[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]