helpful to look into, you know,
continuing that kind of thing. So I think it is very important
for them to be able, you know, to access the data that they
need and to do it in a timely fashion and to not have to go
through a lot of red tape in order to do that.
Ms. Ginsberg. I would say, for CRS, I would agree with Dr.
Mazanec that, at times, we kind of just used our charm and
persuasion techniques to get information out of the agencies
that we were hoping to get information from to help tell the
story to Members of Congress and their staff.
So it could be a consideration to think about some language
that would more clearly state that CRS should be considered
Congress pursuant to FOIA when asking for information.
I don't know that you want to create something that is an
adversarial relationship. There should be MOUs or particular
ways to, again, use just charm and conversation to get things
done, but it is something worth talking about.
Mr. Graves. Yeah. I mean, I think there are a couple
different important points here, one just with respect to
history. And I don't get into this in my testimony in detail.
The GAO's authorities have changed at several points over
its history, sometimes growing, sometimes being more
constrained. I think it would be worthwhile doing a deeper dive
into some of that, which is part of why I recommended a series
of, kind of, reauthorization hearings around the agency to
really go deep on some of these issues, like their challenges
getting data from executive agencies or the need to potentially
put more teeth on recommendations that they make that are
unimplemented.
I also note that there are authorities that exist that are
just not being used. There was some discussion of using IPA
authority to bring in outside science and technology experts
for STAA at several different points. As far as I know, I don't
believe they have started utilizing that yet. So part of that
is just, sort of, their internal culture and its willingness
to, sort of, use what tools it has.
The Chairman. The other thing I wanted to ask about, we had
testimony earlier this year regarding how State legislatures do
business and how committees and State legislatures do business.
I came out of a State legislature; I know Vice Chair
Timmons did as well. We had some of these capabilities, sort
of, tied to committees in a State legislature, where there was
nonpartisan staff related to oversight, kind of like GAO does,
and related to research and even bill-writing.
Do you see value in this committee looking at trying to
cede some of these capabilities within congressional
committees? Or is the current approach, where these are kind of
independent agencies that kind of service those committees, is
that--are we doing it right, or should we be thinking about a
different model?
Mr. Joyce. I think it is important for the support agencies
to have some connection and for there to be an oversight
responsibility that committees have for making sure that the
information that is provided continues to be sort of useful and
timely.
I think if that is done effectively, I don't think that it
would be necessary to, sort of, you know, nest nonpartisan
analysis specifically within the committees. I think, for CBO
in particular, I think the Budget Committees have actually been
quite active in making sure, you know, that CBO is responsive.
Now, CBO has maybe a benefit in the sense that the statute
actually sort of lays out--you know, there is kind of a pecking
order for committees that they work with. And those committees
are, therefore, responsible for making sure that the
information that is being provided is most useful.
You know, I think an example of what you are talking about
actually would be the Joint Committee on Taxation. The Joint
Committee on Taxation has actually what is, you know, by all
accounts, a nonpartisan staff but works for the Finance and the
Ways and Means Committees. And I think, based on everything I
know, that that works pretty well. But I don't know that I
would move a lot further with it.
Ms. Ginsberg. I would say that there have been nonpartisan
staff who have worked with committees in the past that weren't
necessarily affiliated with GAO or CRS or any of the service
agencies.
But I think a more effective way to make this happen is to
just really ramp up details and encourage detailees to go in
and out. That way, you have the separate wall of nonpartisan
research, but you have somebody with the knowledge and
experience of what it is like to be on the inside so they know
how to--they have been the customer; they know what they need
to get served.
And CRS just doesn't do that. I know, when I was there, I
fought to go on a detail, and it just couldn't happen. And it
was----
The Chairman. Now you are a full-time detail.
Ms. Ginsberg. And I was like, ``Yes, it will happen.'' So,
yeah. And now I am here. So that is my whole life story.
Mr. Graves. Yeah. I mean, I would agree that--I mean, I
think the loss of institutional knowledge, you know, as the
political winds change on committees, is a major challenge.
Committees are broadly--you know, they have less absorptive
capacity and, you know, less, sort of, staff capacity than they
once did. And so, you know, increasing detailees, particularly
from within the legislative branch, I think, is a really good
way to do that.
I think GAO does a fantastic job at that. And particularly
when it comes to science and technology issues, where Members
of Congress and their staff typically don't come from those
technical backgrounds, you know, having that informal, trusted,
consultative relationship is a tremendous value, at least as
valuable as producing the, sort of, long reports themselves.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Go ahead, Vice Chair Timmons.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
Dr. Ginsberg, thank you for your testimony. It is very
helpful to get another perspective. I have had a good
experience, but I have only used them on a very limited basis,
and this has been very helpful.
In addition to--I mean, I hear where you are coming from.
Thirty, 40, 70 pages, that is long. Not a lot of people are
going to read them. I mean, could we just--a lot of those have
executive summaries, though.
I mean, could we--we still need the longer product to dive
deep. But I do agree that maybe, if it is over a certain number
of pages, there should be a 3-pager or a 2-pager, something
like that. That seems like a reasonable request.
Ms. Ginsberg. I wholeheartedly agree with you. There are
people who read the really long reports, but there are not a
lot of them on the Hill, and they are going to be on the
committees and the--yeah, they are usually going to be on the
committees, with a deeper dive.
CRS is getting better at creating suites of products. And,
frankly, the fact that there are, sort of--at the beginning of
each report, there is, like, an overview of the report. That is
pretty new. That actually happened when I was at CRS. So
probably sometime around 2013, 2014 was when they started doing
the executive summaries. Before that, they just didn't do it.
I think a lot of what we see at CRS, frankly, is because
you get promoted based on the length and depth of your work. So
there is an internal incentive to create longer products so
that you go through the promotion process, where, I think, for
the benefit of most staffers on the Hill, the shorter products
would be a more effective way to feed us the information.
And that is not to say--I don't want to equate shorter
with not as knowledgeable. I think, in fact, shorter can be
more knowledgeable and harder to write. I don't think it is any
simpler. I think it is much more difficult to write in a pithy
way.
Mr. Timmons. And I have actually never used their search
engine. I always use Google and just type ``CRS'' at the
beginning of whatever I want. But I do agree that we could
modernize it a little bit and maybe update it.
Ms. Ginsberg. We do that inside of CRS too, but don't tell
anyone.
Mr. Timmons. Mr. Graves, two of your recommendations:
Fully fund GAO--do you know the difference between their
current funding and what fully funded would be?
Mr. Graves. Well, there are a couple of versions of that.
One would be just meeting their current budget request, which I
think we are pretty close to it in both the House and--I think
the Senate bill that just came out is slightly lower.
But I would say, you know, we should think of this in
terms of its ability to match the growth of Federal
bureaucracy. So, if we think about, like, how big of a share of
discretionary spending were they in the 1990s versus how big
the administrative bureaucracy is now, it is, you know,
dramatically weaker than it was, relatively.
So I would consider a much more significant increase in
GAO resourcing. And I think we would see increased taxpayer
benefits that match that in a very significant way.
Mr. Timmons. I have always been a huge proponent of fully
funding Congress and all of its support agencies, because we
spend trillions and trillions of dollars, and we need to figure
out a better way of doing our job. Obviously, we are talking
about budget appropriations, and--yeah, we can't underfund the
most important part of the Federal Government, in my opinion.
Last thing. Dr. Joyce, I just bought your book, so you
sold one.
The Chairman. I am going to take that as a question not in
need of an answer. I think that is--you know, just say ``thank
you,'' I guess. But we are really killing it on him.
Mr. Joyce. When I get my royalty report, I will know that
you were the one.
The Chairman. You were the one. We are killing it on
Amazon sales in this committee.
Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Thank you, Chairman Kilmer.
Thank you all for being here today.
In sort of an abbreviated form, if you wouldn't mind, what
would be your top two recommendations that you would think that
would help to--we could push forward to strengthen or modernize
these support agencies?
Whoever wants to take it first.
Mr. Graves. Yeah, I think, you know, my first one is
probably a little bit of a difficult one, which would be taking
GAO resourcing outside of the Legislative Branch Appropriations
Subcommittee funding, which has a peculiar set of internal
political incentives that constrain its ability to grow at the
rate of the Federal Government, which means our oversight
capacity is constrained in its ability to grow to match the
rest of the Federal Government.
We have worked together to develop a bipartisan proposal
on this that I mentioned in my testimony that would, you know,
make it as a, sort of, share of other discretionary spending
overall.
And I think this, plus giving an initial bump to their
resourcing, would be my top issue, particularly considering
that they return over $100 in value for each dollar of their
budget for taxpayers, and I think there are a lot of savings
that are still on the table that they could help deliver.
Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Great.
Ms. Ginsberg. I think my number one is really easy. Like,
a complete revamping of the CRS website where you can see and
understand the products more effectively and know what they
have and can get it very quickly. I think that the content that
they do make is incredible content. I just wish we could find
it.
And then the second thing I would say is really
reinforcing a customer-service focus from everyone at that
agency so that they are getting our feedback regularly, there
is a place for us to give that feedback.
But a component of that customer-service focus is really
hiring a staff that is diverse and to have a component of
inclusion in that so that they can reflect the people that they
are serving more effectively and be more customer-centric.
Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Do you think that the----
Ms. Ginsberg. Yeah.
Mr. Joyce. If I can?
Ms. Ginsberg. There is a followup.
Mr. Joyce of Ohio [continuing]. That, you know, perhaps
they should be advising Congress on what reports should be
mandated?
Ms. Ginsberg. They should be advising Congress, or
Congress should be advising them? Wait----
Mr. Joyce of Ohio. They advise us. Like, you know, they
say they only have so much bandwidth. So, if there are agencies
that need a report, which reports are truly necessary?
Ms. Ginsberg. I think that if there is a resource issue,
they should be making that clear to the appropriators that
there is a resourcing issue there.
But in terms of what Congress's needs are, it should be
definitely Congress telling CRS what to prioritize. We should
be telling them what to prioritize, and they should be
anticipating the needs of Congress.
They have a much longer history of what has happened in
Congress. They should be able to see the cycles as they are
coming their way. That is part of the glory of what it means to
be from CRS, is to have this long-term view to be able to
anticipate and remember that these things have happened and
what they have looked like and how the context is different
now.
So the argument that they don't have the bandwidth there,
I understand a lot of it, but a lot of it is just failing to
appropriately prioritize and think through the needs of
Congress.
Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Got it. Thank you.
Ms. Ginsberg. Yeah.
Mr. Joyce of Ohio. The fine Dr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. Yes, thank you, Mr. Joyce.
So the first is just expanding on something I mentioned
earlier, which was access to data and access to information.
The thing that I did not mention earlier is, you know, the
CBO statute basically says that the executive branch needs to
respond if somebody from CBO calls and is looking for
information from the executive branch, but it doesn't say who
in the executive branch needs to respond.
And I think there are a number of occasions where a CBO
analyst will try to call an agency and they will get the, sort
of, congressional affairs office. And they don't want to talk
to the congressional affairs office; they want to talk to the
people who actually understand the programs.
And so getting down to that level--and whether that
requires some kind of a statutory change or something else,
but, you know, I think--and it is uneven. You know, some
agencies are very happy to have the CBO analyst, you know, talk
to somebody at the level of the program, but others, it is more
difficult.
I think the second is, you know, continued attention to
how information is accessed. You know, I teach a bunch of 18-
to 23-year-olds, and they access the entire world through their
phones. So, you know, if you can't access the products of these
agencies on your phone in a way, you know, where it is easily
accessible and you are able to find the information you need,
you know, very quickly, then we are losing a large percentage
of the population.
Mr. Joyce of Ohio. As someone who went to law school back
in the days when you actually had to Shepardize cases by
yourself in the law library, I appreciate that.
Mr. Joyce. Right.
Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Dr. Joyce, are you related to Mr. Joyce?
Mr. Joyce. Not that I know of.
Mr. Davis. Interesting. Interesting.
Mr. Joyce. But he is from Ohio and I am from northwestern
Pennsylvania, so we are not that far away from each other.
Mr. Davis. Oh. Are you related to our other colleague Dr.
Joyce?
Mr. Joyce. Not that I know.
Mr. Davis. Dr. Joyce, Dr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. Maybe back in Ireland at some point, you know,
in the distant past.
Mr. Davis. You know, this has been very interesting. I
missed the last panel, but to hear the comments from each of
you after, you know, hearing from those who run these
departments, it is interesting. Because I think you all bring
up very valid points. And we all have the same goal, which is
to make the House work better.
I was very interested in a comment you made, Dr. Ginsberg.
You mentioned--and let me make sure I heard it correctly. You
mentioned that people at CRS get promoted for the length of
what they write?
Ms. Ginsberg. I would say that, when I worked there, there
was a definite incentive to write the piece de resistance of
your subject matter and that the depth and length were a part
of that calculus.
There is a whole package that you put together for a
promotion, but showing that you have a deep knowledge is a
component of that. And one way to demonstrate you have a deep
knowledge is to write a really long report.
Mr. Davis. Really.
Ms. Ginsberg. Uh-huh.
Mr. Davis. Which is actually the antithesis of what we
probably want in a congressional office, to want to get to the
point.
Look, I was a 16-year staffer. I looked at CRS reports as
gospel. You know, they put it out, and this is exactly what--we
thought it was one of the most well-researched pieces,
articles, that we could get to be able to respond to our
constituents.
As you can tell from my brief question that I am going to
follow up with Dr. Mazanec about, I don't sense that is the
case as much anymore from my staff on House Administration and
my team, and that is frustrating.
What can we do to change the culture? If promotions depend
upon longer reports, which is not conducive in today's day and
age with social media and what have you, they are not putting
out as many reports and fulfilling Congress's needs if they are
worried about their own promotion and putting a booklet
together that, I don't know about you, but, I mean, Joyce
probably isn't going to read. I would read it, but, you know--
--
Ms. Ginsberg. I definitely think there can be a
disconnect, in many cases, between what works within the agency
and what serves the Congress.
I think there needs to be conversations with the union
inside of CRS about what we can do to make sure that we are all
sprinting toward a mission that is the service of Congress,
which is the mission, and how do we get there, and how do we
make sure you are getting measured on the right metrics, that
your performance is achieving that particular mission.
And those are hard conversations. I just think we should
be having them and not ignoring them.
Mr. Davis. So I really enjoyed your testimony, but give me
the biggest surprise you have had, moving from CRS. And were
you customer-facing there at CRS?
Ms. Ginsberg. Yeah, I was one of the analysts who answered
a lot of questions, particularly on Freedom of Information Act,
Federal advisory committees. All the stuff nobody knows
anything about, that was my portfolio.
Mr. Davis. Oh.
Ms. Ginsberg. Yeah.
Mr. Davis. Very appropriate nowadays. Very much so.
What was your biggest surprise, coming over here? I mean,
you are a staff director. So what was your surprise of how you
then viewed CRS once you left?
Ms. Ginsberg. I would say my biggest surprise was that--in
CRS, a lot of what you do is very insular work. You are almost
like an academic, right? You are adjacent to an academic, and
it is very solo. Whereas, on the Hill, everything is
collaborative. Every email I send has, I think, maybe too many
people on it, but a lot of people on it, so that we can all
sort of be moving in the same direction together. And that is
just not the culture at CRS. It is much more of a, you do it
solo and prove who you are, more academic-facing.
And I don't expect CRS to become E&Y. I don't think that
is right either. But there has to be a balance that is struck
where you are somewhere in between an academic institution and
an institution that has this amazing pedestal helping Congress
gets its work done. And I don't think it is hitting there yet.
I think it is leaning toward academia, and it needs to be a bit
more of a forward-facing, customer-service-focused entity.
Mr. Davis. Do you think that is the personnel they have
there that is the problem? Do you think we need more people
with experience like yours to be over there to try and relay
and be that bridge between Congress and the congressional
staffs and the insular CRS staff you just mentioned?
Ms. Ginsberg. I think everyone should be a waitress at
some point in their life. That is just me, personally, but----
Mr. Davis. I asked, ``Do you want fries with that?'' at my
first job, and it was the best job that prepared me for this
place.
Ms. Ginsberg. Agree.
I think that CRS could--again, it is an academic arena,
and a lot of people come out of academia from there. And
academia is not known for its customer service. So, if you are
in a leadership position, you might want to help get some
training for people on what it means to be customer-focused and
customer-centric. And I never got that once when I was at CRS.
Mr. Davis. Wow.
Last question/comment. My questions I had for Dr. Mazanec
actually centered around the lack of cooperation between CRS
and the Library of Congress's inspector general. I had a quick
conversation with her out in the hall. She said that that may
not be the case, in her opinion.
But you are on the Oversight Committee. We on House
Administration are not exercising our proper oversight
responsibility over CRS and over the Library of Congress in
this case. I would love to work with your committee, your
teams, to be able to get some of these questions answered.
So take that back to my colleagues on Oversight. Because I
think it would be very beneficial for us to maybe utilize some
of our oversight responsibilities to get some of these
suggestions directly to CRS.
So, with that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you.
And I know you are here only in your capacity as having
worked at CRS, so----
Ms. Ginsberg. Thank you, Chairman.
The Chairman. You got it.
With that, let me--anybody else have any questions that we
didn't get to?
I want to thank Mr. Perlmutter. I know that both he and
Ms. Williams had three hearings at the same time. But the
ability to join us virtually, I am very grateful for that.
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today
and thank our committee members for their participation.
Thank you to our staff for pulling together another
terrific hearing with some very informative witnesses.
So, without objection, all members will have 5 legislative
days within which to submit additional written questions for
the witnesses to the chair, which will be forwarded to the
witnesses for their response.
I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as they
are able.
The Chairman. Without objection, all members will have 5
legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials to
the chair for inclusion in the record.
While I'm giving thanks I should also give thanks to the
Ed & Labor Committee for hosting us, so thank you to them as
well and with that this hearing is adjourned.
Adjoured at 10:51 a.m.
APPENDIX I
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
APPENDIX II
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]