[Senate Hearing 117-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Law Libraries
Dear Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Braun, and Members of the
subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) in support of the Fiscal
Year (FY) 2023 budget requests of the U.S. Government Publishing Office
(GPO) and the Library of Congress.
AALL is a national organization representing more than 3,500 law
librarians and legal information professionals. AALL members work in
many library settings, including law schools and law firms; federal,
state, and county governments; and Federal and State courts. Law
librarians and legal information professionals rely on resources and
publications provided for free by the GPO, the Library of Congress, and
the Law Library of Congress to support the legal research needs of
students, attorneys, self-represented litigants, and members of the
public.
AALL thanks the subcommittee for its support of the prior year's
funding requests of the GPO and the Library of Congress. Past funding
has allowed the GPO and the Library of Congress to develop innovative
partnerships with Federal agencies and law libraries to digitize,
preserve, and provide public access to primary legal materials,
including the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.
Partnerships between law libraries, the GPO, and the Law Library of
Congress promote access to justice by making legal materials easier for
legal researchers and the public to find, understand, and use. Recent
funding has also enabled the GPO and the Law Library of Congress to
create new public resources including legal research guides and online
trainings on a variety of government information topics that are
helpful to legal researchers, such as how to find Federal legislation
on Congress.gov and how to track Federal regulations.
AALL supports the FY 2023 funding requests of the GPO and the
Library of Congress because this funding will allow these agencies to
continue to build valuable partnerships with law libraries and other
stakeholders, pursue digitization initiatives, and expand projects that
provide greater access to current and historical legal information in
print and online. We urge the subcommittee to approve the FY 2023
funding requests of the GPO and the Library of Congress.
funding for the u.s. government publishing office
The GPO produces, organizes, authenticates, disseminates, and
preserves official Federal legal information and government documents
for the public. Approximately 200 law libraries partner with the GPO
through the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) to provide public
access to legal materials in print and online. Law librarians and legal
information professionals also frequently use the govinfo website to
support the legal research needs of law library patrons.
With the subcommittee's support of the GPO's past funding requests,
the GPO has increased access to electronic Federal information through
the FDLP; partnered with libraries to digitize, preserve, and provide
public access to core legal materials and government publications; and
added new public collections of primary legal materials to govinfo,
including digitized historical volumes of the United States
Congressional Serial Set which are now available to the public at no
cost for the first time.
AALL urges the subcommittee to approve the GPO's FY 2023 funding
request of $130.9 million. The request will provide the funds the GPO
needs to make Federal Government publications available to Federal
depository libraries in digital and print formats. AALL is supportive
of the goals of the GPO's new task force to study the feasibility of an
all-digital FDLP, which comes at a time when some law libraries are
updating their collection development policies to select more
electronic resources because of changing patron preferences due to the
COVID-19 pandemic or for other reasons.
The GPO's funding will also be used to develop the govinfo website,
which provides free public access to official publications such as
bills and statutes, Federal regulations, and Federal court opinions. We
are excited about the GPO's plans to collaborate with Federal partners
and libraries to add more information to the govinfo website. Adding
information such as historical agency documents and Congressional
reports and hearings to govinfo will promote the principles of open,
equitable, and reliable public access to legal information that are
described in the AALL Guiding Principles for Public Access to Legal
Information on Government Websites (AALL Guiding Principles). AALL is
proud that GPO endorsed the AALL Guiding Principles in May 2021, and we
appreciate the GPO's plans to further develop govinfo.
funding for the library of congress
The Law Library of Congress provides legal research services and
public access to an extensive collection of foreign, comparative,
international, and United States law. Law librarians and legal
information professionals at academic law libraries and public law
libraries often refer patrons to the Law Library of Congress for its
unique collections of legal materials in print and online, including
the digitized United States Statutes at Large dating back to 1781,
official foreign legal gazettes, and Spanish legal documents from the
15th to 19th centuries.
The subcommittee's approval of past funding for the Library of
Congress and the Law Library of Congress has enabled the Law Library to
digitize, preserve, and provide the public with access to many
collections of legal materials from the United States and other
countries. The Law Library of Congress' current project to digitize and
ingest its legal reports on foreign, comparative, and international law
topics including cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, and data
protection is especially helpful to law librarians and legal
information professionals because these reports analyze laws in many
countries and link to primary sources. The Law Library of Congress'
extensive collections of print and online foreign official gazettes
dating back to the mid-19th century are also very useful to law
librarians and legal information professionals because many of these
materials are not available at other law libraries.
AALL urges the subcommittee to support the Library of Congress' FY
2023 funding request of $871.8 million, including $17.6 million for the
Law Library of Congress. This request will lead to increased access to
the Law Library of Congress' collections of legal materials.
The Law Library of Congress' FY 2023 funding request will
accelerate progress on the digitization of additional volumes of the
United States Congressional Serial Set in partnership with the GPO and
the digitization of the United States Supreme Court Records and Briefs.
These publications are important to legal researchers and will become
even more useful once they are digitized and available for free. The
funding request will also allow the Law Library to continue to
reclassify legal materials in its collection to make these materials
more accessible to the public and to protect important print materials
contained in storage.
conclusion
AALL appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony in
support of the FY 2023 funding requests of the U.S. Government
Publishing Office and the Library of Congress. Please let us know if we
can provide additional information as you develop the FY 2023
Legislative Branch funding bill.
[This statement was submitted by Diane M. Rodriguez, President]
______
Prepared Statement of American Bar Association
Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Braun:
I am Reginald Turner, President of the American Bar Association
(ABA), which is the largest voluntary association of lawyers and legal
professionals in the world. I am pleased to submit this testimony on
behalf of the ABA to urge your strong support for the FY 2023 budget
request of the Library of Congress. As consumers of the resources of
the Library and Law Library of Congress, we cannot overstate the value
of these unrivaled world-class institutions to Congress, the legal
profession, American business, academia, and the public. We appreciate
your support for the much-needed funding increase that the Library of
Congress received in FY 2022, and we respectfully request that you fund
the Library's FY 2023 budget request in its entirety.
As you know, the Library of Congress is requesting a modest
increase for FY 2023 over its FY 2022 enacted appropriation. That
increase would, among other things, fund the completion of key
projects, increase the Library's resilience against cybersecurity
threats, and improve public access to the Library's physical and
virtual collections, an increasingly important function as the country
emerges from the COVID-19-related quarantine. The proposed increase
would also help provide necessary support for the Law Library of
Congress, and it would help the Copyright Office to improve its ability
to manage, validate, and report on the metrics that affect its user
fees that comprise half of its budget.
Founded by Congress in 1800 as its research arm, the Library of
Congress is the oldest Federal cultural institution in the Nation. Over
its history, the Library has grown into an unparalleled public resource
of staggering proportion, housing more than 168 million items in 90
collections, including books, periodicals, film, and audio recordings.
Similarly, the Law Library of Congress, authorized by Congress in 1832,
has grown from its modest beginnings to become the world's largest
repository of legal materials, including more than 2.9 million legal
volumes and periodicals.
The magnitude of these priceless collections in both size and
significance to our Nation and to the world cannot be overstated. Their
immense scope creates unique challenges, including managing their daily
growth and administration. These are our National treasures, and the
funding required to keep the Library of Congress and Law Library of
Congress running at full capacity is a wise investment of taxpayer
dollars.
We know through our 90-year collaboration with the Law Library that
it supports all three branches of government with complex foreign,
comparative, and international research and guidance. In addition, the
executive branch's reliance on the Law Library's foreign law expertise
is steadily increasing, as is the number of requests for legal opinions
from Federal executive branch agencies.
The Law Library's contributions to Congress during the current
pandemic have included over 550 reports on many different subjects,
including many involving national security and issues of comparative
law relating to government operations in emergency situations. The Law
Library conducted research, prepared reports, and collaborated with
Federal officials at numerous agencies including the Department of
Homeland Security, Department of State, and Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA). Responding quickly to the war in Ukraine, Law Library foreign
law specialists provided important country-specific information to
congressional and CIA staff. In addition to supporting Congress and the
executive branch, the Law Library also has continued to leverage
technology to increase its contributions to the judiciary, the public,
and the legal profession through webinars offered through its Legal
Research Institute; expanded access to digitized materials; and
continued operation of services such as ``Ask a Librarian,'' its In
Custodia Legis blog, and Congress.gov.
The Law Library remains committed to fulfilling its mission of
serving Congress and the Nation through the priorities outlined last
year, including preserving hard copies of legal materials, further
developing access to these materials online through digitization, and
strengthening staff expertise in foreign law and collection
stewardship. Another important priority is modernizing the Law
Library's facilities by replacing its third quadrant of compact
shelving, which has become dangerously unusable and houses a
significant portion of the world's largest and most comprehensive
collection of international, foreign, national, and comparative legal
resources. The Law Library of Congress must also address the critical
area of cybersecurity to protect congressional and other high-value
digital assets within the Law Library. We strongly support these
priorities. Because the Law Library does not have an independent line
item in the Federal budget, one of the best ways to ensure adequate
funding for these priorities is by fully funding the Library of
Congress' overall request.
In closing, we respectfully urge you to grant the Library of
Congress' funding request for FY 2023 in its entirety. We appreciate
the support you have shown for the Library of Congress and Law Library
of Congress and hope you will continue to find the means to protect and
enhance the value of these treasures built over the past 220 years for
all Americans, now and for generations to come.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of American Library Association
Chair Reed, Ranking Member Braun, and Members of the subcommittee:
On behalf of the American Library Association, thank you for the
opportunity to submit this testimony regarding Legislative Branch
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2023. We respectfully request the
Committee's support for the Library of Congress and the Government
Publishing Office, which provide important services to libraries and
residents nationwide.
library of congress
The Library of Congress not only serves Congress, but also delivers
important benefits for libraries across the country and the American
public.
After several years of investment in the Library's Visitor
Experience Initiative, the first phase is expected to open in fall
2023. Carrying through on these investments will highlight the
Library's unique collections and inspire millions of visitors to learn,
create, and innovate.
The Library's services also reach far beyond its walls through
programs such as the National Library Service for the Blind and Print
Disabled, which serves readers nationwide who cannot see print or
handle print materials. The service supports a network of regional
libraries, such as the Rhode Island Office of Library and Information
Services' Talking Books Library and the Indiana Talking Book & Braille
Library, and is expanding delivery of specialized eReaders to more
efficiently and effectively serve braille and talking book users.
government publishing office
The Government Publishing Office provides essential information to
America's businesses, legal system, and researchers.
Through the Public Information Programs of the Superintendent of
Documents, the Office provides Federal publications in digital and
tangible formats to 1,113 libraries nationwide through the Federal
Depository Library Program, as well as cataloging and indexing of
Federal publications to improve public access. The program supports
Americans' access to these publications--including Federal laws,
regulations, and reports--through participating libraries, such as the
Indiana State Library and the Westerly Library in Rhode Island.
In addition, the Office annually collects and provides access to
thousands of new Federal publications to its free online repository,
govinfo.gov. To preserve these important documents of our republic, GPO
manages a cooperative preservation program with libraries across the
country.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee in
support of the Fiscal Year 2023 requests of the Library of Congress and
the Government Publishing Office. We ask for the subcommittee's support
in meeting the requests for these important national programs that
serve Congress, libraries, and the American public.
Sincerely,
Gavin Baker
Deputy Director, Public Policy and Government Relations
American Library Association
The American Library Association (``ALA'') is the foremost national
organization providing resources to inspire library and information
professionals to transform their communities through essential programs
and services. For more than 140 years, the ALA has been the trusted
voice for academic, public, school, government and special libraries,
advocating for the profession and the library's role in enhancing
learning and ensuring access to information for all.
______
Prepared Statement of Bipartisan Policy Center Action (BPC Action)
Dear Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Braun, and members of the
subcommittee:
The Bipartisan Policy Center Action (BPC Action) and our affiliate
organization Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) have actively engaged in
strengthening the capacity of our country's governing institutions and
building a Congress that is responsive to a diverse nation. BPC Action
and BPC believe that if Congress is to effectively govern, it must have
the ability to operate effectively and efficiently. Given this
challenge, we understand the critical importance of ensuring that the
legislative branch has adequate resources and direction to support this
mission.
BPC Action's testimony builds on our ongoing work with the Senate
including our work to support the Senate subcommittee on Legislative
Branch Appropriations' mission. Their work and diverse recommendations,
aimed at improving the workings of the legislative branch, including
administrative responsibilities, civility and collaboration, staff
retention, and science and technology capabilities, are critical to
improve the daily functioning of the House. Regarding Fiscal Year 2023
(FY23), we would ask that the subcommittee on Legislative Branch
Appropriations consider the following recommendations to further
increase congressional capacity.
Promoting civility and collaboration.--BPC Action's core mission is
to foster bipartisanship and uphold the best policy proposals from both
parties with a pragmatic approach. This means we must push for more
ways members and staff can collaborate on legislation and policy
priorities. This can be achieved in a multitude of ways, including
promoting civility, collaboration, and leadership in party by directing
the Architect of the Capitol to explore bipartisan co-working spaces
for staff.
Expanding connectivity and technology availability.--For years,
civil society organizations have worked with committees and members on
Capitol Hill to foster bipartisan conversations and relationships. From
presenting research to best practices, these groups have been a vital
source of information and have created a forum to promote policy
recommendations to help the American people. To continue these efforts,
resources should be used to provide information on organizations and
resources members can utilize to participate in facilitated
conversations with the goal of fostering common ground.
1. Establish a web portal with staff contact information for the
House, Senate, and congressional support agencies to enhance the
exchange of information. The portal should contain a directory with
standardized indicators of issue areas and committees connected with
each staff member.
2. Develop and deploy new technology tools to better enable
Members and staff to identify policy areas of common interest on which
to collaborate.
Focusing on engagement regarding near- and long-term advice by GAO
(Government Accountability Office).--Over its history, the GAO has
provided critical support through its audits, legal options, program
evaluation, technology assessments, and other activities. Despite the
tremendous governmental benefits, the agency's capabilities have been
limited in keeping pace with the expanse of the Federal Government's
programs and expenditures. The GAO's work to provide essential
'oversight, insight, and foresight' requires ongoing vigilance to
support Congress' core functions.
1. GAO and other support agencies must take steps to ensure that
their products, services, and outreach are designed to adapt to and
meet the customer needs of an evolving Congress. This is especially
true in terms of timely responses to members' and committees' enquiries
to the Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics (STAA) Team. In
the near term, we urge the GAO to direct additional staff to address
responses to congressional requests.
2. In the longer term, the GAO should provide additional attention
to the ``foresight element'' when considering issues that are
fundamental to impacting longer-term trends and how Congress should be
prepared to respond. This horizon-scanning focus within the STAA on
health, defense, information technology, climate, and other vital
issues is crucial and requires more attention by the agency.
Continuing the GAO audits of congressionally directed spending from
members.--The subcommittee should provide report language direction to
the GAO to allow them to review and audit members' community project
funding requests for FY23. If such requests are included in the
appropriate, final subcommittee bills, then the GAO will likely need
such approval to continue to examine these additional requests beyond
FY22.
Ensuring accessibility.--Changes to the Capitol complex can be a
challenging undertaking, but it is important to modernize the space
just as much as the governing body. BPC Action supports removing
accessibility barriers in the Capitol Complex and believes a directed
study is necessary to explore what would help staff, members, and the
public with accessibility needs.
Our organization looks forward to continuing to engage with the
subcommittee as the FY23 process continues. BPC Action recognizes the
challenges you face to ensure that funds and statutory direction is
provided for the legislative branch are targeted to address a
multiplicity of critical needs.
[This statement was submitted by Michele Stockwell, Executive
Director]
______
Prepared Statement of Demand Progress
Dear Chair Reed, Ranking Member Braun, and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for your continuing stewardship of Senate operations
during these challenging times. This testimony encourages you to
further improve access to bills and amendments considered on the Senate
floor. Specifically, I urge you to bolster timely access within the
Senate to the full text of legislation and amendments being considered
on the floor and to improve the tools through which the text can be
analyzed. Furthermore, I encourage the contemporaneous publication of
bills and amendments considered on the Senate floor to the public.
These recommendations implicate the operations of the Secretary of the
Senate, the Government Publishing Office, and others.
In making these recommendations, I am aware of the geometrically
increasing responsibilities placed on the support offices and agencies
that manage the legislative workflow, notably the Secretary of the
Senate, Senate Office of the Legislative Counsel, the Parliamentarian
of the Senate, Government Publishing Office, and the House analogues.
Efforts to improve the transparency of legislative activity should be
coupled with improved workflow and efficiency that lessen the burdens
placed on these offices. Accordingly, it is appropriate to consider the
full processes by which legislative information is managed in the
Senate and elsewhere.
The Congressional Record provides the most complete public source
for information for bill text and amendments. However, it is published
after the conclusion of legislative proceedings and thereby provides a
retrospective look at what happened. In circumstances where bills or
amendments were offered on the same day they were considered, there is
no systematic concurrent public availability of the text with the
deliberations.
The legislative information website Congress.gov provides a user-
friendly resource for bill text for congressional staff and the public
alike. For various reasons, at times it can take days or weeks for the
text of legislation to be available on Congress.gov, and publication
may occur after a measure has been considered by the Senate. The
Government Publishing Office noted in recent testimony that, on
average, it takes a week for introduced legislation to show up online,
and at the height of the pandemic there was an 1,800 bill publication
backlog that took several months to resolve.\1\ Furthermore,
Congress.gov does not include the text of Senate floor amendments, but
instead provides a hyperlink to the Congressional Record, which is not
as user-friendly.
The Senate maintains an internal website available only to
individuals with a Senate IP address that provides significant
contemporaneous information about pending bills and amendments.\2\ This
internal system publishes only the first hundred or so pages of a
measure and the text is internally published as image PDFs. These
practices add a level of difficulty to reviewing the entire text of a
measure and searching and analyzing its contents.
By comparison, the House of Representatives, which operates under
significantly different rules, publishes the full text of legislation
to be considered on the floor and all proposed amendments thereto on
public websites prior to consideration.\3\ Generally speaking, the
legislation is published both as a PDF and as an XML file, the latter
of which contains important bill metadata. The House-run websites
provide the best official resource for timely access to this
information, although in time it becomes available in the Congressional
Record and on Congress.gov. In addition, the House's comparative print
project uses this data to make it possible for some--and soon all--
staff to see in real time how a proposed amendment would modify a bill
and how a proposed bill would change the law. One limitation to the
House's approach is that most users start their search for legislative
information at Congress.gov, which publishes only a subset of this
information.
It would be superfluous to address in this testimony the strengths
and limitations for internal stakeholders of the current Senate
amendment tracking system. With respect to external stakeholders, the
current system creates unequal access to information, whereby those
with connections to Senate offices can at times gain access to
information more readily than those who do not. While some information
asymmetries are inevitable, privileged access to public business that
currently is the subject of floor debate should be minimized to the
extent practically possible.
Congressional offices, the public, and the press need greater
assistance with tracking and accessing bills and amendments being
debated on the Senate floor. In our modern era, this suggests
contemporaneous online availability of the text of legislation and
amendments and improved archival access. I encourage the Senate to
consider a multi-pronged approach.
First, I suggest a review of the current mechanisms the Senate uses
to publish legislative information internally, the fitness and
adaptability of technologies used in the House, and an exploration of
technologies and tools currently employed inside the Legislative branch
(such as Congress.gov) as well as those in other legislatures (such as
the UK Parliament).
Second, I suggest an examination of the extent to which the text of
legislation and amendments printed in the Congressional Record also are
contemporaneously published on Congress.gov, and an exploration of the
various points in the legislative process where bill text and
amendments exist in final form.
Third, I urge a review of the Senate legislative workflow to
facilitate an improved understanding of whether greater efficiencies
can be brought to bear on that process. In doing so, it would be
productive to sound out a wide variety of perspectives from internal
and external stakeholders. Establishing a working group to surface and
evaluate these perspectives may yield outsized benefits to the Senate,
just as the work of the Legislative Branch Bulk Data Task Force is an
ongoing boon for the Legislative branch.
Taken together, this should result in a deeper, shared
understanding of the current processes, ongoing efforts to address
these issues, and the identification of potential improvements that are
implementable in the short-term as well as possible enhancements to the
system over the long-term. The perfect should not be the enemy of the
good, and steady progress would be most welcome with respect to
improving public availability of legislative information with an eye to
its publication in interoperable, structured-data formats.\4\ We expect
the Legislative Branch Bulk Data Task Force would be an invaluable
sounding board concerning building a robust system that can endure and
be extended over time.
I encourage you to consider inclusion of the following report language:
--Improving Accessibility of Senate Legislation: The Secretary of the
Senate will create a working group to investigate and provide a
report within 180 days of enactment to the Appropriations
Committee and the Senate Rules Committee, which shall be
published online by the Secretary within two weeks of
submission, concerning potential issues and possible approaches
to develop and implement a timely, centralized, publicly-
available repository for Senate bills and amendments set for
consideration on the Senate floor. In doing so, consideration
should be given to providing that bills, amendments, and other
related documents are publicly available prior to or
contemporaneously with their consideration by the Senate as
well as publication of that information in a structured data
format such as United States Legislative Markup (USLM).
--The Senate Accessible Legislation Task Force should be led by the
Secretary of the Senate and include the stakeholders she seems
appropriate. In formering her recommendations, the Secretary
should consult with relevant Senate leadership, committee, and
member offices; relevant Senate support offices and agencies;
equivalent House leadership, committee, personal, and support
offices; members of the Bulk Data Task Force; members of the
Legislative Branch XML Working Group; the Government Publishing
Office; the National Archives and Records Administration;
public stakeholders, including publishers, users, and experts
on legislative data as well as repositories of legislative
information; select national legislatures from around the
world; and others as appropriate. The Secretary should also
examine the House document repository docs.house.gov, the House
Rules committee website rules.house.gov, and third party free
and paid services that publish information about Senate
legislation.
--The report should address the feasibility and costs of upgrading
the current system used by the Senate, developing a new system
inside the Senate or in collaboration with Legislative branch
partners, using or extending the House's system as is or with
modifications, and doing so with the focus of ensuring that
Senate bills and amendments are publicly accessible online for
years to come. Furthermore, the Secretary should factor in the
extensibility of such a system to incorporate technology
similar in purpose to the House's comparative print project as
well as to potentially extend to hosting documents and media
that relate to the various stages of deliberations, including
in committees. The Secretary should also make recommendations
concerning facilitating internal and external stakeholder
engagement regarding the planning, implementation, and
operation of this and successor systems, including drafting a
continuing mission statement for the Senate Accessible
Legislation Task Force after the delivery of the report.
Finally, the Secretary should address how her recommendations
improve the workflow and efficient management of legislative
information.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Testimony of Government Publishing Office Director Hugh
Nathanial Halpern before the Select Committee on the Modernization of
Congress Hearing entitled ``Modernizing the Legislative Process''
(April 2022), https://modernizecongress.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
GPO_TESTIMONY_
Modernizing%20the%20Legislative%20Process.pdf.
\2\ The website is the Amendment Tracking System, available at
ats.senate.gov. According to the Congressional Research Service, ``ATS
is a web application that displays images of submitted and proposed
amendments to legislation pending before the U.S. Senate. Amendments
are available on ATS approximately 15 minutes after the Bill Clerk
receives them.'' See Policy and Legislative Research for Congressional
Staff: Finding Documents, Analysis, News, and Training (2019),
Congressional Research Service (R43434), https://
www.everycrsreport.com/
reports/R43434.html.
\3\ The text of legislation scheduled to be considered on the House
floor is published at https://docs.house.gov/floor/and prior notice of
legislation expected to be considered is published by the House
Majority Leader. The text of amendments to legislation scheduled to be
considered on the floor is published by the House Rules Committee at
https://rules.house.gov/legislation.
\4\ The United States Legislative Markup Schema already in use by
the Congress would easily satisfy this request. See https://github.com/
usgpo/uslm.
[This statement was submitted by Daniel Schuman, Policy Director]
______
Prepared Statement of Lincoln Network
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Braun, and Members of the subcommittee:
My name is Dan Lips. I am head of policy at Lincoln Network. I
respectfully urge the subcommittee to fully fund the Comptroller
General's budget request of $810 million for the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) for FY2023 (an increase of $91 million or
12.7 percent).\1\ Fully funding this request would allow the
Comptroller General to increase GAO's staffing by 100 FTEs. In addition
to providing funding, I respectfully urge the subcommittee to consider
ways to increase GAO's return-on-investment through several reporting
requirements aimed to leverage its nonpartisan oversight to achieve
taxpayer savings and other government improvements.
The Comptroller General estimates that GAO's annual return-on-
investment has been $158 to $1 over the past 5 years. During that
period, GAO's work resulted in more than 1,300 program and operational
improvements. Overall, GAO's work has resulted in more than $1.2
trillion in financial benefits since 2002.\2\
But these positive financial contributions for the Federal
Government are only the tip of the iceberg of what GAO could accomplish
if the nonpartisan watchdog agency had additional resources and its
recommendations were implemented in a timelier manner. For example, GAO
States that there are 4,681 open recommendations as of May 27, 2022,
including 416 priority recommendations. The latter recommendations
could ``save large amounts of money'' according to GAO.\3\
How much could be saved if GAO had more resources and agencies
acted upon its recommendations in a timely manner? The answer is likely
tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars. For example, my review of
nonpublic data showing GAO's financial accomplishments from 2002 to
2019 found that more than 200 of GAO's recommendations have resulted in
more than $1 billion in financial benefits during that period.\4\
Fully funding the Comptroller General's FY2023 budget request will
increase GAO's capacity to conduct nonpartisan oversight and improve
government operations for Congress and American taxpayers. In addition,
Congress should explore other ways to increase GAO's return on
investment. In the report accompanying the FY2023 funding bill, the
subcommittee should include reporting requirements to identify how
Congress could achieve taxpayer savings and other government
improvements by leveraging GAO's nonpartisan oversight.
First, the Committee should direct the Comptroller General to
report to Congress about the feasibility of setting deadlines for
Federal agencies to implement open recommendations. According to GAO's
2021 performance and accountability report, GAO's 4-year implementation
rate for recommendations made in FY2017 was 76 percent.\5\ That is
below GAO's target of 80 percent. Moreover, only 45 percent of GAO's
recommendations made in FY2019 were implemented within 2 years.\6\
Improving the timeliness of this implementation rate and helping GAO to
achieve its goal of 80 percent implementation within 4 years would
drive significant taxpayer savings and government improvements.
In 2015, Deloitte published an analysis of past GAO reports and
examined the issue of the timeliness of implementation. Authors Daniel
Byler, Steve Berman, and William D. Eggers explained that,
``GAO could address this issue by setting target completion
dates for implementing each recommendation and then making
real-time data available to the public showing how long it is
taking each agency to implement GAO recommendations.'' \7\
Congress should require the Comptroller General to study and report
on the feasibility of establishing target completion dates for open
recommendations and publicly tracking the status of agencies'
implementation to improve transparency and government accountability.
Second, the Committee should instruct the Comptroller General to
report to Congress recommendations for curbing improper payments by
establishing a ``permanent analytics center of excellence'' within the
oversight community. In March 2022 testimony, Comptroller General Gene
Dodaro explained that Federal agencies reported making $281 billion in
improper payments in FY2021.\8\ This was an increase of $75 billion in
improper payments made compared to the prior fiscal year.
GAO has issued several recommendations for how Congress and Federal
agencies could curb improper payments. In addition, GAO's Science,
Technology Assessment, and Analytics team has been developing
technology solutions to improve payment integrity. The Comptroller
General recently described ``10 ways to improve oversight of emergency
relief funds and future Federal spending.'' \9\ He recommended that
Congress establish ``a permanent analytics center of excellence to help
the oversight community better identify improper payments and fraud.''
To help address the annual $271 billion and growing problem of improper
payments, the Committee should require the Comptroller General to
provide a report to Congress with specific recommendations to curb
improper payments including by establishing a permanent analytic center
of excellence within the oversight community.
Third, the Committee should ask the Comptroller General to provide
a report to Congress with a blueprint for how the Government
Accountability Office could use a more substantial funding increase to
expand its oversight, enhance GAO's technical capabilities and create
additional taxpayer savings and other government benefits. While the
Committee and Congress have provided GAO with funding increases in
recent years, the Government Accountability Office continues to operate
below its historic funding and staffing levels. Specifically, budget
reductions in the 1990s resulted in significant staffing and budget
cuts to GAO's operations. If GAO was funded at the same percentage of
discretionary spending as it was in the early 1990s, its budget would
be more than $1 billion today.
In 2022 and beyond, additional funding for GAO could be used to
enhance the agency's information technology systems and capabilities.
Such investments could serve as a force multiplier for the entire
organization's work by improving productivity, expanding the work of
GAO's Innovation Lab, and protecting sensitive information.
Since GAO routinely returns more than $150 in financial benefits to
taxpayers for each dollar that it is provided, Congress should
recognize the substantial taxpayer savings and other government
improvements that could be made if GAO fully recovered from the 1990s
era budget and staffing reductions. In its FY2023 report, the
subcommittee should require the Comptroller General to describe how GAO
would expand its staffing and operations if its budget was increased to
more than $1 billion, or more. Specifically, it should explain what it
could accomplish and its estimated return on investment should its
funding be increased by $100 million, $200 million, $300 million, or
more, and the annual rate at which it could absorb such an increase.
This report should include a description of how a larger GAO could
improve oversight and governance, achieve taxpayer savings, and deepen
its responsiveness to members of Congress. GAO should also explore
whether there are alternative funding models that might be appropriate
to support its work.
conclusion
The funds that Congress appropriates to the Government
Accountability Office are among the best tax dollars that the
government spends on behalf of the American people. GAO regularly
reports a return-on-investment of more than $150 to $1. In FY2023, the
Committee should fully fund the Comptroller General's budget request
and require the Comptroller General to report to Congress on new ways
that the Legislative Branch can leverage GAO's nonpartisan oversight to
make the Federal Government work more efficiently for taxpayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-22-900396, Fiscal
Year 2023 Budget Request (2021), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-
900396.pdf.
\2\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-22-4SP, Performance
and Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2021 (2021), https://www.gao.gov/
assets/720/717654.pdf.
\3\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-21-591PR, Priority
Open Recommendations: Department of Transportation (2021), https://
www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-591pr.
\4\ Dan Lips, ``Reviewing the Data: How GAO Saves Taxpayer
Dollars,'' Lincoln Network, September 2021, https://lincolnpolicy.org/
2021/how-gao-saves-taxpayer-dollars/.
\5\ GAO, Performance and Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2021,
op. cit.
\6\ Ibid.
\7\ Daniel Byler, Steve Berman, and William D. Eggers,
``"Accountability quantified: What 26 years of GAO reports can teach us
about government management,'' Deloitte Insights, February 2015,
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/analytics/text-
analytics-and-gao-reports.
html.
\8\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Emergency Relief Funds
Significant Improvements Are Needed to Ensure Transparency and
Accountability for COVID-19 and Beyond (2022), https://www.gao.gov/
assets/gao-22-105715.pdf.
\9\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, ``GAO Urges Action: 10
Ways to Improve Oversight of Emergency Relief Funds and Future Federal
Spending,'' March 2022, ``https://www.gao.gov/press-release/gao-urges-
action-10-ways-improve-oversight-emergency-relief-funds-and-future-
federal-spending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of National Association of Latino Elected and
Appointed Officials (NALEO)
Dear Chair Reed, Ranking Member Braun, and Members of the Legislative
Branch Appropriations subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony concerning our
request for the creation of a Senate Office of Diversity and Inclusion.
We are a cross-partisan coalition of organizations concerned about
strengthening the diversity of staff that support the work of the
United States Senate.
When the 117th Congress was sworn in, it made history as the most
diverse congressional class our Nation has ever seen. Despite this
historic moment in our country's history, top Senate staffers do not
often reflect the makeup of the constituencies they serve, including
staffers of racial and ethnic minority groups, veterans, and people
with disabilities. An August 2020 report from the Joint Center for
Political and Economic Studies revealed that people of color account
for nearly 40 percent of the population of the United States, but only
11 percent of top Senate personal office staff.\1\
This shortfall reflects a fundamental problem our government has
with ensuring that the full spectrum of America's backgrounds and
experiences is represented by congressional staff. These discrepancies
are particularly troublesome in the wake of an increasing number of
elections that continue to produce diverse congressional makeup. In
addition, research has found that inclusive staffing is associated with
many positive benefits, including creativity, innovation, objectivity,
productivity and positive working environments.\2\
Congressional staff provide indispensable assistance and
irreplaceable institutional knowledge to senators as they conduct their
legislative, oversight, and constituent services duties. Nevertheless,
low staff pay is a barrier to entry into the senatorial hiring
pipeline, inadvertently biasing the hiring pool towards those
individuals with sufficient financial resources to supplement their
salaries. In addition, low pay creates incentives for experienced staff
to depart the Senate to the Executive branch and private sector, which
have significantly higher average salaries. These two factors, working
in tandem, impact staff diversity.
In 2019, the House of Representatives took a major step toward
addressing diversity and created its Office of Diversity and Inclusion
(OD&I) in its Rules package at the start of the 116th Congress,\3\
which may serve as a useful model for the Senate. House Rules required
the OD&I to develop a diversity plan,\4\ which addresses:
1. policies to direct and guide House offices to recruit, hire,
train, develop, advance, promote and retain a diverse workforce;
2. the development of a survey to evaluate diversity in House
offices;
3. a framework for the House of Representatives diversity report;
and
4. a proposal for the composition of an Advisory Council to inform
the work of the Office.
House Rules also require the OD&I to submit an annual demographic
and diversity report. The study involves surveying House staffers to
determine their demographic characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity,
gender, military status), and analyze how demographic diversity within
the House of Representatives compares to that of private sector
organizations and the broader Federal Government. Furthermore, the OD&I
proposed it oversee the undertaking of the House's annual compensation
and diversity study, in part to record staff job satisfaction, benefits
and compensation satisfaction, and perceptions of their workplace
diversity climate. These suggestions are reasonable, and we commend
them to you.
The purpose of gathering and publishing this information on staff
diversity is to strengthen the pipeline of capable and diverse staff
hired and retained by the Senate by providing information about the
current stay of play. This will let us know how the Senate is doing as
an institution and suggest where further improvements can be made. It
is not intended to draw public attention to the operations of any
particular office, nor should it intrude upon the privacy of any
individual.
We urge the committee to appropriate funds for the creation of its
own OD&I Office. The House established the OD&I as an independent
office, reporting directly to the authorizing committee, and has seen
immense success in its operations and information gathering. We do not
have a perspective on where to situate a Senate OD&I, although there is
value in having it be more visible and independent because that would
assist with its mission of supporting the hiring and retention of
capable, expert, diverse staff.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, ``Racial Diversity Among Top Staff In Senate Personal
Offices'' p. 2. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
(August 2020). https://jointcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-
Senate-Report-Draft_08-21-20-5AM.pdf.
\2\ Dutton, Jane E. and Robert B. Duncan, ``Strategic Issue
Diagnosis and Creation of Momentum for Change.'' Strategic Management
Journal 8, no. 3 (1987): 279-295; Wiersma, Margarethe F. and Karen A.
Bantel, ``Top Management Team Demography and Corporate Strategic
Change.'' The Academy of Management Journal 35, no. 1 (March 1992): 91-
121; Maddock, Su. ``Change You Can Believe In: The Leadership of
Innovation.'' The Whitehall Innovation Hub, Sunningdale Institute,
National School of Government. (April 2009) https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/
264541467_Change_you_can_believe_in_the_
leadership_of_innovation.
\3\ See, H. Res 6 (116th), section 104(d) (p. 40), https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-116hres6eh/pdf/BILLS-116hres6eh.pdf.
\4\ See, Section by Section Analysis of H. Res 6 (116th Congress),
House Rules Committee p. 11 at https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/
20181231/116-HRes6-SxS-U1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of National Security Counselors
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Braun, and members of the Legislative
Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
submit this written testimony.
The Government Accountability Office plays a critical role in
Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch. Unfortunately, that
role may be stymied when it comes to the Intelligence Community
(``IC''). Despite the fact that, by statute, GAO already has the
purview to conduct oversight of all Federal agencies \1\ and has since
its creation in 1921,\2\ the IC has, with a few exceptions, insisted
that it is not subject to such audits since its inception. This
effectively deprives Congress of one of the most effective tools in its
arsenal, especially at a time when the activities of the IC present
some of the most pressing needs for robust oversight in the Executive
Branch. I respectfully recommend that Congress take steps to
conclusively validate GAO's jurisdiction in such matters.
In response to the IC's recalcitrance, some Members of Congress
have periodically attempted to resolve the matter over the past few
decades. For instance, then-Congressman Leon Panetta introduced a bill
in 1987 called the CIA Accountability Act to officially clarify GAO's
authority vis-a-vis the Central Intelligence Agency (``CIA'') and the
IC as a whole.\3\ Unfortunately, it was not enacted. In 1988, GAO
attempted to conduct an investigation ``[i]n order to evaluate whether
`information about illegal activities by high level officials of other
nations may not be adequately considered in U.S. foreign policy
decisions,''' leading the National Security Council to request an
opinion from the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel which
has been cited ever since:
We therefore conclude based on the nature of the GAO request
that the subject of the GAO investigation is the Executive's
discharge of its constitutional foreign policy
responsibilities, not its statutory responsibilities. The
subject is thus not ``a program or activity the Government
carries out under existing law,'' and it is beyond GAO's
authority under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 717(b) . . .
In addition to the infirmity in GAO's statutory authority to
pursue this investigation, we believe that GAO is specifically
precluded by statute from access to intelligence information.
In establishing by law the oversight relationship between the
intelligence committees and the executive branch, Congress
indicated that such oversight would be the exclusive means for
Congress to gain access to confidential intelligence
information in the possession of the executive branch.
This intelligence oversight system has been codified at 50
U.S.C. Sec. 413. That section sets forth requirements for the
Director of Central Intelligence, the heads of all other
Federal agencies involved in intelligence activities, and the
President to inform the Congress through the intelligence
committees (and in some circumstances the Speaker and minority
leader of the House of Representatives and the majority and
minority leaders of the Senate) of intelligence activities.\4\
Over two decades later, this fight was still underway. When an
amendment to the FY2010 Intelligence Authorization Act (``IAA'') sought
to reaffirm GAO authority, it prompted a veto threat in the form of a
letter from Director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter
Orszag,\5\ which Acting Comptroller General Gene Dodaro thoroughly
refuted, demonstrating that ``[n]either the language of section 413 nor
its legislative history provides support for this position'' and that
the IC's resistance ``has greatly impeded GAO's work for the
intelligence committees and also jeopardizes some of GAO's work for
other committees of jurisdiction, including Armed Services,
Appropriations, Judiciary, and Foreign Relations, among others.'' \6\
Despite Mr. Dodaro's testimony, the enacted law took a middle-of-
the-road approach, stating that clarification was necessary but
deferring to the Executive for that clarification, instructing the
Director of National Intelligence (``DNI'') to ``issue a written
directive governing the access of the Comptroller General to
information in the possession of an element of the intelligence
community.'' \7\ The DNI, for his part, issued Intelligence Community
Directive 114 the following year, which reluctantly admitted that GAO
had some authority to investigate the IC, but adopted a severely
restrictive interpretation of the scope of that authority:
Information that falls within the purview of the congressional
intelligence oversight committees generally shall not be made
available to GAO to support a GAO audit or review of core
national intelligence capabilities and activities, which
include intelligence collection operations, intelligence
analyses and analytical techniques, counterintelligence
operations, and intelligence funding. IC elements may on a
case-by-case basis provide information in response to any GAO
requests not related to GAO audits or reviews of core national
intelligence capabilities and activities.\8\
In other words, GAO can investigate anything involving the IC that
the Intelligence Committees cannot, which amounts to basically nothing.
Moreover, this is not an academic dispute: in response to a question
about this matter from Congressman Yoder in 2018, Mr. Dodaro explained
that this remained an ongoing controversy, although the situation is
minimally better than it was before 2010:
Mr. YODER. Do you need additional support from Congress--
Mr. DODARO. Yes.
Mr. YODER [continuing]. Or direction to the intel agencies to
make sure they are aware that this is an authority you have?
Mr. DODARO. Yes, that would be helpful.\9\
When Mr. Dodaro testified before the House subcommittee in 2019
regarding GAO's FY2020 budget, Chairman Ryan again asked him about this
matter, and Mr. Dodaro again remarked that GAO needs ``the cooperation
of the Intelligence Community'' because GAO ``ha[s] more difficulties
when the request comes from non-intelligence committees,'' concluding,
``I think we could do more, particularly in the management area, and in
the investments that are made, in that area, whether there's good
return on the investments in all cases.'' \10\ And in his testimony
before that subcommittee in 2020, Mr. Dodaro testified, ``It's the same
status as it was last year. Congress could work with the Intelligence
Committees to provide better direction to the intelligence agencies to
cooperate with us.'' \11\
In fact, however, even the involvement of the Intelligence
Committees is not sufficient to overcome the IC's reliance on ICD 114
to obstruct meaningful GAO access. In a meeting in 2019 with staffers
from the House Legislative Branch and Defense Appropriations
subcommittees, a member of the Defense subcommittee's staff dismissed
the need for reform, arguing that IC components do not refuse GAO
requests for information if GAO was acting pursuant to an Intelligence
Committee request. That presumption is unfortunately false. One need
only consider the example of AR 13-5, the internal CIA regulation which
implements ICD 114. This regulation directly addresses the question of
how the Agency should respond to a GAO request for information when GAO
is acting under the direction of an Intelligence Committee:
As a general rule, if GAO makes a request on behalf of or to
obtain information responsive to a tasking by an intelligence
oversight committee, the [Point of Contact (``POC'')] will
ensure that the CIA response to GAO does not contain
information prohibited in paragraph b.(2)(c)(3) above.\12\ The
response to GAO shall indicate that information responsive to
the tasking, but not authorized for release to GAO under the
provisions of ICD 114, shall be made directly available to the
requesting intelligence oversight committee. The POC shall
prepare an additional response for the intelligence oversight
committee that contains information responsive to the committee
request, but not authorized for GAO access.\13\
In other words, if GAO asks CIA for any information which would
fall under the jurisdiction of an Intelligence Committee, CIA will
simply refuse to cooperate, but if an Intelligence Committee tasks GAO
to make the request, CIA will still refuse to provide the information
to GAO, but instead will send the information directly to the relevant
Intelligence Committee. In neither situation does GAO receive the
requested information.
GAO possesses significantly more resources and institutional
expertise in certain kinds of Executive Branch investigations than even
the most robust committee staff, and there is frankly no reason for
this arbitrary restriction on its authority. Congress gave the
Executive Branch a chance to establish reasonable limitations which
balanced the Executive's legitimate interests with one of the most
important functions of Congress-effective oversight. Instead of
crafting a reasonable policy, the DNI memorialized the IC's original
hard-line position.
I recommend this subcommittee include language to remove any doubt
concerning GAO's audit power over the IC by advancing a measure that
reStates Section 335 of the FY2010 IAA, as engrossed by the House of
Representatives in February 2010.\14\
Not only would taking such a measure resolve a longstanding
problem, but it would be revenue neutral, since it would not require
GAO to take on any more responsibilities than it already has; it would
only open the universe of matters it may investigate. When one
considers the fact that the number of GAO employees with Top Secret/
Sensitive Compartmented Information (``TS/SCI'') clearances is higher
than the combined number of staffers employed by both Intelligence
Committees, it is clear that these artificial restrictions on GAO's
authority are causing Congress to expend more financial and manpower
resources to accomplish less oversight over a significant portion of
the Executive Branch. In a time of crisis, when agencies across the
Government are spending vast amounts of time, money, and resources to
combat a once-in-a-century threat, it is more important that ever that
GAO be able to investigate allegations of governmental waste, fraud,
abuse, and violations of law wherever they may be found. It is time for
Congress to assert its prerogatives to protect its oversight
capabilities over all agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 31 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 712, 717, 3523(a) (GAO has authority to
investigate each ``department, agency, or instrumentality of the United
States Government.'').
\2\ Budget and Accounting Act, Public Law 67-13, 42 Stat. 26, June
10, 1921 (``All departments and establishments shall furnish to the
Comptroller General such information regarding the powers, duties,
activities, organization, financial transactions, and methods of
business of their respective offices as he may from time to time
require of them.'').
\3\ H.R. 3603, available at https://fas.org/irp/eprint/panetta-
1987.pdf.
\4\ Investigative Authority of the General Accounting Office, 12
Op. Off. Legal Counsel 171 (1988).
\5\ Letter from Orszag to Feinstein of 3/15/10, available at
https://fas.org/irp/news/2010/03/omb031610.pdf.
\6\ Letter from Dodaro to Feinstein of 3/18/10, available at http:/
/www.pogoarchives.org/m/co/dodaro-letter-to-intel-committees-
20100318.pdf. Mr. Dodaro concluded that reaffirming GAO's authority in
this area ``would prove beneficial both to the conduct of oversight by
the intelligence committees and to the efficiency and effectiveness of
IC operations.''
\7\ 50 U.S.C. Sec. 3308.
\8\ ICD 114(D)(4)(b), available at https://www.dni.gov/files/
documents/ICD/ICD_114.pdf.
\9\ Legislative Branch Appropriations for 2019: Part 2, Fiscal Year
2019 Legislative Branch Appropriations Requests, Hearings before the
Subcomm. on the Legislative Branch of the House Comm. on
Appropriations, 115th Cong., 2d Sess. 310 (Apr. 25, 2018) (testimony of
Comp. Gen. Gene Dodaro) (testifying that GAO has been able to
investigate peripheral matters in the IC such as ``a facilities area''
and contract management in the last few years).
\10\ Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3WU2uZMlyk.
\11\ Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaRnD62qun4. Mr.
Dodaro's testimony last year reiterated the same point, see https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PQWaMSJG7Y.
\12\ That paragraph reads: Information that falls within the
purview of the congressional intelligence oversight committees
generally shall not be made available to GAO to support an audit or
review of intelligence collection operations; covert action;
intelligence capabilities related to national intelligence activities;
counterintelligence operations; intelligence analysis and analytical
techniques; intelligence sources and methods; or intelligence budgets
or funding; (including records or expenditures made under the authority
of 22 U.S.C. 2396(a)(8) or 10 U.S.C. 127, 7231 and 50 U.S.C. 403j(b)).
\13\ CIA, AR 13-5: Comptroller General Access to Information in the
Possession of the CIA, Sec. (b)(3), available at http://docs.house.gov/
meetings/AP/AP24/20200304/110517/HHRG-116-AP24-Wstate-McClanahanK-
20200304-SD001.pdf.
\14\ Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr2701eh/
pdf/BILLS-111hr2701eh.pdf.
[This statement was submitted by LiKel McClanahan, Executive
Director]
______
Prepared Statement of Preservation Technologies, L.P.
issue
The Fiscal 2022 budget for the Library of Congress included
language regarding the mass deacidification program budget request:
``Preservation of the Collection.-The Committees recognize the Library
currently has over $2,000,000 available through September 30, 2022, for
the purposes of the de-acidification preservation program. Upon the
exhaustion or expiration of those funds, whichever comes first, the
Committees will evaluate the need for the continuation of the
program.'' The funds allocated for the mass deacidification program
will be exhausted before the end of this September. This testimony is a
request to continue funding for this program for fiscal 2023.
request to congress
We respectfully encourage Congress for Fiscal Year 2023 to
reinstate the mass deacidification line item as was included in Fiscal
Year 2021 for $3.0 million with the intention to focus on the
preservation of the remaining high value acidic titles expected to stay
in the Library's collections and for newly acquired acidic material
upon receipt by the Library.
justification
The Library of Congress has been a world leader in the development
and use of mass deacidification for preventive preservation of acidic
collections. The Library has used mass deacidification to preserve more
than five million acidic books and nearly 20 million acidic documents
in the past 22 years as part of a 30-year plan to preserve up to 7.5
million books identified as candidates for treatment. Acidic books have
pages that contain residual acid from the paper making process. The
acid turns the paper brittle, sometimes in just a matter of decades.
Deacidification is a chemical process that neutralizes the acid in
paper, thereby extending the useful life of books and documents by
hundreds of years. Institutions across the country benefit by using
this technology to preserve their collections.
The focus of the deacidification program has been to preserve
important book collections documenting American history, family
genealogy, literature, law, science, rare foreign titles, and nearly
all sections of the Library. Documents preserved from the Library's
Gold Manuscript collections include the NAACP archives including Martin
Luther King, Jr.'s papers and also the Federal Writers Project, part of
the depression era Works Progress Administration (WPA) featuring
authors like Eudora Welty and William Faulkner.
The Library proposed for FY 2021 to stop the deacidification
program and reassign the budget to other activities. The Library is
stopping the program too suddenly when there are still several hundred
thousand high value books and millions of manuscript pages considered
as top priority for preservation, and in a way that will ultimately
hurt the preservation programs of other important institutions.
Concluding the program by a controlled reduction is in the best
interest of the Library and its collections. Stopping the program cold
jeopardizes collections, jobs, and the long term preservation of books
and archives across the Nation.
As justification for closing the program, the Library has asserted
that storage at Fort Meade is more cost effective than deacidification.
This plan is flawed for several reasons:
Reduced temperature storage is not the same as deacidification.
--Reduced temperature storage slows but does not stop the chemical
reaction between acid and paper. The acidic paper will still
age much quicker than alkaline paper no matter how it is stored
and at any temperature. Deacidified paper will last 3-5 times
longer than acidic paper under all storage temperatures, and
the benefit of deacidification is further enhanced if stored at
lower temperatures.
--All modern paper is produced in an alkaline process.
Deacidification turns the older, acidic paper into alkaline
paper. To achieve the life extension equivalent to alkaline
paper, whether stored in the current stacks on the Hill or in
new storage at reduced temperatures, the acidic paper still
needs to be deacidified.
Cold storage is not a practical solution.
--The Library has consistently reported on the significant quantity
of important acidic material remaining in their collections--
more than 2 million books and millions of documents--that would
benefit from deacidification. Paper is acidic because of the
method of production, and acidic materials are distributed
throughout the collections in the Library. To send the
remaining millions of acidic books to cold storage requires the
Library to do what we are already doing--search for these books
one by one to extract them from the collections. Then they must
send them to perpetual cold storage instead of deacidifying and
returning them to stay with their collections.
--The other method would be to send entire collections into cold
storage as a way to make sure the acidic books are protected.
The projected cold storage capacity will not have nearly enough
space to allow this option.
--Neither method is practical. The Library has not indicated how to
deal with the remaining millions of acidic books and over what
time schedule. It should be clear that a significant quantity
will remain on the Hill for the foreseeable future continuing
to weaken from acidic attack.
Cold storage is not a guaranteed solution.
--There are cost and energy policies to consider. Using cold storage
to slow the rate of deterioration only works if the paper is
stored in cold conditions forever, incurring higher energy and
maintenance costs. It is easy to envision a future situation
when the temperature in the storage facility will be increased
either to save costs and/or to reduce energy consumption driven
by climate change, energy policy, or simple budget
requirements. The point is that deacidification fixes the
problem today for life. Cold storage reduces the problem only
as long as the storage temperature is cold.
The Library needs to continue the Fort Meade storage module program
because it is out of space for proper storage of its collections.
Reducing the temperature is better for all paper, but cold storage is
not a ``quick fix'' to eliminate the need to deacidify the collections.
The current modules at Fort Meade are already near their storage
capacity and still the stacks in the Capitol Hill complex are full.
Construction of new modules has been delayed by budget concerns. The
Library has testified that the rate of construction of new modules at
Fort Meade is unable to keep up with the acquisition rate of new
materials. This means the collections stored on the Hill will continue
to exist in roughly the same quantity and storage conditions for the
foreseeable future. Those acidic materials kept in the storage on
Capitol Hill for the next 20 years will be losing 100 years or more of
usable condition.
Recommendations to Congress:
Preservation of the most critical acidic books and unique
manuscript materials via deacidification should remain a priority for
the Library. Mass deacidification is the most effective and lowest cost
program for preserving the Library's acidic materials. For the past 20
years, Congress and the Library of Congress have been making the
financially responsible decision to use deacidification as the primary
method of preservation for our acidic collections. The best policy
would be to finish the program as originally envisioned. Recognizing
that the Library has other priorities, and it desires to retire the
program, we believe the best course is to allow for a controlled ramp
down rather than a hard stop to the program.
1. We respectfully request Congress reaffirm its strong support
for mass deacidification and direct the Library of Congress to continue
the program of mass deacidification to preserve the Library's unique
manuscript collections and the remaining high value acidic books.
2. We respectfully request Congress restore the line item for mass
deacidification and appropriate an amount of $3.0 million to fund this
program of mass deacidification for one additional year with the
intention to preserve the remaining ``Top Priority'' books as quickly
as possible to give maximum benefit to the collection before retiring
the program.
3. We respectfully request Congress to consider that cancelling
the deacidification program now would have a significant negative
impact on research institutions outside the Library. The Library is the
largest customer for deacidification services and establishes the
standards and the market for this technology for other institutions.
Current estimates are that 90 percent of culturally important materials
held outside the Library on acidic paper are at risk of loss and not
available in digital or other means of access. Programs to preserve
these materials are underway but not yet sufficiently developed.
Cancelling the Library's program effectively eliminates the
availability of the service to other institutions.
who we are
Preservation Technologies, L.P. is the recognized worldwide leader
in this field with the only technology capable of meeting the standards
for preservation by deacidification set by the Library of Congress.
From its headquarters location just north of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Preservation Technologies provides preservation services, equipment,
and supplies to institutions throughout the U.S. and internationally.
In 2017, the company won the President's ``E'' Award for Export Service
presented by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
[This statement was submitted by James Burd, CEO]
______
Prepared Statement of Project On Government Oversight
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Braun, and Members of the Senate
Appropriations subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, thank you for
the opportunity to submit testimony on closing the gaps in legislative
branch inspectors general coverage and coordination. I am Liz
Hempowicz, director of public policy at the Project On Government
Oversight (POGO). POGO is a nonpartisan independent watchdog that
investigates and exposes waste, corruption, abuse of power, and when
the government fails to serve the public or silences those who report
wrongdoing. We champion reforms to achieve a more effective, ethical,
and accountable Federal Government that safeguards constitutional
principles.
Inspectors general (IGs) provide independent, professional, and
nonpartisan oversight over various government operations, helping to
uncover evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, and malfeasance. The inspector
general system that was established for the executive branch in 1978
has largely been a success. Similarly independent watchdogs are also
uniquely positioned to provide objective oversight of legislative
branch components.
The COVID-19 pandemic and the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol
laid bare the urgent need to increase coordination across Congress and
its agencies related to cyber security and information sharing.
Currently, congressional information and technology is too often
managed on an ad-hoc basis and in multiple silos. The legislative
inspector general community is not immune to those challenges.
Within the legislative branch, there are a number of information,
technology, and cybersecurity gaps in inspector general coverage. There
are currently five inspectors general situated within legislative
branch agencies: the inspector general for the Library of Congress, the
inspector general for the United States Capitol Police, the inspector
general for the Government Accountability Office, the inspector general
for the Government Publishing Office, and the inspector general for the
Architect of the Capitol.\1\
However, significant offices remain without oversight, including
the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Office of Attending
Physician, and others. Additionally, while the rules of the House
establish an inspector general for the House of Representatives, there
is no similar inspector general overseeing the work of the Senate.\2\
And even when individual watchdogs are in place, gaps in the
legislative inspector general system can limit their efficacy. There is
no coordinating council for legislative branch inspectors general that
enables information sharing and the creation of best practices
standards, as the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and
Efficiency (CIGIE) does for executive branch IGs.\3\ Perhaps most
importantly, current legislative IGs may lack sufficient independence
to best enable rigorous oversight.\4\
With all of this in mind, I urge the Appropriations Committee to
request the Government Accountability Office to produce a report
examining the gaps in independent oversight within the legislative
branch inspector general system. Specifically, the report shall
determine these gaps, identify conflict areas and offices that are not
covered, and make recommendations around structures and best practices
to properly protect IG independence within the legislative branch,
using the executive branch as a model where it may be helpful. In doing
so, I would encourage the GAO to consult with CIGIE and other internal
and external stakeholders with expertise around inspectors general.
Given the urgency around these issues, I would recommend the committee
ask for such a report to be published no later than 180 days after the
passage of the Fiscal Year 2023 Appropriations Bill.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ben Wilhelm, Congressional Research Service, Appointment
Methods for Legislative Branch Inspectors General, IN11763 (September
28, 2021), 2, https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2021-09-
28_IN11763_00e696b72ee4f22f53ad6b5af75c55e7e2721847.pdf.
\2\ Rules of the House of Representatives, 117th Cong., Rules II-
III (February 2, 2021), https://rules.house.gov/sites/
democrats.rules.house.gov/files/117-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf.
\3\ 5 U.S.C. App. Sec. 11 (2022), https://www.law.cornell.edu/
uscode/text/5a/compiledact-95-452/
section-11.
\4\ To give executive branch inspectors general the requisite
independence, the Inspector General Act of 1978 includes a requirement
that inspector general nominees are selected ``without regard to
political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and
demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law,
management analysis, public administration, or investigations"; a
prohibition against the head of an agency from interfering in IG
investigations; and a dual reporting structure where an inspector
general reports to both the agency head and to Congress. 5 U.S.C. App.
Sec. 3 (2022), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5a/compiledact-
95-452/section-3; Kathryn A. Francis and Michael Green, Congressional
Research Service, Federal Inspectors General: History, Characteristics,
and Recent Congressional Actions, R43814 (July 20, 2016), 5, 7, https:/
/www.everycrsreport.com/files/20160720_R43814_
c8b393d645313cc24a2b7a1bb8c1cb4abe072ccd.pdf; Restoring Independence:
Rebuilding the Federal Offices of Inspectors General: Hearing before
the House Oversight and Reform Committee subcommittee on Government
Operations, 117th Cong, 1, (April 20, 2021) (testimony of Liz
Hempowicz, director of public policy, Project On Government Oversight,
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
Hempowicz%20Testimony.pdf.
[This statement was submitted by Liz Hempowicz, Director of Public
Policy]
______
Prepared Statement of Thomas Susman
Introduction. Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Braun, and Members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony
addressing the need to enhance public access to Legislative Branch
information. My name is Thomas Susman, and I am testifying today in my
personal capacity. I'm no stranger to either the Legislative Branch or
to transparency: I served on the Senate Judiciary Committee and various
subcommittee staffs for over 12 years and am currently on the boards of
a number of organizations whose mission is to enhance public access to
government information, including Open The Government, the National
Freedom of Information Coalition, and the D.C. Open Government
Coalition. By way of background, as a Senate staffer I helped shepherd
through the post-Watergate amendments to the Freedom of Information Act
in 1974 that largely created the law we know today and have been
involved in access-to-information matters ever since.
background
The Federal Advisory Committee on the Freedom of Information Act,
appointed by the Archivist of the United States and comprised of an
equal number of government and private sector representatives, adopted
the following recommendation \1\ by unanimous vote in November 2020:
Congress should adopt rules or enact legislation to establish
procedures for effecting public access to legislative branch
records in the possession of congressional support offices and
agencies modeled after those procedures contained in the
Freedom of Information Act. These should include requirements
for proactive disclosure of certain information, procedures
governing public requests for records, time limits for
responding to requests, exemptions to be narrowly applied, and
an appeal from any initial decision to deny access.
Congress has, in many ways, historically been the most transparent
of the branches and in recent decades has taken additional steps to
increase public access to its work. Every congressional committee has a
website that contains bills and hearing transcripts, and every House
and Senate member has a website replete with information about the
member's positions, speeches, activities, and bills. Congressional
leadership offices publish details of the legislative agendas, and
Congress.gov provides online access to bills and legislative histories.
Congress has in many ways already taken steps to embrace transparency
in recognition of its importance to the public.
The legislatures of many States and foreign countries have long
been fully subject to the requirements of their access-to-information
laws. However, you will note that the recommendation quoted above does
not propose that the U.S Congress be subject to the Federal Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA); it recognizes and respects unique features of
the Legislative Branch and the special relationships that members have
with each other, with staff, and with constituents, as well as the
potential constitutional issues that application of the FOIA might
implicate. There are still, however, a number of steps that Congress
should take to enhance public understanding of legislation and the
legislative process, to improve accountability of some of its offices,
and to make its records more readily available to the public and media.
The case for greater transparency.--There is no principled reason
why the public's right to know should not apply to support offices and
agencies of the Congress, discussed in greater detail below. Most of
those offices perform functions similar or even identical to those
performed by executive branch entities that are fully covered by FOIA,
such as law enforcement (Capitol Police); auditing, buildings and
grounds maintenance (Architect of the Capitol); inspecting and
adjudicating (Government Accountability Office); budgeting
(Congressional Budget Office); publishing (Government Publishing
Office); enforcing rights (Office of Congressional Workplace Rights);
maintaining the library (Library of Congress); and performing research
and drafting reports (Congressional Research Service and Law Library of
Congress).
It is not just their functions that these legislative branch
entities have in common with their executive branch counterparts; they
are funded by the same taxpayer dollars that pay for executive
agencies, and they often have the same or greater impact on the lives
of individuals, the viability and profitability of businesses, and the
activities of all levels of government and all the political
subdivisions in our Nation. While confidential aspects of the lawmaking
process may merit special consideration, the routine work of government
does not.
Some of the congressional offices and support agencies understand
this message. The Government Accountability Office, although not
legally subject to FOIA, has adopted ``FOIA-like'' regulations. GAO
acknowledges that ``While GAO is not subject to the [FOIA] . . . GAO's
disclosure policy follows the spirit of the act consistent with its
duties and functions and responsibility to the Congress.'' GAO reports
and an array of other GAO resources are available online. And the U.S.
Copyright Office is fully subject to the FOIA and has adopted
regulations implementing the procedures for administering its
requirements.
I'd like to highlight two support agencies where Congress has
expressed concern in the past regarding public access to information
and where this Committee should press forward toward requiring that
information be more readily available to the public.
U.S. Capitol Police.--A call for greater transparency of the U.S.
Capitol Police (USCP) began before the events of January 6, 2021.
Congressional appropriators inserted language in the House report on
the 2021 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill calling for ``USCP
Information Sharing'' as follows:
While the USCP is not subject to the [FOIA] . . . the
Committee encourages the USCP to develop a policy and procedure
for the sharing of information that follows the spirit of the
Freedom of Information Act. This policy should be consistent
with, and not interfere with, USCP's primary function of
protecting the Congress.
The Joint Explanatory Statement echoed this refrain:
USCP Information Sharing.--The Department is encouraged to
continue increasing its efforts to communicate with Members of
Congress, congressional employees, and the public about events
occurring around the Capitol complex in a manner that is
consistent with and does not interfere with its primary mission
of protecting the Congress and the legislative process.
After January 6, 2021, the calls for greater public access to USCP
information increased, and last year congressional appropriators once
again, this time in more forceful terms, included language in the House
report of the 2022 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bills, which
directed:
USCP Information Sharing: While the USCP is not subject to the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 USC 552), the Committee
directs the USCP to develop a policy and procedure for the
sharing of information that follows the spirit of the Freedom
of Information Act. This policy should be consistent with, and
not interfere with, USCP's primary function of protecting the
Congress.
The Joint Explanatory Statement repeated the call for information
sharing:
USCP Information Sharing.--The Department is encouraged to continue
increasing its efforts to communicate with Members of Congress,
congressional employees, and the public about events occurring around
the Capitol complex in a manner that is consistent with and does not
interfere with its primary mission of protecting the Congress and the
legislative process.
Police departments across the country are waking up to the value of
increasing transparency; it may be time for a wake-up call for the USCP
in next year's appropriations bill with clearer and even stronger
direction to USCP to move forward with a FOIA-like information access
regime.
Congressional Research Service.--The Congressional Research Service
(CRS) of the Library of Congress has been producing informative reports
for decades. And the public--also for decades--has been denied direct,
full access to that body of taxpayer-funded knowledge. Yes, there has
been significant progress, made at the direction and encouragement of
this committee. But there is still a long way to go. Historical CRS
reports need to be proactively available to the public online. They are
already digitized by-and-large, so the next step of providing the
public access to all these reports is but an easy one--and one that
Congress should mandate. This is not a call for public availability of
confidential CRS reports, but rather the ones that already can be
shared with any staffer who asks. For a model of what can be
accomplished, look to the Law Library of Congress, which undertook a
digitization and online publication effort for its Legal Reports, with
thousands of reports now online from the 1940s forward and with efforts
to publish additional historical reports on the internet that continue
on a rolling basis.
Proactive disclosure.--Beyond CRS reports, there are other sets of
records that should routinely be made available to the public without
the need for a request. Examples include the following: Legislative
Branch inspectors general reports; Congressional Budget Office
conflicts-of-interest disclosure forms; Legislative Branch budget
justifications and semiannual reports; and unclassified reports from
agencies to Congress. Some of these documents are already published
online, but that practice should be consistent and universal.
Conclusion and recommendations.--In proposing to expand access to
Legislative Branch records--both through FOIA-like procedures and
through proactive disclosure on a congressional website--I am mindful
that there may be a need for redaction of specific information that may
involve disclosing classified matters, revealing ongoing criminal
investigations, or constituting a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy. Every access regime respects the need to protect
certain categories of information. In addition, there may be
circumstances that are unique to the legislative branch that would
require further investigation prior to implementation.
Accordingly, I encourage the Committee to charge the GAO, which has
the most robust FOIA-like process, to make recommendations for applying
a FOIA-like process to congressional support offices and agencies. This
analysis should exclude the personal, committee, and leadership offices
in the House and Senate. I recommend the following report language:
Public Records Information Sharing for Legislative Agencies Based
on FOIA Advisory Committee Recommendations.--Within 180 days, the
Government Accountability Office shall make recommendations to the
House and Senate Legislative Branch Appropriations committees, the
Committee on House Administration, the Senate Rules Committee, and
publish on its website recommendations concerning the creation and
implementation of a uniform public records request process for
congressional support offices and agencies modeled after the Freedom of
Information Act and inspired by the recommendations of the FOIA
Advisory Committee. In constructing an implementation plan, the GAO
shall consult with the FOIA Advisory Committee, experts on the Freedom
of Information Act, representatives of civil society and the press,
affected congressional offices and agencies, and others as it deems
fit. The GAO shall recommend statutory language and regulations to
implement a public records request-and-appeals process that vindicates
the public's right to know to the maximum extent practicable, sets
standards for information that an agency should proactively disclose,
establishes uniform processes and standards to all congressional
support offices and agencies, and provides for independent review of
agency determinations consistent with our constitutional framework.
Congress has come a long way in opening its proceedings and records
to access by the public. But its work is not complete, and this
subcommittee has the jurisdiction and authority to press forward to the
next level of legislative transparency.
I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Recommendation 2021-01 available from the National Archives
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) at https://
www.archives.gov/files/ogis/assets/fac-rec-2021-01.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Verdance LLC
Chair Reed, Chair Leahy, Ranking Member Braun, Vice Chair Shelby,
and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit
testimony on establishing a Task Force to study how and whether
Congress should create a Congressional Digital Service.
My name is Alex Prokop, and I am a public interest technologist. I
was a software engineer on the team that rebuilt HealthCare.gov in the
wake of its technology failure. In 2020 and 2021, I had the opportunity
to serve the House Select Committee for the Modernization of Congress
as a digital service fellow under Chairman Kilmer and Ranking Member
Graves. Last year, I founded a company called Verdance to pursue the
mission of making government digital services more adaptable,
efficient, and effective.
Over the past 2 years, Congress has made laudable technology
improvements. The Senate Sergeant At Arms developed the e-signature
tool Quill that now is successfully deployed in both chambers, making
digital signatures on sign-on letters commonplace. Additionally, the
Senate has successfully implemented remote and hybrid hearings. The
Senate should build on this progress and position legislative branch
technology for transformational change.
I urge the committee to establish a Congressional Digital Service
Task Force, which also has been recommended by the House Select
Committee on the Modernization of Congress.\1\ The purpose of this task
force would be to assess and evaluate the technology challenges across
the entirety of the Legislative branch, to evaluate the various
approaches to ensuring Congressional technology evolves at a healthy
pace and meets Congress's institutional challenges, and to make
recommendations on how best to constitute a Congressional Digital
Service that serves the entirety of the Legislative branch.
The list of potential challenges for a digital service team is
long, but here are a few:
A Congressional Digital Service could act as a bridge to create
software tools shared by chambers and offices.
The Senate, House, and support office and agency technology
ecosystems are almost completely fractured. Even for broadly comparable
needs, the Senate and House develop their own solutions. The rollout of
Quill was one bright moment of successful technology collaboration. A
properly empowered Congressional Digital Service would ensure that
Quill is an exemplar of things to come, and that Congress can share and
co-develop technology between the chambers and offices where
appropriate, creating cost savings and increasing productivity.
A Congressional Digital Service could develop a unified cloud services
strategy for the Congressional technology ecosystem.
The Legislative branch currently lacks a consistent and mature
approach to cloud hosting of software systems. Cloud hosting offers
many cost and efficiency savings over on-premise services and will
unlock the development of new, productivity-increasing tools, which is
why the private sector and many executive branch agencies have long ago
moved many of their systems to the cloud. Despite some progress,
Legislative branch offices and agencies have yet to widely adopt cloud
hosting services as a leading choice for new systems. A Congressional
Digital Service could consult with offices and develop a unified cloud
strategy--it is unlikely that one will come to exist otherwise.
A Congressional Digital Service could assess unserved committee
technology needs.
Committees have inconsistent support concerning putting together
their technology toolset. While there are bespoke projects, so far
there is not yet a comprehensive look across committee needs to
discover where the biggest common pain points and potential solutions
are. A Congressional Digital Service could spearhead such an effort and
uncover tools to save taxpayer dollars and streamline committee
operations.
A Congressional Digital Service could help fill gaps in legislative
processes that are currently unsupported by digital tools.
The absence of digital tools supporting some Congressional
processes wastes valuable staff time and causes avoidable errors. House
Majority Leader Hoyer and Leader McCarthy sponsored a Congressional
Hackathon in April 2022. At the hackathon, a team of Congressional
staff and technologists outlined a list of technology gaps. A
Congressional Digital Service could identify those gaps on an ongoing
basis, and ensure that the right bridges are built between offices to
handle them.
A Congressional Digital Service could create a standing, high level
technology capacity to support Congress in times of crisis.
Investment in a modern digital service organization will give the
Legislative branch needed standing capacity to solve urgent
technological needs as they arise. The U.S. Digital Service was
established in the wake of the HealthCare.gov crisis, and serves as a
non-partisan home for expert technologists in the executive branch. The
injection of talent it provided has kept many tech issues from reaching
front-page status across both Democratic and Republican
administrations. Last year, many compared the launch of CovidTests.gov
to the launch of HealthCare.gov. Where the latter was famously unusable
for weeks after launch, the former delivered on its promises from day
one, and did not suffer downtime or major glitches. When the urgent
need arose, expert U.S. Digital Service staff was already in place to
connect the dots between organizations to handle it. Congress will face
such moments in the future, and a Congressional Digital Service would
bolster this branch with needed high-level technology capacity.
Since the U.S. Digital Service was started in 2014, many States and
cities have started their own digital service offices. These digital
service organizations are not cure-alls, but on balance and over the
long term we have seen government technology capacity increase
dramatically since 2014 as a result of digital service offices and
initiatives. If properly constituted, empowered, and funded, a
Congressional Digital Service could play the same role in the
Legislative branch. We believe the committee should create a task force
composed of internal and external stakeholders to study how to properly
constitute a Congressional Digital Service and make recommendations to
you.
We recommend the following report language to accomplish this
purpose:
Congressional Digital Service Task Force.--Congressional
operations depend upon technology, but the Legislative branch
is often insufficiently empowered and coordinated when it comes
to purchasing technology and providing technological services.
The Executive branch responded to similar operational
challenges by creating the U.S. Digital Service, which hires
technologists to build tools that make government work better
for the American people. We note with favor the recent creation
of the Congressional Digital Service within the House's Chief
Administrative Office. A more expansive, sophisticated, and
coordinated approach to the provision of technology and
technological services across the Legislative branch would help
members better serve their constituents.
To address these and other questions, the committee directs the
establishment of a Congressional Digital Services Task Force
composed of staff representatives of the Secretary of the
Senate; the Senate Sergeant at Arms; Member, Committee, and
Leadership offices; the Library of Congress; the Congressional
Research Service; the Government Publishing Office; the
Government Accountability Office; and such other congressional
offices as may be appropriate and invites the participation of
public stakeholders and representatives from appropriate
offices in the House to examine these and any additional issues
it considers relevant and to provide a report to the committee
within 180 days that also shall be made publicly available.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide testimony to
the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress--116th
Congress Recommendations, 95th recommendation https://
modernizecongress.house.gov/116th-recommendations.
[This statement was submitted by LiAlex Prokop, Founder]