[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                   THE PATH TOWARD A MORE MODERN AND
                EFFECTIVE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION

                                 OF THE

                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                             APRIL 26, 2023
                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
      
      
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      


                             www.govinfo.gov
                           www.cha.house.gov

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
54-549                    WASHINGTON : 2024   


                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia              Ranking Member
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             NORMA TORRES, California
MIKE CAREY, Ohio                     DEREK KILMER, Washington
ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, New York
LAUREL LEE, Florida

                      Tim Monahan, Staff Director
                  Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director

                                 ------                                

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION

                    STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma, Chair

MIKE CAREY, Ohio                     DEREK KILMER, Washington,
                                          Ranking Member
                                     JOSEPH MORELLE, New York

               Derek Harley, Subcommittee Staff Director

                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                           Opening Statements

Chairwoman Stephanie Bice, Representative from the State of 
  Oklahoma.......................................................     1
    Prepared statement of Chairwoman Stephanie Bice..............     2
Ranking Member Derek Kilmer, Representative from the State of 
  Washington.....................................................     3
    Prepared statement of Ranking Member Derek Kilmer............     4

                               Witnesses

Mary B. Mazanec, M.D., Director, Congressional Research Service..     6
    Prepared statement of Mary B. Mazanec........................     8
Joseph Dunne, Director, European Parliament Liaison Office, 
  Washington, D.C., and formerly a Director in the Directorate 
  General for the European Parliamentary Research Service........    32
    Prepared statement of Joseph Dunne...........................    34
Richard Coffin, Chief of Research and Advocacy, USAFacts.........    40
    Prepared statement of Richard Coffin.........................    43
Kevin Kosar, Senior Fellow of Legal and Constitutional Studies, 
  American Enterprise Institute..................................    47
    Prepared statement of Kevin Kosar............................    49

                        Questions for the Record

Mary B. Mazanec answers to submitted questions...................    62
Richard Coffin answers to submitted questions....................   243
Kevin Kosar answers to submitted questions.......................   245

 
  THE PATH TOWARD A MORE MODERN AND EFFECTIVE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH 
                                SERVICE

                              ----------                              


                             April 26, 2023

             Subcommittee on Modernization,
                 Committee on House Administration,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:07 p.m., in 
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Bice 
[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Bice, Carey, and Kilmer.
    Staff present: Hillary Lassiter, Clerk; Alex Deise, 
Assistant Parliamentarian and Counsel; Derek Harley, 
Subcommittee Staff Director; Tim Monahan, Republican Full 
Committee Staff Director; Eddie Flaherty, Minority Chief Clerk; 
Khalil Abboud, Minority Chief Counsel; Jamie Fleet, Minority 
Staff Director; and Enumale Agada, Minority Oversight Counsel.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHANIE BICE, CHAIRWOMAN OF THE 
   SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
                            OKLAHOMA

    Chairwoman Bice. The Subcommittee on Modernization will 
come to order. A quorum is present.
    Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    The meeting record will remain open for 5 legislative days 
so that Members can submit any materials they wish to be 
included herein.
    How is that? Excellent.
    Again, I want to say thank you all for being here today. 
Thank you to Ranking Member Kilmer, Subcommittee Members, and 
our witnesses for taking the time to be with us.
    In the half a century since the Congressional Research 
Service's renaming and reauthorization in 1970, Congress has 
changed and evolved dramatically. The creation of the internet, 
the evolution of think tanks, and the advancement of analytical 
and technological tools have significantly increased the 
availability of policy research and data. This has changed the 
way data and information are accessed, while also increasing 
the need for speed and accuracy.
    CRS has repeatedly acknowledged the need to adapt to these 
changes and evolve the types of products and services it 
delivers. However, more can be done to implement these changes 
in an adequate and timely manner and in a way that recognizes 
the unique and constantly evolving needs of staff, Members, and 
Committees.
    Our concern is that the inability to make these changes has 
diminished the value of the organization to its sole customer: 
Congress.
    In addition, persistent concerns about the culture and 
morale among CRS staff are of serious concern to this 
Committee. There are many dedicated and talented staffers 
within CRS who do incredible work for Congress, and Members and 
staff would suffer without their work.
    What concerns me when we hear about persistent culture and 
morale issues that appear to be unaddressed is that they risk 
undermining CRS's ability to retain their most valuable asset--
the hundreds of analysts, attorneys, and research librarians 
that support Congress's work.
    The organization as a whole must learn to perform with the 
speed and efficiency Congress requires in order to meet the 
realities of today's world. A modern and effective CRS goes 
hand-in-hand with a modern and effective Congress. Much-needed 
updates to this organization would lead to enhanced 
congressional capacity and provide staff, Members, and 
Committees key tools in their efforts to serve the American 
people.
    With a budget of $133,600,000 a year, or nearly $250,000 
per congressional office, CRS has the resources to provide the 
services that Congress requires. Unfortunately, over the past 
several years, we have heard from offices that this level of 
investment has not been up to par with the types of services 
offered or the way in which they were provided.
    It is important this Subcommittee understand why CRS is 
struggling to meet the moment and take the necessary steps to 
ensure the organization's long-term success.
    Again, I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
    [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Bice follows:]

 PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHANIE BICE, CHAIRWOMAN OF THE 
                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION

    In the half a century since the Congressional Research 
Service's renaming and reauthorization in 1970, Congress has 
changed and evolved dramatically. The creation of the internet, 
the evolution of think tanks, and the advancement of analytical 
and technological tools have significantly increased the 
availability of policy research and data. This has changed the 
way data and information are accessed, while also increasing 
the need for speed and accuracy.
    CRS has repeatedly acknowledged the need to adapt to these 
changes and evolve the types of products and services it 
delivers. However, more can be done to implement these changes 
in an adequate and timely manner and in a way that recognizes 
the unique and constantly evolving needs of staff, Members, and 
Committees.
    Our concern is that the inability to make these changes has 
diminished the value of the organization to its sole customer: 
Congress.
    In addition, persistent concerns about the culture and 
morale among CRS staff are of serious concern to this 
Committee. There are many dedicated and talented staffers 
within CRS who do incredible work for Congress, and Members and 
staff would suffer without their work.
    What concerns me when we hear about persistent culture and 
morale issues that appear to be unaddressed is that they risk 
undermining CRS's ability to retain their most valuable asset--
the hundreds of analysts, attorneys, and research librarians 
that support Congress's work.
    The organization as a whole must learn to perform with the 
speed and efficiency Congress requires in order to meet the 
realities of today's world. A modern and effective CRS goes 
hand-in-hand with a modern and effective Congress. Much-needed 
updates to this organization would lead to enhanced 
congressional capacity and provide staff, Members, and 
Committees key tools in their efforts to serve the American 
people.
    With a budget of $133,600,000 a year, or nearly $250,000 
per congressional office, CRS has the resources to provide the 
services that Congress requires. Unfortunately, over the past 
several years, we have heard from offices that this level of 
investment has not been up to par with the types of services 
offered or the way in which they were provided.
    It is important this Subcommittee understand why CRS is 
struggling to meet the moment and take the necessary steps to 
ensure the organization's long-term success.

    Our first panel--I am going to pause and let--at this time, 
I am going to recognize Representative Kilmer to give an 
opening statement.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEREK KILMER, RANKING MEMBER OF THE 
   SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
                           WASHINGTON

    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair. Excited to be here. I 
appreciate the work of this Subcommittee.
    You know, one of the things that is special about this 
Subcommittee is that, as we look at these institutional issues, 
they are really bipartisan. They affect the ability of each of 
us, Democrat or Republican, to serve our constituents, to solve 
tough problems, regardless of where we sit on the political 
spectrum. It is part of the reason that the Modernization 
Committee and its former iteration looked at issues related to 
the Congressional Research Service.
    Both my team and I are regular users of CRS. Their analysts 
have weighed in on how to protect Tribal treaty rights, how to 
navigate the complex Federal landscape of disaster prevention 
and response programs for seismic issues and tsunamis and 
flooding. They have provided technical assistance for designing 
economic development legislation to help communities that have 
faced persistent economic distress. They have done a whole lot 
more throughout the little more than 10 years I have been here.
    Their staff has picked up the phone in response to same-day 
questions, even during some of the busiest times of the year. 
Members and staff know it: We depend on CRS to be effective in 
our work for the American people. We rely on them.
    CRS has played a really critical role within this 
institution for over a century. However, as is the case with 
any organization, CRS has had its fair share of challenges. 
Primary among them is some of the challenges, as you mentioned, 
Madam Chair, with regard to providing information and resources 
to an ever-evolving Congress, one that operates in a 
dramatically different landscape than it faced during its 1970 
reorganization and certainly far more than when it was 
established in 1914.
    Technology, as we know, is a major tool of modernization. 
CRS has been working on modernizing its legacy IT systems via 
the Integrated Research and Information System, or IRIS. 
However, despite the 5 years and millions of dollars spent 
developing that system, no product from IRIS has been rolled 
out for use by CRS employees to date.
    That, in addition to regular problems with the CRS share 
drive and email systems, pose a challenge to CRS's dedicated 
employees, who pride themselves on providing timely assistance 
to Members of Congress and to their staff.
    In addition to those technology issues, CRS has faced a 
number of personnel issues, from high attrition and low morale 
among employees to issues related to diversity. We have heard 
directly from CRS employees who love their work and love 
working with the congressional community but who feel 
frustrated. We have heard from employees who, despite subject 
matter expertise and the relationships with Members and staff 
here on the Hill, feel replaceable. We have heard from 
employees who feel unable to provide the constructive criticism 
that they feel is required to make sure that the institution 
functions better.
    That is part of the reason that the Select Committee on 
Modernization, over the past two Congresses, looked broadly at 
issues related to turnover within the institution, not just 
within CRS but within personal offices, within Committees, to 
try to make each of these organizations places that people want 
to work and stay and do good work on behalf of the American 
people.
    Every part of Congress needs to function well. The 
institution is only as good as the many parts that allow us to 
work on behalf of the American people, and that includes our 
support agencies like CRS.
    I appreciate that the Chairwoman has organized this hearing 
to talk about CRS, to look at best practices, to hear from some 
external organizations about how we might be able to raise our 
game, and even to hear from leaders abroad. Hopefully their 
insights can help us improve CRS and, by extension, help us 
improve Congress and strengthen our country.
    With that, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Kilmer follows:]

  PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
                   MODERNIZATION DEREK KILMER

    I appreciate the work of this Subcommittee.
    You know, one of the things that is special about this 
Subcommittee is that, as we look at these institutional issues, 
they are really bipartisan. They affect the ability of each of 
us, Democrat or Republican, to serve our constituents, to solve 
tough problems, regardless of where we sit on the political 
spectrum. It is part of the reason that the Modernization 
Committee and its former iteration looked at issues related to 
the Congressional Research Service.
    Both my team and I are regular users of CRS. Their analysts 
have weighed in on how to protect Tribal treaty rights, how to 
navigate the complex Federal landscape of disaster prevention 
and response programs for seismic issues and tsunamis and 
flooding. They have provided technical assistance for designing 
economic development legislation to help communities that have 
faced persistent economic distress. They have done a whole lot 
more throughout the little more than 10 years I have been here.
    Their staff has picked up the phone in response to same-day 
questions, even during some of the busiest times of the year. 
Members and staff know it: We depend on CRS to be effective in 
our work for the American people. We rely on them.
    CRS has played a really critical role within this 
institution for over a century. However, as is the case with 
any organization, CRS has had its fair share of challenges. 
Primary among them is some of the challenges, as you mentioned, 
Madam Chair, with regard to providing information and resources 
to an ever-evolving Congress, one that operates in a 
dramatically different landscape than it faced during its 1970 
reorganization and certainly far more than when it was 
established in 1914.
    Technology, as we know, is a major tool of modernization. 
CRS has been working on modernizing its legacy IT systems via 
the Integrated Research and Information System, or IRIS. 
However, despite the 5 years and millions of dollars spent 
developing that system, no product from IRIS has been rolled 
out for use by CRS employees to date.
    That, in addition to regular problems with the CRS share 
drive and email systems, pose a challenge to CRS's dedicated 
employees, who pride themselves on providing timely assistance 
to Members of Congress and to their staff.
    In addition to those technology issues, CRS has faced a 
number of personnel issues, from high attrition and low morale 
among employees to issues related to diversity. We have heard 
directly from CRS employees who love their work and love 
working with the congressional community but who feel 
frustrated. We have heard from employees who, despite subject 
matter expertise and the relationships with Members and staff 
here on the Hill, feel replaceable. We have heard from 
employees who feel unable to provide the constructive criticism 
that they feel is required to make sure that the institution 
functions better.
    That is part of the reason that the Select Committee on 
Modernization, over the past two Congresses, looked broadly at 
issues related to turnover within the institution, not just 
within CRS but within personal offices, within Committees, to 
try to make each of these organizations places that people want 
to work and stay and do good work on behalf of the American 
people.
    Every part of Congress needs to function well. The 
institution is only as good as the many parts that allow us to 
work on behalf of the American people, and that includes our 
support agencies like CRS.
    I appreciate that the Chairwoman has organized this hearing 
to talk about CRS, to look at best practices, to hear from some 
external organizations about how we might be able to raise our 
game, and even to hear from leaders abroad. Hopefully their 
insights can help us improve CRS and, by extension, help us 
improve Congress and strengthen our country.

    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member Kilmer.
    I want to first say, we will be hearing from our CRS 
Director, Dr. Mary Mazanec, as she explains the current 
situation at CRS and what steps leadership has taken to address 
internal challenges and meet Congress's changing needs. 
Additionally, we will examine what role CRS should have in 
relation to Congress in today's modern age and how CRS can 
better meet Congress's legislative and research needs.
    For the second panel, we will have an opportunity to hear 
from leaders in the think-tank and research fields as well as a 
representative from the European Parliament, all of whom are 
expert in adopting modern methods in policy research and data 
analysis. I look forward to the insightful testimonies to help 
inform this Committee's work and to pave a modern and effective 
path for the Congressional Research Service.
    Last, let me say, this hearing is the first step in a 
longer process. We intend to use what we have learned here 
today to take action to strengthen the agency for the long 
term. That is critical for ensuring a more modern, effective, 
and resilient CRS that supports Congress and our work for the 
American people.
    Our first panel will consist of, as I mentioned, Dr. Mary 
Mazanec, Director of the Congressional Research Service. She 
has served as Director of CRS since December 2011.
    Before joining CRS, Dr. Mazanec served as the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary and Director of the Office of Medicine, 
Science, and Public Health in the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of 
Health and Human Services.
    That is quite a title.
    Dr. Mazanec, thank you for being with us today.
    Under Committee Rule 9, we ask witnesses to limit their 
presentation to a brief summary of their written statement. 
Please remember to press the button, unlike I did, on the 
microphone in front of you so that the green light is on.
    When you begin to speak, the timer in front of you will 
turn green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When 
the red light comes on, your 5 minutes have expired and we 
would ask that you wrap up.
    At this time, I recognize Dr. Mazanec for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF MARY B. MAZANEC, M.D., DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL 
                        RESEARCH SERVICE

    Dr. Mazanec. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Bice, Ranking 
Member Kilmer, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 
the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to discussing 
our work for Congress and the efforts to meet your evolving 
needs.
    Our vision is to be your premier source of research and 
analysis. Last year, we supported over 99 percent of Members 
and Committees; we handled over 73,000 confidential requests; 
hosted more than 10,000 congressional participants at our 
seminars; and created or updated over 3,000 products.
    We cover the full range of issues before Congress and 
support your legislative, oversight, and representational 
duties. We are taking major initiatives to position CRS to 
support the ever-evolving Congress. I will briefly touch on 
initiatives in three key areas that are necessary to 
effectively serve Congress in the coming years: first, products 
and services; second, the workforce and operations; and, 
finally, information technology.
    First, we have closely followed the Modernization 
Committee's efforts and are committed to ensuring that our 
products and services meet the needs of Congress. During my 
tenure as CRS Director, we have undertaken a variety of 
initiatives to expand and enhance our product line.
    In response to congressional demand for shorter products, 
we launched the In Focus. This is a two-page, executive-level 
report with custom maps and charts, and it has quickly become 
one of our most popular products.
    We also know that Congress still relies on our longer-form 
analytical reports. I have another example here. We added a 
pull-out, one-page summary, which is a standalone, that details 
the key findings in one page.
    We also have significantly increased our multimedia work, 
such as infographics, videos, and podcasts. The Service 
expanded virtual and hybrid seminar offerings, increasing 
access, including for staff in district offices.
    Of course, we also need to ensure Congress knows about our 
products and services. We regularly conduct in-person and 
digital outreach to increase awareness of the Service's full 
spectrum of products, services, and support. All new 
congressional staff are invited to a CRS services briefing.
    We intensified digital outreach efforts, including through 
email campaigns, and are experimenting with new outreach 
formats. For example, we just launched a science and technology 
coffee series that features a brief conversation on timely S&T 
policy topics followed by networking and discussion.
    Our work is informed by a broad range of congressional 
feedback, including that from program and seminar evaluations, 
direct interaction with congressional staff through over 73,000 
requests a year, surveys, and my own conversations with Members 
and staff.
    Second, we are focused on our workforce and operations. 
Foremost and most importantly, the most important aspect of CRS 
is our professional workforce. It is the professional honor of 
my lifetime to work with such a talented and dedicated group of 
colleagues, from our analysts to those who support our 
operations.
    We have expanded efforts to recruit, retain, and 
professionally develop a diverse and highly skilled workforce. 
To enhance the pool of qualified candidates for positions, we 
increased outreach to potential applicants, including those 
from underrepresented groups, and we participated in over 30 
recruitment events last year.
    We are optimizing resources by modernizing administrative 
operations, including moving paper-based efforts to automated 
systems. As a result, CRS is able to operate more effectively, 
identify and resolve problems sooner, and manage records more 
efficiently.
    Finally, we are completely modernizing our information 
technology systems, working closely with the Library's Office 
of the Chief Information Officer. I am joined today by the CIO, 
Judith Conklin, of the Library. This effort will innovate our 
product line and improve distribution of our work.
    IT projects include a content management system and 
authoring and publishing tool to facilitate collaboration and 
enable products innovation; a new congressional relationship 
management system to better support your requests; enhanced 
search to increase findability of our products on CRS.gov; and 
a redesigned CRS.gov website based on congressional feedback 
that leverages a user-centered design, works well on a range of 
devices including the desktop to the mobile, and is more 
accessible.
    We are also carefully evaluating how we can leverage data 
science and emerging technologies such as AI. CRS faces growing 
congressional demand to perform quantitative data analysis and 
policy simulation to provide congressional requesters with a 
more granular perspective of the impact of legislative 
proposals.
    In closing, I want to thank you again for your continued 
partnership and guidance as we seek to ensure that CRS is best 
positioned to meet the evolving needs of Congress. I look 
forward to discussing these and other topics in greater detail.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Mazanec follows:]

             PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY B. MAZANEC

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Dr. Mazanec.
    We will now question the witness, beginning with myself, 
followed by the Ranking Member. We will then alternate between 
the parties. Any Member wishing to be recognized should signal 
to the chair.
    I now recognize myself for the purpose of questioning the 
witness.
    Thank you for your opening statement.
    I firmly believe--and, given your written testimony today 
and previous testimony you have provided to the Committee, you 
would agree--that CRS's greatest asset in supporting Congress 
is the group of dedicated staff professionals across the 
agency--the analysts, lawyers, research staff, and librarians 
who carry out the mission.
    The recent attrition rates inside the agency are of 
concern. I understand in the most recent fiscal year--I am 
sorry, Fiscal Year 2022--non-retirement attrition was double 
the annual average from 2009 to 2021.
    To what do you attribute this sudden rise in attrition?
    Dr. Mazanec. Thank you.
    Just to put this in context, our historical attrition rate 
ranges from 8 to 10 percent. At the beginning of the pandemic 
and the first 2 years, it dropped to 6 percent and below, as 
people delayed retirement or just stopped looking for other 
opportunities. As expected, when the Library resumed onsite 
operation, the attrition rate increased. It ticked up to 13-
plus percent, as a result of people retiring. Also, there was a 
number of people that moved outside of the District and 
separated because they did not want to move back into the 
District.
    Right now, our projected attrition rate is back to our 
historical average of about 9--8, 9 percent for the year.
    People separate from CRS for a variety of reasons. As you 
already pointed out, usually retirements account for about 40 
to 50 percent in any given year----
    Chairwoman Bice. The numbers that I suggested were actually 
removing those retirement attrition numbers. I think the number 
that is being submitted to us is significantly higher.
    What I would also add is, when you look at other agencies, 
whether it is CAO or GAO or others, they do not have the 
similar types of numbers that we are seeing from an attrition 
perspective that we have seen within your organization, which 
is why I asked the question.
    I would also follow up with: Are you seeing those same 
trends this fiscal year?
    Dr. Mazanec. As I stated, we are back to our regular 
attrition historical average of between 8 and 10 percent----
    Chairwoman Bice. We are about 8 months through the year, 
fiscal year, correct?
    Dr. Mazanec. Right, but this is a projected attrition rate 
that we think we will maintain throughout the year. It is 
unpredictable.
    People leave for a variety of reasons: They are pursuing 
other opportunities. They are moving outside of the District. 
We do do exit interviews with departing employees to try to 
gather some sense of why they are leaving, and they pretty much 
fall into the buckets that I have identified.
    The jobs at CRS are very demanding. The people at CRS work 
very hard, and sometimes it is difficult to juggle their home 
responsibilities with their work responsibilities.
    Chairwoman Bice. I would argue that that actually is 
probably applicable to most jobs across Congress currently, but 
we have not seen the attrition numbers in other agencies that 
we have seen.
    We continue to hear concerns about low morale within, and 
were provided with a summary of the Fiscal Year 2022 Federal 
Employee Management Viewpoint Survey, the FEVS, conducted by 
the Office of Personnel Management.
    My understanding is the FEVS survey is designed to measure 
employees' perceptions across Government of whether conditions 
characterizing successful organizations are present within the 
agency.
    While we should stipulate that the surveys are snapshots in 
time and not a perfect measure, the 22 results that we have 
seen do raise concerns, showing a decline in employees' trust 
and confidence in senior leadership and with communication.
    What do you attribute the FEVS results to?
    Dr. Mazanec. As you stated, the FEVS measures employee 
perceptions at a given point in time----
    Chairwoman Bice. Perception is reality for many people, 
though, correct?
    Dr. Mazanec. Whether or not it is the actual reality of the 
situation is unclear. It is a start of a dialog.
    I have studied the results. I have compared them to 2018 
and to the initial year that the Library started to collect 
FEVS data, in 2016. We are basically back to our 2016 levels. 
We went up in 2018, and now we have declined.
    The 2022 FEVS is a mixed picture. We significantly 
decreased in certain areas, but we went up in others.
    Chairwoman Bice. Can you identify what other areas you 
increased?
    Dr. Mazanec. Yes, I can. We went up in work experience, 
work unit, and supervision, supervisors. We went down in 
leadership, the Library, ``my satisfaction.'' Then there were 
some specific questions on the pandemic and the transition back 
to the worksite.
    As you know, the 2022 FEVS was done in July and August of 
last year. The Library resumed onsite operations in April 2022. 
I think there was a lot of anxiety, a lot of concern, as 
employees retransitioned back to the worksite.
    Moving forward--because I really want to get to the why, to 
why are employees answering the questions in this manner--we 
have contracted with Marcia Byrd, who is a senior advisor right 
now on contract with the Librarian's Office, to do focus 
groups, to do a deeper probe into specifics as to why employees 
are answering the questions this way.
    Marcia Byrd is also doing our barrier analysis. CRS is the 
first service unit--I actually volunteered CRS to be the first 
service unit to do a barrier analysis.
    She has already looked at the FEVS, and these focus groups 
are scheduled to begin in the end-of-May timeframe.
    Chairwoman Bice. OK. Thank you.
    At this time, I yield 5 minutes to Ranking Member Kilmer.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thanks again for being with us.
    During the work of the Modernization Committee, we looked 
both at recruitment and retention, which I think the chair hit 
on really well. The other issue we looked at was diversity of 
workforce.
    I know the last time you visited with House Administration 
I was not on it, but I know part of the discussion was around 
how to diversify the workforce. I am just curious about some of 
the steps that you have taken and what sort of impact they have 
had.
    Dr. Mazanec. Thank you for that question.
    Diversity is a priority of mine; it is a priority of the 
Service. It was actually flagged as an area that we needed to 
focus on in the 2016 FEVS. At that point, we set up a diversity 
and inclusion working group to make recommendations back to me 
as to how we could best diversify the workforce.
    To that extent, we have increased our outreach efforts in 
advertising our jobs and also in making people just aware of 
CRS and employment opportunities. Last calendar year, we 
participated in 30 recruitment events.
    We also have provided quarterly diversity and inclusion 
trainings to increase awareness among staff and managers. We 
have created a diversity and inclusion website to provide 
additional information.
    We contracted with Texas A&M to do a capstone project for 
us, to write a report on best practices.
    Mr. Kilmer. How is it coming?
    Dr. Mazanec. We have the report. We are looking at the----
    Mr. Kilmer. I guess I--let me rephrase. Have these 
initiatives led to outcomes?
    Dr. Mazanec. We have had an impact at the most senior 
levels. I have 11 direct reports. They are part of my senior-
level management team. We have four individuals that identify 
themselves as minorities, for 36 percent. Five are women, for 
46 percent.
    In order to really move the needle significantly, you have 
to have turnover of staff, you have to have the opportunities 
to hire. We just do not have an exceedingly high attrition rate 
to move the needle that quickly.
    Mr. Kilmer. At the management level.
    Dr. Mazanec. No, at the general staff level. We are still 
approximately 75 percent Caucasian, 25 percent minority, if you 
look at the entire CRS staff.
    Mr. Kilmer. The other area I wanted to follow up on was, 
you know, in the last Congress, the Select Committee made a 
number of recommendations related to your organization.
    Dr. Mazanec. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Kilmer. I am happy to run through them if you want. You 
know, one was around making available nonpartisan summaries so 
that, when we take up particularly priority bills, that there 
is a nonpartisan summary available.
    There was one related to making sure that the products and 
services are designed to adapt to meet the needs of an evolving 
Congress, with a sub-recommendation related to the 
functionality of CRS.gov, improving access to agency reports 
and other information, tailoring products to staffs' knowledge 
level, taking steps to build a more diverse workforce, as we 
just discussed.
    Then another one regarding regularly updating and providing 
complete information on agency contacts and casework contacts 
for our district offices.
    Any status update you can give us on those recommendations?
    Dr. Mazanec. Yes, of course.
    Let me start with the bill summaries. As you know--as you 
stated, Congress has expressed concern about the timeliness of 
bill summaries, and I am concerned too.
    If you look at the number of measures introduced between 
the 115th and the 117th Congress, there has been a 30-percent 
increase. There are more measures being introduced, more 
measures that need to be summarized, and they are more complex. 
This team, the bill digest team that do the summaries, has 
stayed pretty much at the same numbers.
    In order to address this, we do have a pending programmatic 
increase that would increase that team by 12 FTEs. We are 
projecting that it would improve the timeliness of bill 
summaries by 40 percent.
    In the--just in the most recent----
    Mr. Kilmer. It feels like the--sorry to interrupt you. I 
mean, it seems like the priority needs to be at least summaries 
for stuff that is going to hit the floor, right?
    Dr. Mazanec. Absolutely, and that is a priority. We 
summarize the bill when we get the official bill language. To 
the extent that we have the bill language and we can summarize 
it before floor action, we do so.
    Mr. Kilmer. OK.
    Dr. Mazanec. We have a report that is due, I believe, in 
June that is currently under review--and this was in last 
year's appropriations language--to report on that and also 
indicate the resources that are needed----
    Mr. Kilmer. Uh-huh.
    Dr. Mazanec [continuing]. to improve that situation.
    Mr. Kilmer. Right. That is why you are asking for the----
    Dr. Mazanec. That is coming out.
    Mr. Kilmer. Gotcha.
    Dr. Mazanec. That is coming out.
    You had a question on--another question on----
    Mr. Kilmer. Agency contacts for casework.
    Dr. Mazanec. Oh, agency contacts for casework. I saw the 
recommendation. It is open. It is a deceptively difficult task 
that we are not----
    Mr. Kilmer. For our staff too.
    Dr. Mazanec. For your staff, for our staff. We are not 
currently resourced to do it. I would have to shift resources 
to create it and maintain it. It does require resources if you 
want contacts at the Federal, State, and district level.
    Mr. Kilmer. Uh-huh.
    Dr. Mazanec. I would like to discuss that in more detail. I 
just think it is a very difficult task for us to do.
    Then you had another on----
    Mr. Kilmer. CRS.gov, improving the functionality of the----
    Dr. Mazanec. CRS.gov is actually part of our IT 
modernization. We are making progress. We have input from 
congressional staff. The modernized CRS.gov will be more 
client-friendly. We are enhancing the search function, so there 
will be more accessibility, more ease of finding what you are 
looking for.
    Some of the improvements will be launched in 2023. The 
search function is scheduled to be completed in 2024. We are 
making significant progress on that IT project.
    Mr. Kilmer. OK.
    I am probably over time, so I will----
    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member Kilmer.
    At this time, I recognize Mr. Carey for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carey. Thank you.
    Doctor, thank you for your testimony and coming and talking 
with us today.
    I noticed from your resume you went to Case Western 
Reserve----
    Dr. Mazanec. Yes.
    Mr. Carey [continuing]. which is just a couple blocks away 
from my great-grandparents in Little Italy, so----
    Dr. Mazanec. Oh, great. Two of my degrees, actually.
    Mr. Carey. I noticed that. Then you did a little time in 
Michigan. I will not focus on the Michigan time, but glad you 
spent some time in Ohio.
    I was a former staffer here for many, many years and had 
the opportunity to use the Service. I read through your 
testimony, and since Mr. Kilmer actually asked some of the 
questions I was going to ask, let me focus on a couple things.
    In your testimony--and you, actually, in your verbal 
testimony, as well as your written, you said that you regularly 
receive feedback through the agency's direct interaction with 
congressional staff, including through programs and seminars. 
You indicated that you personally receive feedback from your 
own conversations with Members, like myself, and our staff.
    How do those interactions help you measure the 
effectiveness of your service and products?
    Dr. Mazanec. The first question out of my mouth when I run 
into a Member of Congress is: How are we doing for you? What 
can we do better? Most times, I get very positive feedback.
    We have tried to capture feedback in a more formal manner 
by doing Gallup surveys. The response rate is only 10 percent 
in general, and it is even lower for Members.
    Mr. Carey. OK.
    Dr. Mazanec. Every interaction we have with congressional 
staff is an opportunity to get feedback. When we are responding 
to a targeted research request, the analysts will contact the 
requester, clarify the request, make sure we understand the 
deadline----
    Mr. Carey. Yes.
    Dr. Mazanec [continuing]. the timeframe that we have, but 
will also have an iterative conversation throughout the process 
to make sure that we are meeting your needs.
    Mr. Carey. Let me ask you this just as a follow up. Are you 
tracking all of these conversations that you have with Members 
of Congress and our staff?
    Dr. Mazanec. Not in a formal way, because they are very 
informal, and a lot of times, like----
    Mr. Carey. Let me--and not to interrupt you, but, I mean, 
do you see any certain trends over the last couple years within 
the organization?
    Dr. Mazanec. As long as I have been at CRS, the feedback 
that I get at my level is mostly uniformly positive. Now, that 
is not to say that occasionally there is a product----
    Mr. Carey. I wish we had that same in Congress.
    Dr. Mazanec [continuing]. that I hear about.
    Mr. Carey. Uh-huh.
    Dr. Mazanec. We have tried a few things recently. The 
American Law Division has put a one-question survey on the 
bottom of their newsletter that they send out to 600 people, 
600 subscribers every 2 weeks.
    Mr. Carey. Let me jump in here real quick----
    Dr. Mazanec. OK.
    Mr. Carey [continuing]. because, kind of in a related vein, 
you have contracted, if I am not mistaken, with Gallup a couple 
times----
    Dr. Mazanec. A couple of times.
    Mr. Carey [continuing]. to survey your staff on the 
effectiveness of your products and your services.
    How are those results from those two surveys incorporated 
in the work? You know, what have you done as a follow up to 
that? I only have a minute and a half, so----
    Dr. Mazanec. A quick answer. One of the things that was 
commented upon, and I have already spoken to it, is bill 
summaries. That is one of our most used products. There was the 
issue raised about timeliness, and so we are taking efforts to 
improve that.
    If we get suggestions, specific suggestions, about the 
product line, we move them forward. I set up a new product 
advisory committee that vets suggestions, new ideas for 
products.
    Mr. Carey. OK.
    Is customer service effectiveness a part of the performance 
review process for all of your employees?
    Dr. Mazanec. Yes, I do believe so, that employees--that 
analysts will be evaluated, to some extent, on how well they 
serve you.
    I am incredibly proud of the work that my staff does. They 
put in overtime, they work in the evenings, on the weekends, to 
make sure that you get what you need.
    Mr. Carey. Yes.
    Dr. Mazanec. In the very rare instance where we do not meet 
a deadline, we try to get detailed specifics and we try to 
improve our performance.
    Realistically, sometimes the deadlines that you want are 
not achievable in the timeframe you give us. To do a 50-State 
survey on a complex legal issue cannot be done in a few hours.
    Mr. Carey. Well--and I appreciate your testimony, 
appreciate the time. I have run out of mine, so I----
    Dr. Mazanec. OK.
    Mr. Carey [continuing]. yield back, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Carey.
    We will move forward with a second round of questioning or 
if anyone wants to chime in here. I have structured this 
particular Subcommittee to be a little more collaborative and 
more of a roundtable discussion. To any of my colleagues 
sitting here with me, you are welcome to chime in.
    I want to pivot back to the conversation around IRIS.
    Dr. Mazanec. Uh-huh.
    Chairwoman Bice. In 2018, you know, there was a multiyear 
effort announced; there was $20 million that was dedicated to 
improving technology within the organization.
    We have heard that there have been some frustrations with 
moving forward with technology. Certainly, you and I had a 
conversation around the platform that you were looking at 
launching. It did not go as planned.
    How much of that $20 million has been spent so far? What is 
the plan moving forward to try to improve CRS?
    By the way, I should also note, I tried to pull CRS up on 
my iPad and it would not load, and I am not really sure why. 
So----
    Dr. Mazanec. The CRS.gov website?
    Chairwoman Bice. Correct. Yes.
    Dr. Mazanec. On your----
    Chairwoman Bice. iPad.
    Dr. Mazanec. That is strictly for congressional users and 
the intranet that you have. You can get our products on 
Congress.gov, which you should be able to pull up on your 
iPhone.
    Chairwoman Bice. Perfect.
    I have noticed that there has been a lot of discussion in 
your--I believe, in your statement about Congress.gov, or it 
might have been in the directional statement that was provided 
to us. It seems like there is more of a focus on Congress.gov 
than there is on CRS.gov.
    I would love to hear your perspective on IRIS and where we 
are with the initiatives to try to improve technology across 
the entity.
    Dr. Mazanec. IRIS was initially conceptualized in 2015. We 
got funding in 2018. It was a 5-year, multiproject effort.
    Initially, we were restricted to an on-premise solution. As 
I mentioned to you when we met previously, we had two vendors 
that were unable to deliver a minimally viable product.
    Chairwoman Bice. What were the projects that you had 
contracted upon receiving the authorization, the appropriations 
for $20 million? You said you had five----
    Dr. Mazanec. What were the specific initiatives?
    Chairwoman Bice. Right. You said there were five that you 
were looking at?
    Dr. Mazanec. Well, no, no. It was a 5-year initiative.
    Chairwoman Bice. What were you looking at doing with that?
    Dr. Mazanec. Authoring and publishing, content management, 
our customer service record, the text analysis program, and 
then some of the infrastructure work--and, again, I apologize, 
I am not an IT expert. That is why I brought my colleague with 
me. It is a complicated project. It was to modernize all of our 
mission-critical systems.
    Chairwoman Bice. Which one of those would you say you have 
actually been able to accomplish?
    Dr. Mazanec. I think we are moving forward on all of them.
    Chairwoman Bice. What is----
    Dr. Mazanec. The text analysis----
    Chairwoman Bice. Just let us be clear: We are 5 years in 
now. We----
    Dr. Mazanec. Right.
    Chairwoman Bice.--appropriated the dollars in 2018, and 
here we are in 2023, and I do not--I am asking, what are the 
deliverables?
    Dr. Mazanec. Two of those major products had to be 
recompeted because we had to terminate the contract. We were 
able to build on the first 2 years of the vendors' efforts. 
They helped to define requirements, et cetera.
    In 2023, the publishing system is going to be launched. We 
have a solution for that to be put into place. The customer 
management service will be launched. The content management 
system will be launched. The Text Analysis Program, TAP, is due 
to be released this year.
    We are making quite a bit of progress on these systems. It 
is an iterative process. The Library uses an agile approach. 
Once these systems are put in place, there will be ongoing, 
continuous development of the systems so that we will be able 
to adapt the systems as your needs evolve, to better meet you 
and what you need from us.
    Chairwoman Bice. As far as the $20 million that was 
appropriated, how much of that has been spent to date?
    Dr. Mazanec. I will have to get back to you on that.
    I do think--you had asked me before, the contractor, the 
vendor that was not able to deliver the product, how much we 
were able to de-obligate. The initial amount that was awarded 
was $7.8 million. We were able to de-obligate $3.5 million. 
$4.3 million was already expended on work that they did for us.
    Chairwoman Bice. OK. All right.
    Ranking Member Kilmer, you are recognized.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair.
    Maybe I will sort of do a speed round.
    Dr. Mazanec. OK.
    Mr. Kilmer. On the attrition side, is there anything that 
the organization needs to better hold on to talented analysts? 
You said things have settled down this year in terms of 
turnover, but, you know, this----
    Dr. Mazanec. Well, I think there are three things, three 
factors that make employees satisfied with their job. One is, 
they have professional development opportunities. They are 
engaged. We are working on those two aspects. They are 
acknowledged and rewarded for their contributions.
    To the extent possible, we try to provide developmental 
opportunities in terms of training. We have a budget that 
allows them to attend professional conferences. There are 
programs that the Library has, like the Leadership Development 
Program, that they can participate in--apply and participate 
in.
    There are other development opportunities that I would like 
my staff to be able to have, but, again, it comes down to 
capacity.
    I think details provide a great opportunity for our 
subject-matter experts to expand their knowledge in their area. 
That is something I would like to do more of.
    We do have regular performance awards for their 
contributions.
    To the extent practicable, we do try to engage them. In my 
written testimony, you see that we have a strategic planning 
process that we kicked off. We have, on some of the working 
groups in Committees, we have staff participating. We also have 
them participating on some of our standing Committees. We have 
staff participating on the TAG, the technical working groups 
that we have set up to inform our IT modernization effort.
    Mr. Kilmer. Let me ask a couple things on the technology 
modernization front.
    You mentioned the investment required for the bill 
summaries. Has there been any contemplation of using a 
technical solution, using AI, for example?
    Dr. Mazanec. Using AI? Absolutely. In fact, we are planning 
to pilot an on-premise AI solution to see if it can assist us 
in bill summaries.
    Mr. Kilmer. OK.
    Dr. Mazanec. My understanding of AI is, it is a rapidly 
evolving field. We do have a team that is doing market analysis 
of the various solutions. The market analysis, thus far--so 
far, as I understand it, the AI solutions have not been 
security certified for Federal Government use. So----
    Mr. Kilmer. These are public bills, though, right? I mean--
--
    Dr. Mazanec. That is--we are going to pilot that, and that 
is an on-premise solution.
    Mr. Kilmer. OK.
    Dr. Mazanec. I think it is a different thing. We are 
planning to do that.
    Mr. Kilmer. You spoke to this briefly, but the issues 
around, sort of, maximizing findability and usability of CRS 
products----
    Dr. Mazanec. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Kilmer [continuing]. that was one of the 
recommendations that the Modernization Committee made. Has 
there been any progress on that yet? You mentioned that the 
search function was going to be updated----
    Dr. Mazanec. The search function on CRS.gov is scheduled to 
be completed in 2024.
    Mr. Kilmer. How about pushing out product to the public, 
making some of the past products available to, you know, 
Members, staff, and making them more available to the general 
public?
    Dr. Mazanec. Are you talking--public release? We were 
mandated in 2018 to----
    Mr. Kilmer. Those things that are not classified at least, 
making them more available--findable and available.
    Dr. Mazanec. Findable and available.
    Congress.gov is where we push out our nonconfidential 
written products.
    Mr. Kilmer. Yes.
    Dr. Mazanec. That also is a partnership with OCIO. It is 
also a partnership with the Clerk of the House and the 
Secretary of the Senate, CBO, and GPO.
    There are constantly being updates and new product 
offerings on Congress.gov. I think the searchability or the 
ability to find the CRS products is in the queue.
    Mr. Kilmer. If I could, Madam Chair.
    When you look at developing technology products, is there 
any attempt to tag-team either with civil society organizations 
or with sister organizations like CBO, GAO?
    Dr. Mazanec. Do you mean co-develop them?
    Mr. Kilmer. Yes.
    Dr. Mazanec. Not to my knowledge, but, again, I would defer 
to the CAO. I am sure we tap into the expertise, and we do look 
and do our research to see what other agencies have put in 
place. To actually work together to develop a system--I mean, 
we do have--for Congress.gov, we do have our data partners in a 
working group that we meet with regularly.
    Mr. Kilmer. OK. Thanks.
    I yield back.
    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member Kilmer.
    I recognize Mr. Carey for his questioning.
    Mr. Carey. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be quick with 
this.
    I think we have, like, 15,000 staffers here on the Hill, in 
and around. Yet, I think, if I am not mistaken, if the number--
I could be off by a couple hundred, but I think you only have 
about 1,200 followers on Twitter.
    I guess my question is, what are you guys doing for social 
media for our staffs? Do you plan to expand upon that in the 
future?
    Dr. Mazanec. Twitter--congressional staff can sign up with 
us to receive our tweets. Our tweets are used mostly to push 
out information about products and seminars that we are 
planning to put on. We do not have a broad social media 
presence. That is really not something that we engage in.
    We also have other vehicles to make staff aware of programs 
and new products or different things that we are doing. Every 
division usually has a newsletter that they push out. I 
mentioned the American Law Division newsletter that they push 
out every 2 weeks. I know we have a specific newsletter just 
focused on science and technology, since that has been a 
concern of Congress, making sure that they have additional 
support on science and technology.
    Mr. Carey. I can appreciate that. You know, just looking at 
those numbers, my hope is that you guys will--because we want 
you guys to be successful. I mean, that is why we are having 
these hearings, that is why we are talking about the issues 
that we are talking about.
    I just think that, when you have a captive audience of 
15,000 people that work here on the Hill, to only be followed 
by 1,200 or some of those--and you are right, there are other 
venues that they can go and get the information--my hope is 
that you can grow that, whether it is that or other social 
media.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Carey.
    I want to sort of piggyback off of that. I have a different 
perspective. I am not sure that that is maybe the best 
utilization of resources, quite frankly. My friend and 
colleague from Ohio may disagree.
    I first want to ask the question--you mentioned seminars, 
that you are holding seminars that congressional staff, I 
believe, is invited to attend. Is that correct? Or is it for 
your own staff?
    Dr. Mazanec. No. Actually, we have a whole series of 
seminars throughout the session. Last year, we did 250 
seminars.
    Chairwoman Bice. How many congressional staffers are 
participating in these events?
    Dr. Mazanec. Totally, it is over 10,000 congressional 
staffers at all of those seminars.
    Chairwoman Bice. That have attended?
    Dr. Mazanec. That have attended.
    Chairwoman Bice. OK.
    Dr. Mazanec. We offer our programming in both a virtual 
venue, a virtual medium, so we are able to offer seminars to 
district staff. Many of our programs are hybrid. We will have 
both an in-person audience but also make it available to a 
virtual audience.
    Chairwoman Bice. The reason I ask the question is, I feel 
like there are so many entities that are providing seminars, 
whether it is specific to topics--you mentioned ALU or 
science--either outside think-tank groups or even internal 
organizations that are providing updates on policy areas or 
specific initiatives. I think of, within the Republican 
Conference, the, you know, Western Caucus talks a lot about 
farming issues or conservation issues.
    I am just curious if you feel like the information that you 
are sharing in those particular seminars provides a different 
level of engagement or insight that they may not get from 
somewhere else.
    Dr. Mazanec. I think so. I think our seminars are focused 
through a congressional lens. They are targeted to the work 
that you are currently undertaking. It is tied very tightly to 
the congressional schedule.
    For example, we may use proposed legislation as a topic for 
a seminar. We will walk through maybe some of the policy 
considerations. It is different than a seminar that is put on 
by a think tank or an academic institution.
    Chairwoman Bice. There is a currently a Member briefing on 
AI from MIT. I am sure that would be a fascinating discussion.
    Dr. Mazanec. It would be. I am sure it would be.
    Chairwoman Bice. You mentioned, to a question from Ranking 
Member Kilmer, that you have quite a few individuals serving on 
the Committees that are, I think, looking into different areas 
of CRS. Is that correct?
    Dr. Mazanec. Uh-huh.
    Chairwoman Bice. Specifically, what staff do you have 
serving on these Committees? Is it every level? Is it only 
leadership? Who is actually participating in these focus 
groups?
    Dr. Mazanec. For the focus groups? The focus group is 
open--this is in follow up to the FEVS. The focus groups----
    Chairwoman Bice. I am sorry. This is in follow up to 
Ranking Member Kilmer's----
    Dr. Mazanec. It depends on the subgroup or working group. 
We include analysts on the diversity and inclusion working 
group. We have representatives from across the Service in all 
different positions, from people that work on the upside to 
analysts and people that work on the research side. The new 
products working group, again, has people from the research 
side, mostly, primarily, because that is the vehicle for our 
work product. It varies. It varies.
    There are other ways we engage staff, whether it is brown-
bag discussions or other ways to get their input, where we will 
put something out in our weekly newsletter and ask them to 
provide comments or feedback.
    I recently conducted a series of all-hands meetings 
division by research division just to answer all their 
questions. I spent an hour-and-a-half in each division just 
answering all their questions----
    Chairwoman Bice. If I may, in regards to what, 
specifically?
    Dr. Mazanec. It was about a lot of different things, about 
some of the policies that are in place, particularly our new 
hybrid work environment, telework. There was one or two 
questions about artificial intelligence and how is that going 
to impact what we do, our work, since there are some solutions 
or some programs that can now generate content and text. 
Sometimes they have questions about hiring.
    It is really what----
    Chairwoman Bice. More of a townhall-type format.
    Dr. Mazanec. It is a townhall-type format. A lot of 
questions were related to the recent experience that they had 
coming through a global public health emergency, the transition 
back into onsite work, how that was working.
    It is really a mix, whatever is percolating at that moment.
    Chairwoman Bice. Great. Thank you.
    Ranking Member Kilmer, you are recognized.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair.
    There are members of your team that I would like to erect 
statues of because they have----
    Dr. Mazanec. I would too.
    Mr. Kilmer [continuing]. done such great work for us.
    I am struck by the fact that, you know, a lot of the works 
that is done is--there can be projects that take a long time, 
right, where there is a highly technical issue, where we ask a 
member of your team to engage with constituents, and it can get 
really murky, and they help us walk through the wilderness.
    With that in mind, I want to ask about something, because I 
want to understand it better.
    As we understand it, the American Law Division is in the 
process of implementing across-the-board numerical quotas for 
congressional requests and for written products as part of 
their performance appraisal.
    I want to understand that better, because it seems like, 
depending upon the content area or the legislative activity, 
something could take--I mean, I know for a fact that our office 
has worked with folks where, you know, it has been really, 
really challenging. I would feel guilty asking for that level 
of qualitative work if they are being measured based on 
quantitative quota.
    Maybe help me understand, what was the motivation behind 
that? Where do you see it headed?
    Dr. Mazanec. Thank you for that question, but I think it is 
not an accurate assessment of what the leadership in the 
American Law Division is actually trying to do.
    Mr. Kilmer. OK.
    Dr. Mazanec. We are not setting quotas. It is not about the 
numbers.
    What the leadership in ALD is trying to do is clarify 
expectations, performance expectations, provide more guidance 
and transparency to legislative attorneys in the GS-13 to -15 
series as to what they need to do in order to meet 
expectations. The numbers that are mentioned set the floor. 
Virtually every attorney will easily get over them.
    It is not the controlling factor. The controlling factor is 
really the quality of the work. If someone is working on a 
project that takes a lot of their time, that is very complex, 
that is going to be evaluated very highly.
    There may be other considerations. If they are detailed 
into a management position or in a position where they are not 
writing as much or responding to requests because they are 
doing other things to support the American Law Division, that 
will be taken into consideration.
    Chairwoman Bice. If I could maybe follow up on that.
    Dr. Mazanec. Yes.
    Chairwoman Bice. If I am hearing you correctly, you are 
suggesting that you are not going to be putting some sort of 
quantitative number across the board for every individual. Is 
that right?
    Because I think, to Ranking Member Kilmer's point, somebody 
that is in tax policy may have a lot more due diligence to be 
able to put out a product versus somebody that is maybe doing, 
I do not know, science-based initiatives.
    I think that is where I would concur that maybe that is a 
concern that we have, if you are, in fact, trying to put some 
sort of benchmarks or floor in place, how that is going to be--
--
    Dr. Mazanec. Actually, what the numbers are, the average 
legislative attorney will answer so many requests a year, but 
the range is this.
    It is not a quota or a benchmark that someone has to get 
over. It is really to provide guidance to attorneys and in this 
one specific position. I have had staff say to me that they 
wish they had a better understanding of what the job 
expectations are.
    Performance evaluation is a process, an annual process. At 
the beginning of the rating period, the analysts, the attorney, 
the staff member, will develop a performance plan with their 
manager. There will be check-ins throughout the rating period. 
There is a formal midyear evaluation and then a final 
evaluation.
    You do not want to get to the final evaluation and not have 
a better understanding of what the job responsibilities are and 
what the expectations are to be fully successful, or 
commendable, or outstanding.
    Chairwoman Bice. Do you yield.
    OK. Ranking Member Kilmer yields back, and I think at this 
time that is the conclusion of the questions from our Committee 
here.
    I want to say thank you to Dr. Mazanec and certainly her 
team that has joined her this afternoon.
    We will take a short recess to reset and start our second 
panel here shortly.
    Dr. Mazanec. Thank you very much, and I look forward to 
continuing our dialog.
    [Recess.]
    Chairwoman Bice. The Subcommittee on Modernization will 
come to order. I note that a quorum is present.
    Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    I will now introduce our second panel of witnesses.
    Our first witness, Mr. Joseph Dunne, is the director of the 
European Parliament Liaison Office in Washington, D.C., and is 
tasked with fostering and deepening relations between the 
European Parliament and the U.S. Congress.
    From 2016 to 2018, Mr. Dunne worked as a director in the 
Directorate General for the European Parliamentary Research 
Services and was responsible for the European Parliament 
Library. Mr. Dunne served as a senior resident fellow at the 
German Marshall Fund of the United States and as a visiting 
fellow at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George 
Mason University.
    Our next witness, Mr. Richard Coffin, is the chief of 
research and advocacy at USAFacts, a nonprofit, nonpartisan 
civic initiative aimed at empowering Americans with facts by 
making Government data more accessible, understandable, and 
usable.
    Prior to his current role, Mr. Coffin spent several years 
as the organization's chief product officer, where he led 
product vision and strategy, data acquisition, content 
production, and the building out of the customer-facing website 
and platform.
    Our final witness, Dr. Kevin Kosar, is a resident scholar 
at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C., think 
tank, where he studies U.S. Congress, American politics, and 
the U.S. Postal Service. Between 2003 and 2014, Dr. Kosar 
served as an analyst and an acting research manager at the 
Library of Congress's Congressional Research Service.
    Thank you to our second panel of witnesses for being here 
today.
    Under Committee Rule 9, we ask witnesses to limit their 
presentation to a brief summary of their written statement. 
Please remember to press the button on the microphone in front 
of you so that the green light is on.
    When you begin to speak, the timer will begin and turn 
green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the 
red light comes on, your 5 minutes have expired and we would 
ask that you please wrap up.
    At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Joseph Dunne 
for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

   STATEMENTS OF JOSEPH DUNNE, DIRECTOR, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
 LIAISON OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C., AND FORMERLY A DIRECTOR IN 
THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY RESEARCH 
   SERVICE; RICHARD COFFIN, CHIEF OF RESEARCH AND ADVOCACY, 
     USAFACTS; AND KEVIN KOSAR, SENIOR FELLOW OF LEGAL AND 
     CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

                   STATEMENT OF JOSEPH DUNNE

    Mr. Dunne. Thank you, Chairwoman Bice, Ranking Member 
Kilmer, Member Carey. It is a great honor and privilege for me 
to be here today.
    As you have just said, I am the director of the European 
Parliament Liaison Office, which was establish by the 
Parliament to deepen relations for the Congress. Before I came 
here, my last two positions were in the European Parliament 
Research Service, and I was involved in the small team which 
set up the Service in 2013, 10 years ago.
    If I could explain briefly to you about the Service--the 
first point I would like to say, though, is the context of this 
reform. In 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon made the European 
Parliament a fully fledged co-legislature, a co-equal branch of 
the EU legislature, as you would perhaps say here. The 
challenge, then, was how the EP would equip itself to play its 
full role as a co-legislature.
    On the resources front, the Parliament did three things: It 
boosted its professional Committee staff; it created a whole 
new scrutiny and oversight capacity; and, third, it created a 
whole new research capacity, the EPRS.
    In doing this, the EP looked to the United States and 
especially to the nonpartisan legislative institutions--the 
CRS, GAO, CBO--who we look upon as world leaders, and note that 
they are designed to safeguard Congress's legislative powers 
using knowledge and expertise.
    This was a template for us, and our motto became, 
``Empowering Members and Committees Through Knowledge.'' We had 
a vision, inspired by the CRS, of being independent, 
nonpartisan, objective, and authoritative, to be specialists in 
all policy fields, be client-oriented, responsive to the needs 
of Members, and to ensure clear and simple branding of our 
products, and to maximize readability and visualization 
techniques using visual media as much as possible, especially 
infographics and data.
    Of course, from the very outset, we tried to develop and 
did develop a productive and professional relationship with the 
CRS, tried to learn from their experience. We admire, and still 
admire very much, the authoritativeness of CRS publications and 
strive to meet that high benchmark.
    The EPRS was built up around three pillars. The part that 
most resembles the CRS is called the Members' Research Service. 
This has two main tasks: first, to respond to individual 
requests from Members. These are always handled on a strictly 
confidential basis. By now, in the middle of this legislative 
term, we have reached 86 percent of all of the Members of 
Parliament.
    A second main task is generating publications for all 
Members. The guiding principle here was that the briefing 
should be content-rich but, nevertheless, clear, accessible, 
easy to read.
    In this term, the 1,500 publications that we have published 
are all publicly accessible. They can all be accessed on our 
catalog, on our think-tank internet website, around the EPRS 
app, which you can download from Google Play or from the App 
Store.
    We have put a strong emphasis on the use of infographics, 
data, statistics in all our publications. Most of these 
infographics are available to Members and their offices. We 
have a graphics warehouse on our intranet site. We have a map 
warehouse, also available to Members and their offices, and a 
statistics warehouse, giving easy access to a very wide range 
of EU and international data.
    We continue to try to innovate new products. We have 
developed a podcast. We have projects like what we call the EU 
``Legislative Train Schedule'' website. We have done short 
notes on the practical benefits of the EU for people, known as 
``What Europe Does for Me.''
    The second pillar of the EPRS is inspired, in part, by the 
GAO, and this deals with tools for ex ante and retrospective 
impact assessment and evaluation. This is partly because, in 
our system, in the EU system, impact assessment is dealt with 
more upstream than is the case here. This created a need for a 
special support for parliamentary Committees.
    The EPRS also supports the STOA panel, the Scientific and 
Technological Options Assessment panel, which is made up of 27 
Members of Parliament. It was created in 1984 on the model 
which existed in the U.S. Congress. This body increasing looks 
to issues related to scientific foresight.
    In addition to that, we have a complementary but separate 
unit dealing with global trends, which we call the Strategic 
Foresight and Capabilities Unit. The idea here is to instill 
forward thinking in legislation, how we can future-proof 
legislation and create resilience in the face of future shocks 
and try to extrapolate how that can be anticipated as much as 
possible in legislation.
    I am actually a little bit ahead of myself. I thought I was 
going to go over the 5 minutes. I was going to say that, in 
conclusion, that the EPRS has been successful in its own terms, 
in terms of the goals we set for ourselves 10 years ago, as we 
now reach almost 90 percent of all of the Members of the 
European Parliament. Our public reports are more and more 
frequently cited in academic literature, so we feel we have 
reached a certain level of authoritativeness.
    I would be very happy to answer any of your questions. I am 
delighted to be here, and thank you very much for inviting me.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Dunne follows:]

               PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH DUNNE

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you for your statement.
    Unfortunately, the timer actually starts going up 
whenever----
    Mr. Dunne. I misread the timer.
    Chairwoman Bice. That is OK.
    Mr. Dunne. We have the same system, but I misread it.
    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Dunne.
    Mr. Dunne. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Bice. At this time, I recognize Mr. Coffin.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF RICHARD COFFIN

    Mr. Coffin. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairwoman 
Bice, Ranking Member Kilmer, and Members of the Subcommittee on 
Modernization.
    My name is Richard Coffin, and I am the chief of research 
and advocacy at USAFacts. I am honored to participate in 
today's hearing to discuss modernizing the Congressional 
Research Service.
    As our Nation faces increasingly complex challenges, our 
elected leaders need access to undisputed, trusted data to 
craft legislation and make informed policy decisions. USAFacts 
was created, in part, to help fulfill this need by aggregating 
and standardizing Government data and presenting it in a clear 
manner on our website.
    USAFacts began when former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer 
recognized the need for Government data to be as accessible and 
as comprehensive as the metrics and data reported by businesses 
that corporate leaders use to make sound, evidence-based 
decisions and that shareholders use to make investment choices.
    Steve believed in a world where decisions are based in 
undisputed numbers and fact. He invested his personal assets 
and effort to take on the time-consuming and challenging 
process of compiling and organizing Government data.
    Congress needs strong research and a foundation of facts 
and data to make informed decisions on behalf of the American 
people. As James Madison once said, ``A popular Government 
without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but 
a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.''
    Over its more than 100-year history, the Congressional 
Research Service has done an admirable job of fulfilling its 
mission. It has been more than 50 years since the agency's role 
was last scrutinized, and this is why we are here today: to 
project a future that could be if the agency reimagined itself 
for the 21st century, one that better serves Congress, better 
serves everyone in this room, and better serves the American 
people.
    We suggest the following improvements.
    First, CRS should publish reports as web documents with 
machine-readable data tables and text, enabling easier access 
and usability. By making both the text and data more available 
in formats like CSV files that are easy to use, search engines 
can more easily index and find these reports and individuals 
can better use the data for analysis. This expands the reach of 
these reports and empowers readers to put these reports into 
action.
    Second, CRS should provide more summarized findings, high-
impact charts, and onboarding materials for Members of Congress 
and staff. We saw some examples of some of these earlier, but, 
consistently--and, really, I mean consistently--creating 
shorter-format reports and infographics will provide a more 
accessible and comprehensible overview of the issues at hand. 
Products such as a broad overview of Government or primers on 
key policy issues and reports could help reduce the time it 
takes for new Members and staff or just any individual with 
limited time to ramp up in their work.
    Third, CRS should create more online interactive tools, 
such as congressional dashboards that continuously provide 
relevant metrics on key issues. While PDF reports are 
comprehensive, they can become quickly outdated almost 
immediately, and Congress instead needs access to real-time 
data and insights to aid in decision making, similar to the 
executive dashboards used by heads of companies. At minimum, 
outdated materials should be clearly marked or archived to 
prevent inaccurate, incomplete, or outdated information from 
being used in decision making.
    Fourth, CRS should publish overviews of broad questions 
Congress is asking to help Members understand and build on the 
knowledge of their peers, while respecting confidentiality of 
course. This insight could be invaluable for Members of 
Congress and staff who are looking for a starting point in 
understanding an issue and could learn from the thoughts and 
inquiries of their colleagues.
    Fifth, CRS should create resources to assist in finding, 
interpreting, and using data to empower evidence-based 
policymaking. Congress faces the same challenges that we at 
USAFacts have encountered in making data easier to use for the 
general public, and resources that help Congress find data and 
use it effectively would be a significant step toward 
empowering evidence-based policymaking.
    Sixth, CRS should support lawmakers in defining intended 
outcomes of legislation and ensuring the data for measuring 
these outcomes is available. Numeric outcomes are rarely 
defined within legislation, and, as a result, data to track 
them is sometimes unavailable or incomplete. CRS should work 
with Members to understand outcomes of legislation while 
staying nonpartisan, identify data that would help measure 
these outcomes, and define how it should be reported to assist 
in tracking implementation of legislation.
    Seventh, CRS should adopt best practices for building 
customer-facing products that serve Members of Congress and 
their staff. Instead of attending solely to individual Member 
requests, CRS should surface common themes, proactively conduct 
outreach to understand the needs of Congress, and develop tools 
for use across many offices in decision making.
    Finally, CRS should make as much as possible publicly 
available to help all Americans understand what information is 
used in decision making, help them follow legislation more 
closely, and create more trust in Congress.
    Our polling shows that nearly half of Americans believe 
that relying on different sets of facts about major issues 
causes more political division today than differing political 
beliefs. Making more of CRS's research publicly available, 
while maintaining nonpartisanship, could help Members and the 
public access that common source of information to ground the 
debate that is so needed in today's world.
    The Congressional Research Service has a vital role to play 
in providing accurate, reliable, and comprehensive data to 
inform policy decisions made by our elected officials. By 
modernizing the CRS and adopting the recommendations outlined 
here, we believe that Congress will be better equipped to 
address the challenges facing our Nation today and in the 
future.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look 
forward to answering any question you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Coffin follows:]

              PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD COFFIN

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Coffin.
    Finally, I recognize Dr. Kevin Kosar for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF KEVIN KOSAR

    Mr. Kosar. All right. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Bice, 
Ranking Member Kilmer, and Members of the Subcommittee, for 
holding this hearing. I am honored to be before you all again 
to testify about Congress and--or to testify before Congress 
about CRS.
    As mentioned, I spent 11 years at the agency as an analyst 
and an acting manager. I got to oversee a terrific group of 
researchers. Since that time, I have spent 10 years in the 
think-tank world. Although I no longer work at CRS, I do stay 
in contact with my former colleagues and do speak to CRS staff 
who arrived at the agency more recently. I have also spoken to 
staff who have arrived recently and departed recently.
    I have spent a good deal of time writing about the agency 
and doing my best to keep an eye on its operation and its work. 
You might ask, you know, is this some sort of monomania? Well, 
sort of, yes. I really like the agency, a lot. I think very 
highly of CRS's analysts and its reference librarians, and its 
well-being is important to me, and I think it is important to 
Congress.
    Yet it is also the case that CRS desperately needs 
modernization. The agency's organic statute has been little 
altered since 1970, and the agency's internal structures look a 
lot like they did after the reorganization of the late 1990's. 
CRS's operating context, as the Chairwoman noted at the 
beginning, has clearly changed.
    Back in the 1970's, Committees dominated the policymaking 
process and one party had what appeared to be a permanent 
majority in both chambers. Interest groups were far fewer, and 
parties were less ideologically sorted. Back then, Congress 
possessed ample capacity to carry out its legislative, 
oversight, and constituent service duties. On all these points, 
the Congress of today is very different.
    Additionally, I should note, today, CRS no longer exists, 
as we have heard, as a quasi-monopolist in the provision of 
information and expertise on in-the-weeds legislative and 
governmental matters. Today, there are an enormous number of 
think tanks and other entities who are putting out content that 
is aimed at audiences on Capitol Hill.
    As you all know all too well, how legislators and staff 
consume information, analysis, and data has changed. Moreover, 
the time available for thinking and studying has contracted, 
and the quantity of information has swollen to a glut.
    Times clearly have greatly changed, and CRS also must 
change.
    As I note in my written testimony, I think that modernizing 
CRS means evolving the agency so to bolster its core identity 
and its core strengths. At its essence, CRS is a governmental 
publishing and consulting firm that serves Congress. 
Legislators and Committees are CRS's customers. The media and 
the public are beneficiaries of CRS's provision of bill 
summaries and reports on Congress.gov.
    When you look at CRS, it has about six core strengths that 
I have identified: No. 1, it is nonpartisan; No. 2, it 
possesses institutional memory; No. 3, it possesses deep 
expertise; No. 4, it offers rapid responses to congressional 
needs; No. 5, it produces customized responses to congressional 
requesters; and, No. 6, it has the capacity to create ad hoc 
teams of experts to respond to cross-cutting issues. What other 
firm out there can do that for Congress? None that I know of.
    To effect modernization, however, will require, I think, 
changes at three levels: first, amending CRS's statute; second, 
improving CRS's regulatory environment, seeing as it is 
ensconced inside the Library of Congress and has to jump 
through a lot of LOC hoops; third, reworking CRS's internal 
structures and policies. These are the things that have been 
issued by CRS's leadership and are firmly in control of them.
    Most certainly, modernizing CRS is going to necessitate 
fixing the troubles that have plagued the agency for the past 
decade, including excessive staff turnover.
    As a bullet point here, by my read of the data that was 
supplied by the Committee, something like a third of the staff, 
excluding retirements, a third of the staff has parted from the 
agency in the past dozen years or so. That is bad. This leads 
to the erosion of institutional memory. That is a problem.
    We have flagging staff morale, as has been cited before, 
and, of course, buggy technology, all of which negatively 
effects CRS analysts' and reference librarians' ability to 
serve Congress.
    Again, these are issues that are not new. They were there 
in 2014 and, in part, led to my decision--they were a factor in 
my decision to leave. They have to be fixed for the agency to 
be able to keep people, inspire people, and to, you know, let 
CRS become all it can be.
    I thank you for listening to my statement, and I am happy 
to answer any questions you have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kosar follows:]

               PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN KOSAR

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Dr. Kosar.
    At this time, we will begin questioning the witnesses, 
beginning with myself, followed by the Ranking Member, and then 
I will alternate between parties. Any Member wishing to be 
recognized should signal to the chair.
    I will now recognize myself for the purpose of questioning 
the witnesses.
    I will start, Mr. Dunne, with you, if I may. You mentioned 
that EPRS has produced an app for staff and Members to easily 
access reports, podcasts, and other products.
    How often would you say that the app is used? What 
advantages does the app provide for disseminating information 
quickly?
    Mr. Dunne. I downloaded the app yesterday. I just checked 
before I came here to see if the app was available on the 
American web store. I was able to download EPRS and see all the 
recent publications.
    Because I am no longer involved directly in management of 
the EPRS, I do not have those kind of statistics, but I did get 
some recent management documents from the management meetings. 
I see, for example, there is a weekly social media report where 
they track the blog statistics, so the views, views on Twitter, 
views on LinkedIn. Because every time we make a publication, a 
public publication, we push it out on Twitter and other things.
    Then, of course, on the other side, you have inquiry 
statistics for the confidential briefings, which are kind of 
treated in a totally separate way.
    That does not fully answer your question, but I am sure 
that my colleagues in Brussels could give me more precise 
details if you are interested.
    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Dunne.
    Mr. Dunne. I personally think the app is less used than--or 
before I left, I think it was less used than the intranet by 
the Members' offices. It is there, so it allows people to use 
it when they are mobile, when they are moving.
    Chairwoman Bice. Excellent. We will follow up.
    I am going to ask Committee staff to queue up a couple of 
slides that demonstrate some of the innovative work that EPRS 
is doing with interactive infographics. They say that a picture 
is worth a thousand words, and I would imagine an interactive 
picture is worth even more.
    You mentioned in your testimony that one of the key areas 
of emphasis in standing up the organization was to maximize 
readability and use visualization techniques and visual media 
as much as possible. Given the world we live in, I think that 
actually makes a lot of sense.
    With these slides as a backdrop, can you walk us through 
why visualization is such an important part of how you deliver 
your products to Members of Parliament and Committees?
    Mr. Dunne. I think the visualization idea was there from 
the beginning. We said 10 years ago--or, there was someone who 
had a statistic that a picture tells you eight times--or is 80 
times more powerful than text. We tried from the very beginning 
to make our documents attractive and short, so we put a lot of 
emphasis on infographics. Of course, we moved from that, then, 
to animated infographics.
    These slides--I provided for the record a presentation, 
which is actually a couple of years old, but it shows--if you 
go through it, it basically explains the philosophy behind it 
and how we had different types of slides.
    This was intended to illustrate an animated infographic.
    This is a presentation of a 200-page study where, you know, 
clicking three clicks will bring you to the part you are 
looking for.
    We had a multitude of approaches. I am not, probably--I 
feel like you asked me to walk you through it. I would have to 
walk you through the presentation, and I think this 
presentation has 57 slides. Perhaps leave it on the record as 
something to read.
    Chairwoman Bice. Time might be a challenge there. Well, 
thank you, Mr. Dunne. I appreciate that.
    I would just add that I think that the conversation around 
infographics and a graphics warehouse is actually really 
helpful. You see that with Members of Congress putting out 
either their own infographic information that they have 
collaborated and created with their comms teams or utilizing 
something that comes from conferences, on both sides.
    I think that we live in a day and age where that visual 
piece of this is incredibly important. Not diminishing the 
importance of maybe some of these more detailed, lengthy 
reports, but the public's attention span has waned drastically, 
and so short bill summaries like were mentioned earlier, I 
think, tend to be a lot more interesting and of use to 
Committees and staff and Members, unless it is a more technical 
type of issue.
    At this time, I will yield to Ranking Member Kilmer for 
questions.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks to each of you for being with us.
    I wanted to start with Mr. Coffin.
    I really feel like your organization is doing an 
extraordinary job. The effort to get information out to the 
public and to policymakers is really vital. The work you are 
doing to help congressional staff understand how to use data 
better I think is really valuable. I think part of the problem 
in this place is when we make policy based on what we think 
rather than on data and evidence, that that is where we run 
into some trouble.
    That was some of the thinking behind the Evidence-Based 
Policymaking Act that applied to Federal agencies a few years 
back. One of the recommendations, in part because of testimony 
from Padraig McDonnell, from your crew, was to basically 
replicate that for the legislative branch. We made that 
recommendation from the Modernization Committee. We are hoping 
to reintroduce legislation in that regard. I know your 
organization has endorsed it.
    I was hoping you would just say a word or two about the 
value of, you know, taking that approach and trying to ensure 
that, you know, we convene experts to think about how Congress, 
how the legislative branch can do a better job of using 
evidence, to review and analyze and incorporate evidence into 
the policymaking process.
    Mr. Coffin. Thank you so much for the question and for the 
support. We love the work that we do and are just really 
thrilled that you all find it useful.
    Yes, evidence in decision making is really the thing that 
drives us and is our reason for existence. You know, data is 
what we really view as the key evidence that people need to 
make these decisions, in that, you know, numbers, they really 
do not lie. They are what they are. Especially if you look at 
historical numbers and do not really focus on projections, 
which can change depending on who you talk to, that those 
historical numbers can at least be a grounding point for where 
we are today. Then everyone, from there, can decide what they 
want the future to look like.
    That is really the world that we envision and that we think 
needs to happen, and that evidence needs to fall within the 
bounds of data that can be collected. The Government is the 
steward of the number-one data source in the world, really. I 
mean, billions and billions of dollars are spent on this data.
    Anything, whether the work that we do, the work that CRS 
does and could do, is something that we think--and the work 
that you all do in terms of promoting evidence as a basis for 
decision making is something that we care passionately about.
    Thank you for the question. We are happy to support those 
recommendations going forward, for sure.
    Mr. Kilmer. You bet. I will be sure to share that with my 
colleagues on the Subcommittee, because we are hoping to get 
that bill reintroduced, and, to me, it is a no-brainer.
    Dr. Kosar, I have a really specific question for you, but I 
want to start more generally.
    You know, we talked about how the statute that established 
CRS is, you know, old, that we have not, as an institution, 
sort of looked at that.
    If we were to think about reauthorizing the agency, you 
know, if I airdropped you into Congress, what would you have 
that look like? Are there specific changes you would make? Are 
there guardrails that would you lay? How would you think about 
that if you were a Member of this Subcommittee, for example?
    Mr. Kosar. Sure. Well, I think the first thing I would----
    Mr. Kilmer. Is that the right place to focus? I mean, is 
that something we should be thinking about? Or is it, you 
know----
    Mr. Kosar. Oh, I think so, I think so. Because there is--I 
mean, if you read the statute and you kind of compare what CRS 
does today, there is a delta there.
    Mr. Kilmer. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Kosar. When the statute was created, that was the time 
of, as I mentioned, very strong Committees. Much of what is in 
the statute is, ``upon request of the Committee''; ``You should 
maintain continuous liaison with the Committee''; ``You should 
have a corps of senior specialists who can work directly with 
Committees.'' I mean, this was a thing set up first and 
foremost for Committees. That is why they were allowed to have 
senior specialists paid above the GS-15 level, et cetera, et 
cetera.
    These days, you know, Congress evolved, and CRS is much 
more slammed by demand from individual legislators. I think, 
quite frankly, it is possible that some Committee chairs just 
do not know that CRS was built first and foremost for them.
    The policy question becomes, OK, taking Congress as it is 
today, do you want to reorient CRS to doing more Committee, 
long-term-focused work, or do you want it to keep sliding into 
kind of the helpdesk stuff? Or do you want to bifurcate the 
workforce in some way and kind of divide the labor? I mean, 
part of that was contemplated in the original statute, but it 
is just we have gotten away from that.
    The other thing I flag in my testimony is that, among 
legislative branch support agencies, CRS is anomalous insofar 
as it is ensconced inside a different agency. CBO is 
freestanding. GAO is freestanding. CRS is tucked in the Library 
of Congress.
    With that comes the peculiar appointments process. Congress 
appoints the head of CBO to ensure accountability. Congress 
appoints the head of GAO to ensure accountability. Congress 
does not appoint the head of the Congressional Research 
Service. That is appointed by the Library of Congress.
    Moreover, unlike CBO or GAO, CRS's Director does not have a 
limit in term. People can just stay and stay and stay. The 
whole question of removal, et cetera, like, that gets very, 
very dicey, because then you are relying upon a librarian to do 
something for you.
    I would say those are two places to consider. You know, 
otherwise, there are lot of anachronisms in there: the ability 
to contract to bring in stenographers--eh, I am not thinking 
the agency needs that anymore. Stuff like that could be scraped 
away.
    Mr. Kilmer. I have a minute more; is that right?
    Let me ask you just one more specific issue. Back in 2018, 
you published an article talking specifically about CRS's 
atrophying role in support of Committee oversight. I wanted to 
get your sense as to whether that is still the case.
    You know, when you came in front of the Modernization 
Committee in the last Congress, it helped inform our 
recommendation focused on ensuring the House offers and support 
programming for Members and staff to learn best practices for 
conducting bipartisan, fact-based oversight, as well as getting 
staff access to document review software to improve the 
oversight process by Committees.
    Just curious how you feel like the organization is doing 
with regard to support of Committee oversight.
    Mr. Kosar. Well, I mean, I believe it is continuing to 
atrophy. I mean, the agency is down to three senior specialists 
who serve Congress. That is a great diminishment.
    You know, a key thing about these specialists is that they 
largely, by design, were supposed to be free from managerial 
control. They are supposed to be there kind of at the beck and 
call of Committee chairs.
    When you talk to people who served in the agency in the 
1970's and the 1980's and even a little bit into the 1990's, I 
mean, these folks would come to work; these were the top, top, 
top experts, the best of the best. If a Congressman who ran a 
Committee called them up and said, ``We need you over here for 
the next 6 months; we want you to be de-facto research 
director,'' the person just told the boss at CRS, ``I am going 
over there for 6 months,'' and that was it.
    It was an incredible asset to draw upon. It was a neutral, 
bipartisan, you know, trustworthy person that they could rely 
upon. You do not have those folks anymore.
    I think, more generally, what I have detected is that the 
agency's leadership is anxious about polarization. By lending 
staff to Committees, what if there is the perception the 
staffer is helping the majority a bit too much? Is this going 
to somehow negatively redound upon CRS and their appropriation 
will get cut or something?
    I actually view, you know, polarization exists, but this is 
an opportunity. This is an opportunity to prove your value 
proposition, which is: Send your people over there, let them 
stay a long time, and show just how darn good they can serve. 
Members may come away thinking, ``Wow, there is nothing to 
worry about here.''
    Mr. Kilmer. Yes.
    It is funny--I will yield back, but--I came out of the 
Washington State legislature, and we had basically the CRS 
equivalent; it was called OPR, Office of Program Research. Some 
of them were kind of stationed at the mothership, but most of 
them were stationed at Committees. You know, they were the 
folks staffed to lend their expertise to Committees.
    Thanks, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Kosar. I will just add that details also provide a 
wonderful opportunity for staff to increase their depth of 
knowledge on the inner workings of a Committee. That is an 
investment in a human being that will pay back to Congress.
    Mr. Kilmer. Uh-huh.
    Chairwoman Bice. If I may, before I recognize Mr. Carey, if 
I may, Dr. Kosar, just kind of follow up on that line of 
questioning.
    You know, if I might put you on the spot, if there is one 
thing that this Committee could do to make the agency the best 
it could be to serve Congress in the most efficient, effective 
way possible, what would you suggest that that would be?
    Mr. Kosar. Well, that is putting me on the spot, but I am 
here to testify truthfully. By my assessment, most policies 
that affect the service of CRS to the Congress come from the 
front office of the agency. If you want to effect the most 
change in the most immediate way, you change leadership.
    Moreover, if you change the statute and you change the 
regulations, you know, maybe you move the needle a bit, but, 
ultimately, anybody who studies organizational theory knows the 
importance of leadership.
    Quite frankly, I think based upon the FEVs result and based 
upon the kind of longstanding concerns that I have heard voiced 
about the agency leadership itself and the high levels of 
turnover, which are kind of a truth serum of sorts or, you 
know, an indicator--you know, those of you who follow sports 
are probably familiar with the phrase, you know, ``The coach 
has lost the locker room.'' I mean, I think that is where we 
are at.
    A 5-year technology product, $20 million. Staff are still 
laboring with Word 2016, which is buggy. Video calls dropping 
off. Laptops conking out. None of this is new. This was 
happening when I was there. Again, it is part of the reason I 
left, because it was frustrating, because I am trying to help 
Congress and be as fast as I can, and the stuff was not 
working, and people were not fixing it. Yet money was being 
spent.
    Yes, I say it with a heavy heart, I do not say it with any 
malice, but I think that is just--the facts are what they are.
    Chairwoman Bice. I recognize Mr. Carey for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Dr. Kosar, you went to--you got your master's and doctorate 
degree from New York University. Can you tell the Committee 
where you received your bachelor's degree?
    Mr. Kosar. The Ohio State University.
    Mr. Carey. Yes. I just wanted everybody in the room to hear 
that. My alma mater.
    A lot of the questions that I was going to focus on have 
already been asked, but do you think there is, for lack of a 
better term, a disconnect between the congressional needs and 
the work of CRS and the products and the expertise that they 
have currently?
    I mean, you kind of touched on it, but can you go in maybe 
a little more detail on that?
    Mr. Kosar. Yes. Yes. You know, I will give the agency 
credit that, over the last 15 years, there were some new 
alterations to the paper products, those standard publications, 
that were made to make them a little more accessible, 
particularly for an audience that is increasingly on mobile.
    I confess, you know, when I was looking through the slides 
that Mr. Dunne had up on there and comparing that innovation 
with the innovation of a one-page summary being added to a CRS 
report, ahh, that kind of pales.
    Yes, I mean, I think, you know--and this riffs off your 
stuff. Like, in many cases, staff have questions that--their 
skills, tech skills, are pretty good. They grew up on Excel and 
all that sort of stuff. They know how to use that sort of 
stuff. Like, if CRS was able to have more of that stuff online, 
then staff could do a little self-serving of, like, ``Well, let 
us take these data and these data.''
    Mr. Carey. Let me kind of follow up on that. Because what 
you are saying--I mean, do you think the CRS staff actually 
have a good understanding of what our congressional staff 
actually do on the Hill?
    Mr. Kosar. I think they have a pretty good understanding, 
because, you know, most requests that pour into CRS come into 
the analysts directly. The more you just get these requests, 
the more you learn about, like, what do people want? What do 
people want?
    I think where the trouble comes is when, you know, 
congressional staff are asking for stuff and then CRS analysts 
and reference librarians are saying, oh, I have to ask my boss 
if we can do that, and then the answer is no, no, you are not 
allowed to provide that in that format, you have to give them a 
standard report, you have to give them a this or a that. That 
is a problem.
    Mr. Carey. Dr. Kosar and the rest of the panel, thank you 
for your testimony today.
    I think, as we look at modernization--you know, I first 
came to the Hill in 1995. This is back in a time when everybody 
still had a refrigerator in their office yet they received two 
buckets of ice every single day.
    Modernizing is not a new concept, but it is one that we 
must do, and we must do it in a bipartisan way.
    I thank you gentlemen for your testimony.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Carey.
    I do want to give Mr. Coffin an opportunity--I believe that 
you also have an infographic that we have available. I wanted 
to maybe see if our staff could pull that up. If you could talk 
a little bit about the interactive graphic that you also have 
available.
    Mr. Coffin. Yes. Absolutely. This is one of the products on 
our website that we put out a couple years ago.
    I mentioned a congressional dashboard--our hopes and dreams 
for having live data at people's disposal instead of just PDF 
reports.
    This is something we put out during the COVID pandemic to 
try to allow people to track how COVID was affecting the world 
and the United States. You know, what was happening with the 
economy? What was happening with people's standard of living? 
What, you know, was happening, actually, with the Government? 
Was the Government spending more money?
    We put this kind of thing out. It live-updates. It is still 
up-to-date today. We have not actually put much into it over 
the past couple years because the pipelines are built and 
continue----
    Chairwoman Bice. If I may, where are you pulling the data.
    Mr. Coffin. The data comes entirely from Government 
sources, Federal Government sources. Well, with the exception 
of the COVID data, which comes from the States themselves.
    Chairwoman Bice. Right.
    Mr. Coffin. We pull mostly from the Census Bureau, the 
Bureau of Economic Analysis for this particular product.
    I think we have the inflation graphic pulled up. We also--
you know, you can explore further and click in and see, for 
example, you know, this is the housing and gas part of 
inflation, things like that.
    For places where there is local data, we actually can offer 
your State view, as well, through this tool.
    This is something that, you know, the investment was there. 
We cannot answer people's one-off questions. There are 330 
million Americans. We could not do it. If we can create 
products like this that can answer a broad swath of questions, 
we really think we can have impact. We think you all deserve 
this same kind of resource.
    Chairwoman Bice. I think this is fantastic. I love 
dashboards. I also love infographics, because I think it is 
just quick snapshots of information that you can share with 
individuals. Really, a fantastic resource.
    I think that is the end of questioning.
    I want to thank the witnesses for being with us today and 
remind--the Subcommittee may have additional questions for you, 
and we will ask that you please respond to those questions in 
writing.
    [The questions for the record follow:]

                    QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairwoman Bice. If there is no further business, I thank 
the Members for their participation today, and, without 
objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]