[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
______
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO SUPPORT MODERNIZING THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH
SERVICES AND THE USE OF FEDERAL DATA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 20, 2024
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
0 www.govinfo.gov
www.cha.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-248 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
Michael Platt, 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 of the Subcommittee on Modernization Stephanie Bice,
Representative from the State of Oklahoma...................... 1
Prepared statement of the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on
Modernization Stephanie Bice............................... 3
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Modernization Derek Kilmer,
Representative from the State of Washington.................... 4
Prepared statement of the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
on Modernization Derek Kilmer.............................. 6
Chairman of the Committee on House Administration Bryan Steil,
Representative from the State of Wisconsin..................... 7
Prepared statement of the Chairman of the Committee on House
Administration Bryan Steil................................. 8
Witnesses
Robert Randolph Newlen, Interim Director, Congressional Research
Service........................................................ 9
Prepared statement of Robert Randolph Newlen................. 12
Elise Bean, Director, Washington Office, Carl Levin Center for
Oversight & Democracy.......................................... 29
Prepared statement of Elise Bean............................. 31
Mathew Glassman, Senior Fellow, Government Affairs Institute,
Georgetown University.......................................... 34
Prepared statement of Mathew Glassman........................ 36
Nicholas Hart, President and CEO, Data Foundation................ 43
Prepared statement of Nicholas Hart.......................... 45
Questions for the Record
Robert Randolph Newlen answers to submitted questions............ 66
Elise Bean answers to submitted questions........................ 70
Mathew Glassman answers to submitted questions................... 72
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO SUPPORT MODERNIZING THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH
SERVICES AND THE USE OF FEDERAL DATA
----------
March 20, 2024
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Modernization,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m., in
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Bice
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bice, Steil, Carey, and Kilmer.
Staff present: Annemarie Cake, Professional Staff and
Deputy Clerk; Marian Currinder, Senior Professional Staff;
Alexander Deise, Parliamentarian; Kristen Monterroso, Director
of Operations and Legislative Clerk; Michael Platt, Staff
Director; Jordan Wilson, Director of Member Services.
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.
I note that a quorum is present. Without objection--thank
you--the chair may declare a recess at any time.
The hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days
so Members may submit any materials they wish to be included
therein.
Thank you, Ranking Member Kilmer--and Subcommittee Members
and the chairman I think will be here shortly--as well as our
witness for taking time today to be with us.
This is the Modernization Subcommittee's first legislative
hearing. We will be learning more about two bills and one
resolution that have been referred to the Subcommittee, and we
will have the opportunity to dive into what problems these
measures address and what solutions they propose.
This should go without saying, but legislative hearings
like this one provide an important forum for Members to gather
information, ask questions, and form opinions or positions on
the legislation before us.
Legislative hearings are consistent with regular order, but
we do not see a lot of them at the Subcommittee level these
days, and the same is true of markups on the Subcommittee
level. As the chair, I think the Subcommittee process is
important, and that is especially true here as we consider
bills that directly relate to our mission to improve and
modernize the institution and implement the recommendations of
the Select Committee on Modernization.
Today we will hear about two measures related to the
Congressional Research Service's ongoing efforts to modernize
the way the agency works on behalf of Congress. We will also
learn more about a resolution introduced by my colleague,
Ranking Member Kilmer, and cosponsored by full Committee Member
Ranking Member Morelle, that is based on a Select Committee
recommendation to create a congressional commission on
evidence-based policymaking.
The Modernization Subcommittee held a hearing in April of
last year to examine CRS' efforts to improve their processes
and products in ways that reflect how today's Congress
operates. It was clear then that more work was needed, but I am
pleased to say that we have seen the agency take positive steps
to improve culture and modernize operations.
I fully recognize the work CRS analysts do to support
Congress. That work is invaluable. I am encouraged and excited
with the results recent changes have yielded, and I look
forward to the continued progress and the modernization of CRS.
Robert, I want to personally thank you for your leadership.
On that note, I am pleased that we are joined today by Robert
Newlen, CRS' interim director, who, in addition to speaking
about the two CRS-related bills on the agenda today, will
update the Subcommittee on some of the agency's ongoing efforts
to improve and enhance services.
Mr. Newlen will discuss the underlying problems that the
two CRS bills address and explain how they will help strengthen
the agency's mission to support Congress.
I would like to note that for all Members of the
Subcommittee, we jointly introduced these bills as we all saw
value in what they set forth to accomplish.
Access to Federal agency data is critical to CRS' mission
to provide timely and accurate research and analysis to
Congress. The agency's current statute, which has not been
seriously modified in 50 years, needs to be updated to reflect
new forums and uses of data.
The Select Committee on Modernization recognized this
problem and recommended enhancing support agency access to
Federal data, and the bill we are discussing today does just
that.
The Select Committee also recommended examining legislative
support agency authorities more broadly to determine if they
need to be updated, and this bill is certainly consistent with
that goal.
I will say here that our intention continues to be a larger
examination of CRS' organic statute, with an eye toward
developing more modern authorities and Congressional directives
that better support CRS' work and more accurately reflect the
needs of Congress today.
We look forward to working with you, Mr. Newlen, your
successor, and your entire team in this very important
endeavor.
Modernizing how CRS produces and provides access to the
Constitution Annotated is also consistent with the goal of
updating how the agency serves Congress. CONAN, as this massive
tome is known, has been available online since 2019.
Would you like to, you know, take a gander at this? There
we go.
Mr. Kilmer. Bicep work.
Chairwoman Bice. There you go, yes.
Mr. Kilmer. It is an arm----
Chairwoman Bice. Let us turn that around so you can see it.
The digital version is regularly updated and has gotten
millions of views since its inception, and meanwhile, producing
this hard-bound version is costly. According to the most recent
estimates available from CRS and the GPO, the 2012 hard-bound
CONAN cost taxpayers approximately $1 million to produce. We
are waiting on estimates for the 2022 version but expect they
will be nearly the same.
Getting rid of this behemoth print requirement enhances
efficiency and is a very easy, cost-saving measure.
The second panel today includes three witness experts who
can share additional views on Congress' access to the use of
Federal agency data. They will shed light on legislative and
executive branch interactions and provide perspective on some
of the challenges analysts face accessing data and how the work
that CRS does on behalf of Members and staff is impacted when
analysts cannot get data.
Understanding the different ways that data can inform the
policymaking and oversight process is another important part of
the conversation and is consideration--in considering
bipartisan--I am sorry--is considering partisan bias in data
and how we ensure the data is accurate and reliable.
At this time, I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Kilmer, for the purpose of providing an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Bice follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHANIE BICE, CHAIRWOMAN OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION
This is the Modernization Subcommittee's first legislative
hearing. We will be learning more about two bills and one
resolution that have been referred to the Subcommittee, and we
will have the opportunity to dive into what problems these
measures address and what solutions they propose.
This should go without saying, but legislative hearings
like this one provide an important forum for Members to gather
information, ask questions, and form opinions or positions on
the legislation before us.
Legislative hearings are consistent with regular order, but
we do not see a lot of them at the Subcommittee level these
days, and the same is true of markups on the Subcommittee
level. As the chair, I think the Subcommittee process is
important, and that is especially true here as we consider
bills that directly relate to our mission to improve and
modernize the institution and implement the recommendations of
the Select Committee on Modernization.
Today we will hear about two measures related to the
Congressional Research Service's ongoing efforts to modernize
the way the agency works on behalf of Congress. We will also
learn more about a resolution introduced by my colleague,
Ranking Member Kilmer, and cosponsored by full Committee Member
Ranking Member Morelle, that is based on a Select Committee
recommendation to create a congressional commission on
evidence-based policymaking.
The Modernization Subcommittee held a hearing in April of
last year to examine CRS' efforts to improve their processes
and products in ways that reflect how today's Congress
operates. It was clear then that more work was needed, but I am
pleased to say that we have seen the agency take positive steps
to improve culture and modernize operations.
I fully recognize the work CRS analysts do to support
Congress. That work is invaluable. I am encouraged and excited
with the results recent changes have yielded, and I look
forward to the continued progress and the modernization of CRS.
Robert, I want to personally thank you for your leadership.
On that note, I am pleased that we are joined today by Robert
Newlen, CRS' interim director, who, in addition to speaking
about the two CRS-related bills on the agenda today, will
update the Subcommittee on some of the agency's ongoing efforts
to improve and enhance services.
Mr. Newlen will discuss the underlying problems that the
two CRS bills address and explain how they will help strengthen
the agency's mission to support Congress.
I would like to note that for all Members of the
Subcommittee, we jointly introduced these bills as we all saw
value in what they set forth to accomplish.
Access to Federal agency data is critical to CRS' mission
to provide timely and accurate research and analysis to
Congress. The agency's current statute, which has not been
seriously modified in 50 years, needs to be updated to reflect
new forums and uses of data.
The Select Committee on Modernization recognized this
problem and recommended enhancing support agency access to
Federal data, and the bill we are discussing today does just
that.
The Select Committee also recommended examining legislative
support agency authorities more broadly to determine if they
need to be updated, and this bill is certainly consistent with
that goal.
I will say here that our intention continues to be a larger
examination of CRS' organic statute, with an eye toward
developing more modern authorities and Congressional directives
that better support CRS' work and more accurately reflect the
needs of Congress today.
We look forward to working with you, Mr. Newlen, your
successor, and your entire team in this very important
endeavor.
Modernizing how CRS produces and provides access to the
Constitution Annotated is also consistent with the goal of
updating how the agency serves Congress. CONAN, as this massive
tome is known, has been available online since 2019.
Would you like to, you know, take a gander at this? There
we go.
Mr. Kilmer. Bicep work.
Chairwoman Bice. There you go, yes.
Mr. Kilmer. It is an arm----
Chairwoman Bice. Let us turn that around so you can see it.
The digital version is regularly updated and has gotten
millions of views since its inception, and meanwhile, producing
this hard-bound version is costly. According to the most recent
estimates available from CRS and the GPO, the 2012 hard-bound
CONAN cost taxpayers approximately $1 million to produce. We
are waiting on estimates for the 2022 version but expect they
will be nearly the same.
Getting rid of this behemoth print requirement enhances
efficiency and is a very easy, cost-saving measure.
The second panel today includes three witness experts who
can share additional views on Congress' access to the use of
Federal agency data. They will shed light on legislative and
executive branch interactions and provide perspective on some
of the challenges analysts face accessing data and how the work
that CRS does on behalf of Members and staff is impacted when
analysts cannot get data.
Understanding the different ways that data can inform the
policymaking and oversight process is another important part of
the conversation and is consideration--in considering
bipartisan--I am sorry--is considering partisan bias in data
and how we ensure the data is accurate and reliable.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEREK KILMER, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
WASHINGTON
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks to our colleague
and the witnesses who are here at our inaugural legislative
hearing on the Subcommittee, so way to go.
I think I am excited about the three bills that we are
taking up today. I think taken collectively, they bring us
closer to the Subcommittee's mission of making Congress work
better for the American people. Each one of these bills harkens
back to a problem that we identified on the ModCom.
The Modernizing the congressional Research Service's Access
to Data Act is--speaks to recommendation 33, which states that
congressional support agencies should report on challenges and
potential solutions for accessing Federal data.
Director Newlen, thank you for doing just that, which paved
the way forward for this bill.
CRS statute, developed in the 1970's, states that Federal
agencies need to comply with data requests from Congress to
serve Congressional Committees, and it mentions that CRS is
responsible for otherwise assisting individual Member offices
with information requests. However, given the lack of explicit
statutory reference to personal offices, you have indicated
that you at times have struggled to access necessary
information from Federal agencies to execute your mission of
serving Committees and personal offices alike.
Your customer service mission to Congress is very
important. As I have mentioned before the Subcommittee
previously, my team and I regularly use CRS. The amendments and
bills and letter ideas we put forth are better because of CRS'
involvement and support to us.
Thank you for not putting out a restraining order against
my team.
It matters that you have access to the Federal data you
need to do your jobs, to update reports on timely and pressing
issues proactively, and in response to specific requests, that
you have access that is on par with that provided to other
legislative branch support agencies, like the CBO, for example.
I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 7592 to this end, and look
forward to hearing your testimony on that and that of the
second panel.
Speaking of further Select Committee recs that remain open
and we will touch on today, recommendation 140 states that
Congressional Committees, including this one, should examine
support agency authorities and determine if they need to be
updated.
Thank you again, Director Newlen, for bringing the CONAN
issue to our attention in the spirit. You know, this is about
saving money. This is about making sure that there is continued
access for information.
The American people can receive better information online,
and we can save valuable CRS staff capacity and time and
taxpayer dollars. Again, proud to cosponsor that bill as well.
Then, finally, want to mention the congressional evidence-
based policymaking resolution. Part of what makes this
Subcommittee work, and what sets us apart, is our commitment to
looking at problems, collecting a common set of data and facts
about them, and then respectfully negotiating the potential
solutions, and then charting a path forward. Call me an
optimist, but I think that this institutions and Members of
both parties from every ideological persuasion could benefit
from a similar approach.
Simply put, though, we need sound evidence and nonpartisan
facts about the pressing problems facing the American people
that would allow us to better design policies to measure their
impact, to conduct oversight, and ultimately to improve
outcomes for the American people.
The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress
proposed the establishment of a bipartisan, bicameral
Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking to facilitate this,
which would be accomplished by this bill.
This commission approach is supported by precedent as well.
Former Speaker Paul Ryan and the senior Senator from my home
State, Patty Murray, previously led an effort to establish such
a commission specific to the executive branch, which was an
effort I was proud to support. That commission effort cleared
the House under suspension of the rules and the Senate on
unanimous consent. It was signed into law in 2016. It was
signed into law by President Obama. The recommendations that
stem from the Commission were turned into overwhelmingly
bipartisan changes from the Foundations for Evidence-Based
Policymaking Act, which was signed into law in 2019 by former
President Trump.
The problems we face as a Nation are hard, but the idea
that we will deliver more for our constituents and for our
country with a common set of facts does not have to be hard.
One of our witnesses today, Nick Hart, with the Data
Foundation, was involved in those past executive branch efforts
and can shed some light on how the legislative branch can get
this right.
Thanks again to my colleagues, thank you to Subcommittee
Chair Bice, our Subcommittee colleagues, and to each of our
witnesses for taking time to be here today. Look forward to
your thoughts and suggestions regarding these bills, and just
appreciate your partnership on this important work of trying to
make Congress work better for the people we represent. 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 think I am excited about the three bills that we are
taking up today. I think taken collectively, they bring us
closer to the Subcommittee's mission of making Congress work
better for the American people. Each one of these bills harkens
back to a problem that we identified on the ModCom.
The Modernizing the congressional Research Service's Access
to Data Act is--speaks to recommendation 33, which states that
congressional support agencies should report on challenges and
potential solutions for accessing Federal data.
Director Newlen, thank you for doing just that, which paved
the way forward for this bill.
CRS statute, developed in the 1970's, states that Federal
agencies need to comply with data requests from Congress to
serve Congressional Committees, and it mentions that CRS is
responsible for otherwise assisting individual Member offices
with information requests. However, given the lack of explicit
statutory reference to personal offices, you have indicated
that you at times have struggled to access necessary
information from Federal agencies to execute your mission of
serving Committees and personal offices alike.
Your customer service mission to Congress is very
important. As I have mentioned before the Subcommittee
previously, my team and I regularly use CRS. The amendments and
bills and letter ideas we put forth are better because of CRS'
involvement and support to us.
Thank you for not putting out a restraining order against
my team.
It matters that you have access to the Federal data you
need to do your jobs, to update reports on timely and pressing
issues proactively, and in response to specific requests, that
you have access that is on par with that provided to other
legislative branch support agencies, like the CBO, for example.
I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 7592 to this end, and look
forward to hearing your testimony on that and that of the
second panel.
Speaking of further Select Committee recs that remain open
and we will touch on today, recommendation 140 states that
Congressional Committees, including this one, should examine
support agency authorities and determine if they need to be
updated.
Thank you again, Director Newlen, for bringing the CONAN
issue to our attention in the spirit. You know, this is about
saving money. This is about making sure that there is continued
access for information.
The American people can receive better information online,
and we can save valuable CRS staff capacity and time and
taxpayer dollars. Again, proud to cosponsor that bill as well.
Then, finally, want to mention the congressional evidence-
based policymaking resolution. Part of what makes this
Subcommittee work, and what sets us apart, is our commitment to
looking at problems, collecting a common set of data and facts
about them, and then respectfully negotiating the potential
solutions, and then charting a path forward. Call me an
optimist, but I think that this institutions and Members of
both parties from every ideological persuasion could benefit
from a similar approach.
Simply put, though, we need sound evidence and nonpartisan
facts about the pressing problems facing the American people
that would allow us to better design policies to measure their
impact, to conduct oversight, and ultimately to improve
outcomes for the American people.
The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress
proposed the establishment of a bipartisan, bicameral
Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking to facilitate this,
which would be accomplished by this bill.
This commission approach is supported by precedent as well.
Former Speaker Paul Ryan and the senior Senator from my home
State, Patty Murray, previously led an effort to establish such
a commission specific to the executive branch, which was an
effort I was proud to support. That commission effort cleared
the House under suspension of the rules and the Senate on
unanimous consent. It was signed into law in 2016. It was
signed into law by President Obama. The recommendations that
stem from the Commission were turned into overwhelmingly
bipartisan changes from the Foundations for Evidence-Based
Policymaking Act, which was signed into law in 2019 by former
President Trump.
The problems we face as a Nation are hard, but the idea
that we will deliver more for our constituents and for our
country with a common set of facts does not have to be hard.
One of our witnesses today, Nick Hart, with the Data
Foundation, was involved in those past executive branch efforts
and can shed some light on how the legislative branch can get
this right.
Thanks again to my colleagues, thank you to Subcommittee
Chair Bice, our Subcommittee colleagues, and to each of our
witnesses for taking time to be here today. Look forward to
your thoughts and suggestions regarding these bills, and just
appreciate your partnership on this important work of trying to
make Congress work better for the people we represent. With
that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer.
At this time, I would like to recognize the full Committee
Chairman, Mr. Steil, for the purpose of providing opening
remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN STEIL, CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
WISCONSIN
Chairman Steil. Thank you, Chair Bice, and thank you to the
work that you and Ranking Member Kilmer are doing on the
Subcommittee on Modernization. You can tell there is energy on
it because we have a full room, including your daughter,
Ainsley, who is here with us today, and so shout-out there.
Today's Subcommittee's first legislative hearing, where we
will be focusing on two bills related to the Congressional
Research Service and a resolution focused on the possibility of
a new congressional commission on evidence-based policymaking
is, as you said, Mrs. Bice, it is important that the
legislative process, even at the Subcommittee level, be carried
out to achieve our mission, and that mission is to modernize
the institution. A Congress that is modern is a Congress that
can be more efficient.
Two of the bills we are looking at today will help
modernize CRS and support the work of Congress, making our
institution more effective. We will look into a possible
evidence-based congressional commission to help ensure that
Congress can successfully use agency data in its policymaking
and oversight, and I look forward to seeing where these
conversations take us today.
Again, thank you to you, Subcommittee Chair Bice, Ranking
Member Kilmer, for your work today, and our witnesses as well.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Steil follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION BRYAN STEIL
Chairman Steil. Thank you, Chair Bice, and thank you to the
work that you and Ranking Member Kilmer are doing on the
Subcommittee on Modernization. You can tell there is energy on
it because we have a full room, including your daughter,
Ainsley, who is here with us today, and so shout-out there.
Today's Subcommittee's first legislative hearing, where we
will be focusing on two bills related to the Congressional
Research Service and a resolution focused on the possibility of
a new congressional commission on evidence-based policymaking
is, as you said, Mrs. Bice, it is important that the
legislative process, even at the Subcommittee level, be carried
out to achieve our mission, and that mission is to modernize
the institution. A Congress that is modern is a Congress that
can be more efficient.
Two of the bills we are looking at today will help
modernize CRS and support the work of Congress, making our
institution more effective. We will look into a possible
evidence-based congressional commission to help ensure that
Congress can successfully use agency data in its policymaking
and oversight, and I look forward to seeing where these
conversations take us today.
Again, thank you to you, Subcommittee Chair Bice, Ranking
Member Kilmer, for your work today, and our witnesses as well.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Chairman Steil.
We now welcome Mr. Robert Newlen, the interim director of
the congressional Research Service. Mr. Newlen has a 42-year
career at the Library of Congress, holding leadership positions
in CRS, the Law Library, and as deputy librarian of Congress.
Mr. Newlen has also held a variety of positions in the
American Library Association, which include serving as a member
of the executive board and senior trustee of the ALA endowment.
He was the recipient of the ALA Medal of Excellence in 2016
for, quote, creative leadership of high order, particularly in
library management.
He most recently served as the executive director and
director of strategic initiatives of the Dwight D. Opperman
Foundation in Phoenix.
We appreciate your service, Mr. Newlen, and we appreciate
you being here with us today. We are grateful for all of the
work you have done and continue to do at CRS.
A couple of housekeeping items. Please remember to press
the button on the microphone in front of you so that the light
is green. When you begin to speak, the timer in front of you
will turn green. As previously agreed to by the Subcommittee
Members, you will have 7 minutes for your opening statement.
After 6 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red
lights comes on, the 7 minutes has expired, and we kindly ask
that you would please conclude your remarks.
At this time, Mr. Newlen, I recognize you for 7 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT RANDOLPH NEWLEN, INTERIM DIRECTOR,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Mr. Newlen. I am not seeing a green light.
Chairwoman Bice. You are good.
Mr. Newlen. I am good? Thank you. Thank you.
Chairwoman Bice, Ranking Member Kilmer, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before
you today, especially at your inaugural hearing, about CRS'
need for legislative fixes that will support its modernization
efforts and ensure access to Federal data and other information
needed to effectively serve Congress.
I have three goals today. First, I will outline some of the
challenges CRS faces in securing from--securing information
from Federal agencies. Second, I will make the case for the
savings and efficiencies to be gained by transitioning to a
digital-only Constitution Annotated. Finally, I will highlight
CRS' progress with modernization over the past year and the
initiatives the Service has undertaken to ensure that it
continues to provide exceptional service to the 21st century
Congress.
It has been my honor to serve as the interim director of
CRS. I have just completed 9 months, and it has been both
rewarding and challenging. There is much more to be done, but I
am confident that CRS is moving in the right direction, and it
will be in a good place when the new director begins several
months from now.
My goal has been to identify areas of CRS' operation where
we can reduce costs, add value, and maximize the return on the
taxpayers' investment without diminishing service to Congress.
I have also closely reviewed the recommendations of the
Subcommittee which have guided my activities as director, and
technology has been one of our highest priorities.
I feel confident that the legislative initiatives discussed
today support these goals. I believe strongly in institutional
stewardship, and you might think of me as a loving critic of
CRS.
I am also mindful, Chairwoman Bice, of our conversation
early in my tenure when we discussed the topic of return on
investment for the resources invested in CRS, and that has been
a guiding mantra for me. Thank you.
CRS' mission is to provide Congress with timely, objective,
nonpartisan research, analysis, and information. Access to the
data and other information held by Federal agencies is critical
to CRS' ability to effectively carry out this important
responsibility.
Generally, CRS has been successful in securing the
information that it needs. However, there have been instances
when the Service encountered resistance from Federal agencies.
Agencies have responded with directions to CRS to file Freedom
of Information Act requests, require disclosure of
congressional office requesting the information, and requested
confidentiality assurances.
In other instances, agencies have ignored or simply refused
the request. This sort of agency resistance can delay CRS'
response to congressional clients and impede the Service's
ability to inform and advise Congress utilizing the most
authoritative information available.
CRS' governing statute provides limited authority to enable
the Service to address these challenges. CRS is authorized to
make information requests to Federal agencies and requires
those agencies to provide the requested information only when
the request is, quote, authorized by a Committee, unquote, and
then only when CRS is acting as an agent of the Committee.
The limitation to CRS' work for Committees leaves the
Service with no formal authority to acquire information it
needs to support individual Member offices or to conduct
anticipatory research and analysis.
CRS' current information access authority originates from a
time when Congress operated primarily under a Committee-centric
structure. As legislative activity has become more dispersed,
CRS' workload has expanded to include more requests from
individual Member offices. In Fiscal Year 2023, for example,
CRS responded to over 57,000 requests from individual Member
and other congressional offices.
Broader authority is required to ensure the Service's
access to the information needed to effectively serve all
congressional users. The authority CRS is seeking would be
comparable to that currently provided to our sister agencies,
CBO and GAO.
CRS is also requesting elimination of the statutory
requirement to publish the Constitution Annotated in hard-bound
copy. I brought my own copy. You will have----
Chairwoman Bice. These are the only two copies that exist
currently? I do not----
Mr. Newlen. Currently, the Librarian of Congress is
directed by statute to print a decennial revised edition of
CONAN after every tenth term of the Supreme Court and
cumulative pocket part supplements every 2 years in between the
decennial edition. The cost of printing these copies are
significant to both CRS and the Government Publishing Office.
Production costs for the 2012 version of CONAN, as you
mentioned earlier, Chairwoman Bice, totaled nearly $1 million,
primarily in GPO.
As you know, CRS, in collaboration with the Law Library of
Congress and the Library's Office of the Chief Information
Officer, launched a new website for CONAN in 2019. The site
features a search capability and hundreds of pages of
constitutional analysis and content prepared by CRS' legal
staff. The website has been overwhelmingly successful since its
launch, and it has received over 50 million views.
Given the success of the CONAN site, CRS has requested
amendment of CONAN's authorizing statute to require its
preparation in digital form only. Transition to a digital-only
Constitution Annotated would provide significant savings in
time, labor, and taxpayer dollars, and permit CRS to better
deploy its resources toward the production of content for
future enhancements of the website.
Modernization initiatives--since I have just a short amount
of time, I am going to go through those. We have been very
actively pursuing interactive graphics, infographics, and story
map prototypes. We are exploring many projects with artificial
intelligence applications. I will be happy to tell you more
about those. We are working to strengthen our data and
analytics capabilities. We also feel very privileged to
participate in the new Agency Connection Center in the
Longworth Building. This is going to be a wonderful form of
outreach, and we are very grateful for having you include that.
In conclusion, I want to express my appreciation to the
Librarian of Congress, Dr. Carla Hayden, for the opportunity to
once again serve alongside CRS' talented staff. A constant in
CRS is the staff passion and dedication to serving the
Congress.
On behalf of my--excuse me, am I hoarse--on behalf of my
CRS colleagues, I want to thank the Subcommittee for its
continued support, and I welcome your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Newlen follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT RANDOLPH NEWLEN
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Newlen.
We will now begin questioning, and that will start with me,
followed by Ranking Member Kilmer, and then we will alternate
between Members. Any Member wishing to be recognized can signal
their request to the chair.
At this time, I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Newlen, CRS has sought expanded access to agency data
at least since the 112th Congress, as we can best tell, when
legislation was last introduced to try to address this issue.
Your testimony addresses what improved data access will do for
CRS and for Congress.
Can you give a little bit of color to what CRS will not do
with expanded access to this authority?
Mr. Newlen. Thank you for that question. We are very
mindful of several things, first, security of the data and
transfer of the data within the agency.
We have been working with our chief information officers
here today to ensure that the data meets all the security
standards of the Library of Congress which are extremely
stringent. As always, we will maintain that data in a
confidential manner.
Chairwoman Bice. Can you address the potential concerns
about expanded access leading to, quote/unquote, fishing
expeditions that could be more politically charged requests
from Congress?
Mr. Newlen. Certainly.
Can you repeat the question, please?
Chairwoman Bice. Sure. I want to make sure that his
microphone is working properly. Are you able to--great. OK.
Thank you.
Would you be willing--or would you be able to address the
potential concerns about expanded access to data leading to,
quote/unquote, fishing expeditions or more politically charged
requests from Congress?
Mr. Newlen. Yes. Thank you. When Members of Congress or
Committees make requests, we do not ask them how they are going
to use the data. We may ask them if it would help us in the
research process, but--is the light not coming on?
Okay. Apologies.
Chairwoman Bice. There we go. There we go.
Mr. Newlen. Yes. The----
Chairwoman Bice. You said you were going to allow them to
request the data without asking them what the data would be
used for.
Mr. Newlen. If they--if we think it is important to know,
then we will ask, for the research process, but generally that
is not necessary. As with everything we do, it is always
confidential, and we do not share the information with anyone
outside of the Service or the Member or Committee office.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you.
At this time I will recognize Ranking Member Kilmer for
questions.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair.
You know, this issue around data access and, you know, how
to make sure CRS is getting what it wants. You know, Dr.
Glassman mentioned in his written testimony that the new
authority would be more effective if it was paired with an
information campaign such that the agencies understand their
obligation to provide CRS with such data.
Any thoughts on how CRS might actually do that and how
Congress can help you do that?
Mr. Newlen. Yes. Thank you. The first thing we would do if
we had this authority is use it with pending requests that we
have with several agencies right now where we are having a lot
of problem moving forward. They set up all kinds of roadblocks.
I can give you one example of one agency. I will not say
the name of the agency. I will be happy to share it with you in
private, but I do not want to jeopardize our talks, but they
told us at one point that they considered CRS analysts as the
same thing as press. We have had substantial conversations with
them to change that. It has really--it has really been very
difficult.
Mr. Kilmer. Yes, I wanted to--I think we can only just look
at this, and it kind of makes the case for the bill. You know,
I think oftentimes, you know, when something gets put on a
site, it is only as valuable as its ease of search and the
ability to navigate, and, you know, if it is visually
interesting, and if it is accurate.
If this bill passes and CONAN moves to a digital-only
format, you know, any guidance on what--on how CRS will
approach that to ensure that the digital version is, you know,
state-of-the-art in its presentation and its usability?
Mr. Newlen. Yes, absolutely. The big advantage of the
digital version is, is that it is always up to date. This, the
moment it came out, it was outdated. There have been Supreme
Court decisions since this was printed that are not here.
Speaking as a librarian by training, most librarians would
never put this book on their shelf because they would be
concerned----
Mr. Kilmer. There is no room for it.
Mr. Newlen. That is a big concern too--because they would
be concerned that a patron might look at this and think this
was the authoritative source, which it is not.
The advantage of the online version is, is that we can link
directly to Supreme Court cases. We have embedded links.
The other thing is that we update this very quickly. If
there is a court decision that impacts the Constitution, our
lawyers, headed by Sanchi Jayaram, who is with us today, head
of the American Law Division, updates this immediately so that
we have real-time information on the data base.
We have devoted considerable assets to ensuring that the
virtual version of CONAN is up to date and in good shape. We
always welcome feedback from anyone. It is easy to do on the
site, and we are very responsive to those concerns.
Mr. Kilmer. The final thing I want to ask about, you know,
this conversation around this behemoth, as the chairwoman
called it, is actually a good sort of segue into another thing
that we have been working on, which is the In Case Act, because
it both touches on making sure that there is information that
is up to date and accurate, and, two, it is an efficiency
measure, you know, the In Case Act would require Federal
agencies to provide better agency contacts to CRS, and CRS, in
turn, could share that information with House offices, you
know, so that policy staff, so district casework staff could be
able to find the people that they need.
That was built upon the existing CRS report that details
some agency legislative affairs contacts which we found
sometimes either lacks the needed information or has outdated
information, and that means our staff and Committee staff and
Member office staff are spending time trying to track down
information individually, agency by agency, or even contacting
someone who no longer works at the agency by mistake, you know,
which can cause delays in getting technical assistance, which
can delay a constituent's casework claims and more, so--and it
would help us implement one of the open recommendations of the
Modernization Committee.
One, just an invitation, we would love to find a way to
work together on this with you, and I would love to hear if
there is other thoughts that you have about ways to improve
efficiencies that you are pursuing at CRS.
Mr. Newlen. Well, thank you. That report is--the
congressional Liaison Report is our most popular report. It
gets more hits than anything else. I think that you are right
on target, Mr. Kilmer, because there is a huge interest in
that, and we would welcome the opportunity to explore how we
might do that.
We have done some preliminary thinking about it in terms of
the resources that would be necessary and what--how--what the
governance structure would be of it. We welcome the opportunity
to sit down with you and your staff and see how we can improve
on that----
Mr. Kilmer. Great.
Mr. Newlen [continuing]. access to that kind of
information.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member.
At this time I recognize the Chair of the full Committee,
Mr. Steil.
Chairman Steil. Thank you, Chair Bice.
I have two questions I want to dive into. One, I would love
you just to comment briefly about how the requests that come
from Members and staff to CRS have changed over the past 20 to
30 years.
Mr. Newlen. Certainly. Well, with the advances in
technology, the first thing that I would observe is, is that we
no longer have those kind of simple reference questions:
population, addresses, that kind of thing. People are finding
that themselves with Google and other tools. What we are
experiencing is that the questions are harder, and it takes
sometimes longer to answer the kinds of really detailed
reference questions that Members have.
One thing that has been a constant is the continued
interest in analysis and providing options to the Congress
concerning legislation. That is something that has been kind of
a constant throughout the history of CRS and something that we
devote a lot of resources to, to ensuring that we have the
right analysts in place, which is not always easy.
At the present moment, we have a number of positions that
are outstanding in our resources, science, and industry
section, and we look forward to filling those in the near
future.
Chairman Steil. Thank you. Let me jump into the second
point. We talked a lot about getting the data and data access
to you. The second side of that I think is, as Ranking Member
Kilmer was referencing, is, how do we utilize the data, how do
we present it?
Can you walk through just a little bit about how CRS is
positioned to take advantage of the data if it arrives? I am
thinking about data dashboards, presentation aspects, training,
visualization, other aspects that you have spent time on or
other tools that you may need in that regard.
Mr. Newlen. Absolutely. Well, one of the studies that gave
us really, really good direction was a RAND study done several
years ago. It suggested that we start looking at newer analytic
methods, which we are doing, and also looking at cloud-based
solutions, which of course are very expensive right now. That
was one of the recommendations.
The other one was to apply newer data-science methods, and
we have begun that process. We have--we have some of the, I
would say, good staff that know how to manage that data, but we
also have a request outstanding at the moment in an effort--for
about 3 million to continue that effort so that we have the
ability to manage big data.
Chairman Steil. Thank you. Thank you very much. I
appreciate the work you are doing over at CRS. It is a
spectacular resource, and I appreciate the work you, Chair
Bice, and Ranking Member Kilmer are doing as we look to
continue to enhance the work and modernize it.
I will yield back.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At this time I will recognize Mr. Carey for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Carey. Well, thank you for being here today. I would
like to focus a little bit on AI, if that is alright.
Mr. Newlen. Yes.
Mr. Carey. CRS' modernization initiatives as it relates to
AI, can you tell us more about the working group and
particularly the work in exploring how AI might be used to
expedite bill summary process?
Mr. Newlen. Yes, absolutely. We are very excited about
artificial intelligence, but like everyone, we are taking it--
we are moving cautiously to ensure that any information that we
get from AI is--meets all of our standards of nonpartisanship,
authoritativeness. We have a number of things in place right
now.
The working group looks for opportunities in CRS processes
for short-, medium-, and long-term projects that we might use.
We also coordinate very closely with the Library's Office of
CIO, with their AI working group.
Right now, we have dipped our toe in the water, and one of
the things that we are very excited about is a process that we
are looking at right now to develop five models that would help
us with bill summaries. We have a huge backlog of bill
summaries and analysis for Congress.gov.
We think there is potential for AI to help us with those
summaries, so we are exploring these five models as we speak.
We have a whole set of criteria that have to be met, and our
hope is, is that we can implement this soon so that our staff
can spend more time on the analysis, which is the, you know,
the really hard work, and less time on the summaries. At the
same time, we have to be absolutely assured that that
information is a very high quality.
You may be familiar with the effort that Politico did
recently with AI, and we actually took some of the examples
just to kind of see if they were accurate, and they did not
pass the test. This is a good caution for us to ensure that we
always have the best data available.
Mr. Carey. I mean, it is definitely something that, you
know, I think it is finding its way into Members' offices and
often with the staff, but--so another question. How is CRS
making Members and their staff aware of its new visually based
products?
Mr. Newlen. We are doing several things. At the present
time, we are doing new work on our CRS website for Members and
staff, and we have been doing some development.
I decided that we needed to take kind of a harder look at
this, do some more consultation, and one of the things that we
want to feature prominently are infographics, interactive
graphics, and story book maps. That is going to be one of the
primary ways.
We also have a number of outreach efforts that we do
through our divisions to client bases. They send out weekly
information about new reports that CRS is doing in areas that
they are interested in, and we feature those topics--or feature
those kinds of products with infographics.
One thing that would be helpful to us is--we would like
your help as well--if there is any kind of forum where we can--
where CRS can be to talk about our services, to talk about the
kind of innovative products that we are offering Congress, we
would be very, very grateful.
Mr. Carey. I would add to that, you know, I came in in a
special election. Now, I am former staff. I was staff, and
then--you know, I hate to say when I was a staff, but a long
time ago--but, you know, the thing that I have--the services
that you provide are remarkable.
You know, we have a number of Members that have left, and
we have got a bunch of new Members that are going to be coming
in as, you know, special elections. However we can work with
your offices, because, you know, the thing about when you come
in as a special election, all your staff is--you do not have
any staff, you know. As you start getting those team members
that come in and join your team, it would be great to work with
your office to make sure they are well aware of the services
and the things that you provide, so----
Mr. Newlen. Absolutely. We would be very happy to work with
your office to give you a really in-depth orientation as we
would give any new Member.
Mr. Carey. Well, I am more concerned about the ones that
are coming in, in the future, because I know we have talked
about this--I know the chairwoman and I have--about
orientation, and when you are in the special election, you do
not have that. You know, it is just like, here is your hat and
what is your hurry, right?
As we bring these new Members in, I would like very much to
make sure they coordinate with you, so----
Mr. Newlen. Well, this is something at the front of our
priorities right now, and that is the new Member seminar, that
we work with the Committee as soon as the new Members are
inducted, we take them to Williamsburg, Virginia, and have 3
days of policy seminars, discussions about legislative process
and procedure, budget process.
It provides an opportunity for Members to get to know CRS
staff and their capacity, and there is no one else present for
distractions--no staff, no press--it is a very, very good
program.
Mr. Carey. I would be remiss if I did not ask this
question, but what other areas that you guys are doing--I know
you have done a lot with AI, you have done a lot with
visually--but in terms of cost-savings as it relates to your
organization, improved efficiency, what are some of the things
that you are doing with CRS?
Mr. Newlen. Well, thank you for asking that question. I did
not answer Mr. Kilmer's question very thoroughly, so I am glad
that you have posed it.
When I came, when I started at CRS, I had 13 focus groups
within the span of 5 weeks, where I met with staff in an
informal situation to--and this is the question I posed to
them: What is it that I can do in the short time that I am here
to help you better serve the Congress? They came through with a
lot of--a lot of different ideas.
For those that did not want to participate in a forum, I
encouraged them to send emails, and I got 400. I took all of
that information and started looking at what are low-hanging
fruits in terms of efficiencies that we can get. I will give
you a couple examples.
The staff were using a Zoom account, which, you know, our
bread and butter is consultations with Members and staff,
whether it is in person or virtually. They, unfortunately, had
the lowest priority Zoom account. At 40 minutes, it would
cutoff. They have to go back--well, you can imagine the
embarrassment if you are doing this with a Member of Congress.
Within a week, thanks to our--the Library's technology
office, everybody in the Service has a Zoom, that needs one,
has a Zoom Pro account.
The other thing that I discovered was--actually, two other
things. Because we have so many deadlines, and one of our, you
know, hallmarks is responsiveness, there was a lot of concern
about IT support in our divisions and offices and frustration
with getting things resolved very quickly. Everything we do is
deadline-driven. You know, if your printer is not working, your
software is not working, we use all kinds of different software
throughout the Service depending on the policy need.
We get a pilot where we embedded technicians in the Service
unit and the offices, and I can say that it has been 100
percent successful. It has reduced the time, in terms of
efficiencies, and the frustration that our analysts, attorneys,
and librarians have in getting their problems resolved.
The other thing which has been wonderful, was a big
complaint, was cell coverage. I will give you one example that
I think is very graphic. I was walking by an office of one of
our Government and finance analysts who routinely does
briefings for Members, and I saw that she had her cell phone
hanging in the--like on the hinge of her door.
I said, Val, what is going on here? She said, well, that is
the only place in the office that it will ring. I said, you
cannot be serious. She said, yes, when I answer it, I stand
there, and then I tell the person I have to go out so that I
can call you back.
Well, that was ridiculous. Again, working with Judith
Conklin and John Rutledge in our Office of CIO, they have done
all kinds of things to upgrade that, Wi-Fi extenders, which
has, again, improved efficiency and also improved morale.
Mr. Carey. Well, and just to go back to your thing. If for
some reason you are on a Zoom and you cutoff after 40 minutes,
I am a firm believer that the mind can only handle what the
seat can bear, so that 40-minutes timeframe is probably not a
bad thing, so----
With that, I really appreciate your testimony. I had an
opportunity to read through it, and thank you for being here
today.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Carey.
A couple of just quick comments. You mentioned the
Williamsburg visit, getting the Members together and having a
conversation about some of those things. I think,
unfortunately, as a Member of the 117th congressional class, we
unfortunately did not have that opportunity, which I think
would have been fantastic.
I would also say, I think it would be helpful to have some
of those things with staff, because you all, especially your
analysts, are interacting with staff so much more than even the
Members directly, and I think that we can hopefully try to find
some ways to work with your team to find the opportunities to
put you all together in person.
The second thing is, you mentioned AI, and I think that
looking at whether or not we have the opportunity to utilize AI
to create those bill summaries is really, I think, important. I
also agree with you, that caution has to be had, though,
because if we were participating or listened to the hearing
yesterday, which was really about AI and the legislative
process, there was a lot of conversation around inaccurate
information being presented.
I think that I look at it as sort of a garbage in, garbage
out, right? Whatever you put into that AI platform, if it is
not, you know, sort of vetted and thorough, then it is going to
come out incorrect, and the human oversight of that, not only
on the front end, but also as the product is produced, is going
to be really important.
I appreciate you sort of recognizing those pitfalls that
have the potential to be problematic for you all.
One last final question before we wrap up this quick
segment, and that is, you know, you talked a little bit about
some of the agencies that have been less than forthcoming with
providing data to you.
Have you had any pushback from other entities that do not
want you to have this data for some reason? Have they been
really forthcoming to say, we do not want to give this to you,
and what was their reason for that if they did?
Mr. Newlen. Probably less that they--they have not been
upfront about saying they do not want to give it to us, but the
reality is, they do not want to give it to us. They use
different ways of, you know, throwing up roadblocks, requesting
MOUs. They want to know which office that we are, you know,
working for. You know, often we are doing anticipatory work, so
there is no office.
Often a Member, to answer a request, we need data from an
agency, and we have had some negotiations that have been going
on for several years. That is why I am so delighted that the
Subcommittee has taken this up because this could be a huge--a
huge improvement for us.
Again, it is something I heard from our analytic staff
about the frustration that they have, and it impacts our
service to you.
Chairwoman Bice. Sure, yes. Mr. Newlen, thank you so much
for being with us this morning. We appreciate your time and
your testimony, and look forward to continuing to move these
initiatives forward.
At this time we will pause briefly to set for the second
panel of witnesses. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Newlen. Thank you.
Chairwoman Bice. I will now introduce our second panel of
witnesses. Our first witness is Ms. Elise Bean, the director of
the Washington office of the Carl Levin Center for Oversight
and Democracy at Wayne State University Law School.
Ms. Bean worked as an investigator for Senator Carl Levin
for 30 years, including 15 years at the U.S. Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations as staff director and chief
counsel. After leaving the Senate, she helped establish the
Levin Center, and now works to help legislators and staff
conduct oversight investigations.
Next, we welcome Dr. Matthew Glassman, a senior fellow at
the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University.
Prior to joining GAI, Matt spent 10 years on Capitol Hill at
the congressional Research Service, including 2 years as a
detailee to the legislative branch Subcommittee on the House
Committee on Appropriations.
Our final witness is Dr. Nicholas Hart, president and CEO
of Data Foundation. Previously, Dr. Hart served as the director
of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Evidence Project, building on
his work as policy and research director for the U.S.
Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking.
Thank you to our second panel of witnesses for being with
us this afternoon. Please remember to press the button on the
microphone in front of you so the light comes on, and when you
begin speaking, you will have 5 minutes. After 4, the light
will turn yellow, and when the red light comes on, your 5
minutes have expired, and we would kindly ask that you please
wrap up your comments.
At this time, I am delighted to recognize Ms. Bean for 5
minutes.
STATEMENTS OF MS. ELISE BEAN, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON OFFICE, CARL
LEVIN CENTER FOR OVERSIGHT & DEMOCRACY; DR. MATTHEW GLASSMAN,
SENIOR FELLOW, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS INSTITUTE, GEORGETOWN
UNIVERSITY; AND DR. NICHOLAS HART, PRESIDENT AND CEO, DATA
FOUNDATION
STATEMENT OF MS. ELISE BEAN
Ms. Bean. Subcommittee Chair Bice, Ranking Member Kilmer,
and the Subcommittee Members, thank you for this opportunity to
support the Subcommittee's efforts to modernize and strengthen
the congressional Research Service, especially because CRS
strongly supports congressional oversight.
As you mentioned, I represent the Carl Levin Center for
Oversight and Democracy, which is part of Wayne State
University Law School in Detroit.
Senator Levin used to say, ``Good Government requires good
oversight.'' He also appreciated the fact that the Supreme
Court has long recognized Congress' need for information to
carry out its constitutional duties. Nearly 100 years ago in an
8-0 opinion upholding a congressional subpoena seeking
information related to the Attorney General, the Supreme Court
wrote, quote, ``The power of inquiry, with process to enforce
it, is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the
legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate
wisely or effectively in the absence of information,'' end
quote. The Supreme Court recently explicitly reaffirmed those
principles in 2020 in the Mazars case.
Investigating facts, what happened and why, and analyzing
complex problems are at the heart of congressional oversight.
They are critical to Congress' work to enact effective
legislation, allocate Federal funds, inform the public about
what its Government is doing, and act as a check on the
executive branch. Sixty years ago the Supreme Court held that,
quote, ``it is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to
cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain facts
needed for intelligent legislative action,'' end quote. The
duty to cooperate with congressional information requests,
including through CRS, applies to Federal agencies no less than
others and is fundamental to the checks and balances envisioned
by the Constitution.
CRS has long played a key role in helping Congress gather
facts and conduct effective oversight. CRS employs hundreds of
experts whose sole responsibility is to answer questions and
provide research requested by Congress. CRS has also built a
reputation as a source of nonpartisan, reliable information
trusted by both sides of the aisle. It produces a wealth of
data in service to Congress. Its latest annual report states
that in fiscal 2022, CRS responded to over 73,000 congressional
requests for information.
Senator Levin's staff made frequent use of CRS. To offer
one example, some years ago, Senator Levin wanted to
investigate how you set gasoline prices. At the time, his staff
knew very little about the subject, so we called in CRS'
experts who provided multiple briefings to educate both sides
of the aisle at the same time on key facts: how the gasoline
market worked, what factors affected price, where do you get
data on gasoline prices over time, and much more. It was
invaluable assistance given our limited staff, our limited
resources, and limited time. CRS was a force multiplier.
That is just one example. The CRS annual report includes a
list 65 pages long of reports and other written products issued
during a single year on a vast array of topics for Congress.
Examples include U.S. Immigration Courts and the Pending Cases
Backlog; The Dark Web: An Overview; a primer on China and Hong
Kong; Cost-Benefit Analysis in Federal Agency Rulemaking.
To produce those types of reports, CRS needs access to data
held by Federal agencies. For over 50 years to obtain agency
information, CRS has relied on the Federal statute, 2 U.S.C.,
section 166, which requires Federal agencies to comply with CRS
information requests when those requests are authorized by a
Committee.
It is time for Congress to modernize that law. One of the
bills under consideration today would do just that. For
example, the bill would extend CRS' authority to obtain agency
information, not only when CRS is authorized by a Committee,
but also when authorized by an individual Member of Congress or
when CRS itself anticipates Congress will need the information.
The bill also states explicitly that agencies must produce
information in, quote, ``a timely manner,'' end quote.
The improved statutory language would not, of course, cure
all of the problems that CRS faces with agencies. This
Subcommittee and other House and Senate Committees will still
need to lend CRS a helping hand by overseeing agency compliance
with the law. At the same time, enacting a stronger statute
would send a clear message to the Federal agencies that they
are expected to comply with CRS requests.
CRS is one of the few institutions dedicated to supporting
the work of Congress, including congressional oversight. It is
also one of the few institutions trusted by both sides of the
aisle. In return, Congress should support CRS. Equipping CRS
with better legal authority to obtain the information to which
Congress is entitled under the Constitution will benefit every
Member of the House and Senate.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bean follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELISE BEAN
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ms. Bean.
At this time, I recognize Dr. Glassman for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW GLASSMAN
Mr. Glassman. Chairwoman Bice, Ranking Member Kilmer,
Congressman Carey, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today.
As you mentioned, I am a senior fellow at the Government
Affairs Institute at Georgetown University. I am also an alum
of the congressional Research Service where my portfolio
consisted of institutional issues in Congress, including
congressional operations, budget and appropriations process,
and separation of powers.
I am a legislative branch patriot and committed to the goal
of a modern, capable, and powerful legislature. I strongly
support the proposed legislation to expand CRS' access to data
from the executive branch.
I want to make four points today: First, access to data is
vital for CRS. CRS' mission is to provide Members and staff
nonpartisan, objective, authoritative, and timely research and
analysis. To do this, CRS analysts use data from a wide variety
of Government, academic, and private sector sources. There is
simply no way to do high quality research and policy analysis
without data.
During my time at CRS, I do not think there was a single
day where I did not make use of the vast data collections
available to me at CRS or in the Library of Congress.
More than once, I held my breath while looking for what I
needed within CRS, knowing that if I did not find it there, I
was going to have to head to sources outside the library where
the wait would be longer and the results unknown.
Second, during my time at CRS, I often experienced
frustrating difficulties obtaining data from the executive
branch. In rare cases, I was simply told by a Federal agency I
could not have the data. More often, my point of contact was
not sure whether they should share the data with me.
In many cases, they were not even familiar with CRS. Where
are you calling from? Is that a Government agency? was a very
common response. Many of these contacts, quite reasonably told
me they would have to check with their supervisors.
My data request, presumably a pretty low priority on their
busy agenda, was often forgotten until I called back 3 days
later, only to have the entire process start over again.
For data that I would be requesting on an ongoing basis, my
usual strategy was collegial. I would try to make a friend at
the agency. In this sense, I often felt like I imagined
journalists feel writing stories. I always felt like I was
asking someone to do me a favor.
To be clear, in most cases where I sought data from the
executive branch, I eventually was able to get it, but the time
it could take, the hassle of the process, and the possibility
of ultimately not getting the data often led to a worse CRS
response for Congress.
Third, the proposed legislation we have here today will
improve the situation, especially if it is well-implemented.
I fully support H.R. 7593. Requiring executive branch
agencies to share information for all requests, not just
Committee requests, will give CRS analysts and management a
firm leg to stand on when requesting this data from the
agencies.
For high-profile data requests that management gets
involved in negotiating, the new authority will be extremely
helpful on its own, and it will be great for a CRS analyst to
be able to politely point to statutory language in emails and
phone calls requesting data.
That said, I do not believe the statutory authority alone
will fully solve the problem. As noted earlier, the stumbling
block for me was often timeliness due to agency unfamiliarity
with or uncertainty about their obligations.
Consequently, for many analyst-to-agency simple data
requests, the new authority would be most effective if it is
paired with an information campaign. Perhaps starting with the
leg affairs shops at the agencies, such that the agencies
understand their updated obligations to provide CRS with data.
Finally, the need for these data access authorities should
be seen as a first step toward broader statutory reform for
CRS. The CRS organic statute was last substantially revised in
1970. The reforms under consideration today suggest the entire
statute could use review.
Congress has changed significantly in the last 50 years.
Two quick examples: First, in 1970, policymaking was strongly
centered in the Committee system controlled by powerful old
bull chairs and built on top of a strict seniority system. In
that atmosphere, it was natural to organize a support agency
like CRS around the Committees.
Times have changed. The relative power of the Committees
has weakened, and policymaking roles have expanded far outside
the Committee system.
CRS requests for analysis now routinely come from all
corners of the Hill: Member offices, leadership, CMOs, even
informal working groups.
Second, technology. The 1970 Act could not have foreseen
the explosion of digital information and communications
available to Members and staff, all on computers carried in
their pockets. This has made some of CRS' statutory mission
seem plain anachronistic, such as providing Committees at the
beginning of Congress with lists of policy areas they may want
to study, while also in some ways, making CRS more distant from
the Hill as emails and pdf reports have replaced face-to-face
briefings and physical information delivery.
Updating the CRS statute to adjust to these realities will
better focus the mission of the service and allow it to better
serve the Members.
Thanks for having me here today, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glassman follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MATTHEW GLASSMAN
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Dr. Glassman.
Finally, Dr. Hart, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS HART
Mr. Hart. Thank you.
As someone who has spent most of their career in the
executive branch, I am happy to say I know what CRS is.
Thank you for the invitation to join today's hearing. As
you noted, I lead the Data Foundation, which is a nonpartisan
national nonprofit that works to improve Government, business,
and society through open data and evidence-informed policy.
I am really pleased to be here to share perspectives about
the use of data and evidence to support Congress. I get to zoom
out of it.
Because Congress needs data, it is actively using evidence
and really always has. As the world, country, and Congress
change, Congress really needs to review, as an institution,
whether it is actually receiving the right kinds of data and
evidence to support effective oversight and decisionmaking.
Importantly, our value systems are actually part of how
each of you, as Members, represent the values in our Democratic
Republic, and that is actually vital to decisionmaking and our
success as a country. That is a very important input that we
should not miss.
Evidence must have a seat at the table. It must be a key
seat. Congress, as an institution, needs to have procedures and
processes to access what Members and staff actually need to
fulfill effective legislative and oversight functions. In a
sense, we are aspiring to align the best available evidence in
decisionmaking for the legislative process.
Ensuring Congress has the data and evidence it needs at the
right time and in the right format for decisions requires
planning and coordination, and even a sense of humility about
what we want and need to know.
Evidence helps determine, as Mr. Kilmer was alluding to,
whether, how, when, where, and for whom policies work and also
helps describe the conditions and solutions that we want.
We have seen lots of bipartisan examples over the years. I
alluded to some in my written statement, including things like
the bipartisan negotiations that achieves solvency for the
social security disability trust fund back in 2015, along with
major reforms for the program.
We are talking right now about the child tax credit
expansions and improved evaluations for tax expenditures. A
major point of discussion that we desperately need, and we know
from the CTC that it has impacts on reducing child poverty.
Using evidence should be easy for decisionmakers and not
challenged by institutional processes and barriers to access.
This is why I strongly endorse the congressional Evidence-
Based Policymaking Commission resolution--a mouthful. A broader
cohort of the data and evidence community will also agree with
us.
Establishing this Commission is a low-cost, rapid mechanism
for addressing the question of how Congress can establish
capacity, process and procedure to better use data and
evidence. There are so many resources today that already exist
to do this, and the question is, how can we better achieve this
goal through congressional support agencies and executive
branch agencies?
A prior evidence commission back in 2017, established by
then-Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator Patty Murray, focused on
ways to drastically improve executive branch capabilities
through data infrastructure and evidence capacity. They
achieved unanimous recommendations.
Because of the Ryan-Murray Commission and those unanimous
recommendations, Congress passed the Evidence Act, the
foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act. It includes
Congressman Kilmer's Open Government Data Act, and Congress
later passed the National Secure Data Service Authority.
The Ryan-Murray Commission directly led to an improved
understanding of what evidence is, established new leadership
roles, like the chief data officers and evaluation officers to
coordinate with senior leaders, new data strategies and data
governance in agencies, new data sharing projects and
evaluation, advanced data governance with privacy improvements,
and planning for evidence through learning agendas resulting in
OMB defining evaluations, a core function of Government. There
is even an expectation of open data by default in the executive
branch.
This is a lot, and all of that happened over the last 5
years, but did not necessarily align with the congressional
support function and the timing of decisions in Congress. That
means there is a lot to think about for this institution and in
Congress.
Congress still needs to think about its capacity and what
infrastructure it needs, noting the 50 years--50-year-old
design and gaps that currently exist.
Should Congress have a CEO, like it mandated for executive
branch agencies, how do we think about CRS data access noting
that the executive branch is building out a standard access
portal for data access? How do we think about engagement and
transparency?
There are so many other issues that a congressionally
focused commission can think about. The Commission offers an
opportunity to support Member and congressional staff in the
endeavor to produce and encourage good policy outcomes for the
American people.
Congress needs a coherent, depoliticized discussion about
the process and accountability of evidence, specifically, what
it wants to function better as an institution and using
knowledge starting with the question.
I encourage Members to advance this congressional Evidence
Commission to support this discussion and planning for ways to
strengthen Congress in the years ahead.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hart follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS HART
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Dr. Hart.
Ranking Member Kilmer is, as we often are, floating between
Committees right now, so he will return shortly.
We will start with questions, myself first, and then we
will try to move around.
First of all, thank you all again for being here this
morning/afternoon. We appreciate your time.
I want to start--you mentioned something toward the end of
your testimony that I think ties in perfectly with the question
I have here, and I will open it up to everyone on the witness
panel, and that is, Dr. Hart, your testimony calls for
depoliticized discussion of how Congress can use evidence to
better function as an institution using the knowledge being
gained.
Certainly, that is a very admirable goal, but how do you
get around the fact that data can be used to promote sort of
partisan aims? How can we be certain that the data being
presented is not biased, especially when both sides point to
data in these policy debates?
Mr. Hart. A major component of this is thinking about how
we transparently share the information evidence that we are
using, and this is actually one of the pillars of Evidence
Commission, the Ryan-Murray Commission when we talked about
evidence-based policymaking.
Transparency was one of the five pillars, and in the
executive branch, this is something that we have encouraged,
promoted as we are talking about sharing more information from
the American public. It is one of the reasons that we promote
openness of data.
It is not to say that we will never have different views
about what data mean and what data analysis means, but the more
that we are able to share and have open and honest dialogs
about the information that is in front of us, the more we can
have a productive discussion about what problems are really
there and how to solve them.
This is one of the reasons that the Open Government Data
Act is such a powerful piece of legislation that should be
something that Congress is interested in providing oversight of
and we should be moving forward with.
It is a topic in front of us.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you.
Ms. Bean, you mentioned in your testimony the 65 reports
that are done annually by CRS that provide an, I think,
incredible amount of information to us, and it is one of the
things I think is maybe most overlooked, as Members and staff,
that these reports are done and are out there for our viewing
pleasure, but also to gain insight for.
My question to you really revolves around why do support
agencies have their data access authorities detailed in
statute?
Ms. Bean. Well, I think there are two reasons: First, we
are a Nation of laws, and so it is very helpful for an agency
to have a very clear, strong law that it can point to that
enables it to get the information that Congress needs. I think
that is sort of one reason it is important to have that kind of
statutory foundation.
Another reason is that Congress, you know, needs
information for virtually all of the things that it does,
whether it is enacting legislation, spending taxpayer dollars,
overseeing the executive branch. It needs that information.
We want to provide that strong foundation for its support
agencies to act as those force multipliers to help the staffs
that have limited resources and limited time get the
information they need.
Chairwoman Bice. Excellent.
Dr. Glassman, understanding that you were actually at CRS a
while ago, my question to you is, may be a little more
technical, and that is: Do confidentiality agreements between
analysts and their congressional clients prevent analysts from
sharing those raw datasets that they may be given by the
executive branch?
Mr. Glassman. You mean, confidentiality between an analyst
like myself and a congressional requester, such as you?
Chairwoman Bice. Correct.
Mr. Glassman. You know, confidentiality at CRS is airtight
between CRS, the agency, and the office of the Member or the
staff requesting. I always thought about it as that was the
baseline. I would never tell anyone outside the office I was
working for or CRS what was going on.
I would certainly talk to other analysts and ask them to
help me on something. Unless the requester specifically said do
not talk to anyone else in my office, I would think it would be
sort of fair game to talk to someone in their office.
In terms of data coming from the executive branch, when I
had it, I never used it in terms of handing over raw datasets.
In fact, often, when I was dealing with the executive branch,
that.
Would be the one condition they would want on the data, I
would say. Well, we will give it to you, but you are just using
this to write a report with analysis, right? I would say, yes,
and then I would do that. Then I would have the data, and I
would continue to use it for that purpose.
I would never transfer sort of large-scale data to
Congress. I think I would probably be very weary of doing that
without sort of getting my supervisor involved or discussing it
further with the agency, the requester.
Now, I often wrote things, analysis pieces that were
confidential to Members who I then went back later and said,
Hey, I have another client who might be interested in similar
things. Is it OK if I share that with them?
That happened routinely, and I almost never had anyone say
no to that. I would think that that would be how I would handle
these sort of data things.
You know, I think it is understandable if you are taking
massive raw datasets from the executive branch agencies. I
think they would be concerned about this, and I think I would
be, too.
Chairwoman Bice. I think for many looking at this issue,
they want to make sure that that information may not be shared
specifically or directly with, you know, either Members or
staff, but still the information that is provided there within
is given to you all and then you all can sort of translate
that, put it into those papers, and provide us the data that we
are asking for.
Yes, perfect. Thank you for that.
Since Mr. Kilmer has not returned yet, I am going to move
over to Mr. Carey for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Carey. I appreciate that, Chairwoman.
You know, one of the things that--it is interesting being
former staff. Ms. Bean, you worked for Senator Levin for a
number of years.
Ms. Bean. Thirty years.
Mr. Carey. Thirty years?
Ms. Bean. Yes.
Mr. Carey. See, you know, that is where AI should do a
better job when they ask the questions because they said
decades of experience. I would not have gone there, but.
As somebody who watched his career, I mean, everybody knows
about his service on the Armed Services Committee and all the
things that he did, but truly was a champion for pensions and
healthcare for retirees, a rare gift these days. Glad you are
continuing his legacy.
With your decades of experience and oversight and managing,
can you lay out for us, in straightforward terms, what Congress
is legally entitled to obtain from the executive branch? I know
you worked on this with agencies and departments.
Ms. Bean. Well, the Supreme Court has been very clear that
as long as Congress has a legislative purpose, Congress has
broad authority to obtain information. The Supreme Court first
affirmed Congress' authority to conduct oversight of the
executive branch nearly 100 years ago in McGrain vs. Daugherty,
and it reaffirmed that authority in 2020 in the Mazars case.
Here are some direct quotes from the Supreme Court in
Mazars: Quote, ``congressional power to obtain information is
broad and indispensable,'' end quote.
Quote, ``It is the proper duty of a representative body to
look diligently into every affair of Government,'' end quote.
Quote, ``Unless Congress have and use every means of
acquainting itself with the acts and disposition of the
administrative agents of the Government, the country must be
helpless to learn how it is being served,'' end quote.
The Supreme Court could not have been more clear about
Congress' right to obtain information for a legislative purpose
from the executive branch, and that includes when Congress is
enacting legislation, overseeing the executive branch, and it
includes information requests from its support agencies since
the only reason they are asking is to assist Congress.
Mr. Carey. Let me go into that. Given the reality of the
executive legislative relations, do you think that changing
CRS' statute would make a difference?
Ms. Bean. I do. I mentioned before that we are a Nation of
laws, and one of the first things executive branch agencies
like to know is, Well, what is your legislative authority? What
is your statutory authority.
Having that strong, clear, statute would make a difference.
A strong Congress needs a strong CRS operating under strong
statutory authority.
Mr. Carey. I cannot remember whether it was you, Dr.
Glassman, or Dr. Hart. In reading your bios, I know we have a
real--we have a very educated body that we are asking questions
to.
What is it that we can do as Members of Congress that can
help CRS be--help the agencies understand the role of CRS?
Because that is--you know, you get young staff that comes in,
and whether it is, you know, here in the Capitol or whether it
is in an agency, and they just do not really understand the
role.
What could we be doing? I am going to go to you, Dr.
Glassman. What could we do better as a Congress to make sure
the agencies know your role?
Mr. Glassman. Sure. I mean, I think, you know, one of the
biggest frustrations I would have, that I would often have with
staffers when we were both working on something together, was
that the agencies did not see CRS as an extension of, say,
Committee staff, right.
Making sure the agencies knew that when CRS was requesting
something, it was no different than if a Committee staffer was
requesting something. At least bringing it up on that plane
would be extremely helpful.
In part, because, you know, there were a fair amount of
times I would have a request where I would be working with a
Committee staffer, and the reason I was requesting the data is
because they wanted to remain anonymous, and they did not want
the agency to know that this Committee was looking at this or
that they were looking at this.
I would go to the agency, and they would sort of just, you
know, not answer my thing. I would go back to the staffer and
be, like, Can you call? They would, you know, throw their hands
up in the air because that was exactly what they did not want
to do.
Making sure the agencies know that CRS should be treated as
the equivalent of Committee staff when they are dealing with
leg affairs shops, or when they are dealing with program
managers would be great.
I can imagine writing lines in Committee reports and
appropriations bills just reminding them of that, right, when
they get their funding. Yes, that would be the most beneficial
thing I think.
Chairwoman Bice. Perfect.
Mr. Carey. I will go to Dr. Hart. I mean, the same type of
question. What do you think that we could be doing a better job
of as Member of Congress to make sure the agencies understand
the role of CRS?
Mr. Hart. I think there is a lot, actually, that sort of
fits in this conversation about the access of CRS to executive
branch data, including some very important privacy discourse.
CRS does not necessarily need unfettered access to
executive branch information. For example, the Census Bureau
collects a lot of information from the American public that we
place very important privacy protections on. We are not
necessarily talking about CRS getting access to the
confidential records of the Census Bureau.
We are having a conversation about aggregate information, I
think, is largely what CRS is looking for and ensuring that
aggregated administrative records. I think there is an
important starting point that CRS is going to need to
understand about what it actually needs.
Then there is a second level of this about the executive
branch has an expectation of transparency in communicating when
it is using data. CRS does not have that same expectation. You
are just talking a little bit about a veil of secrecy in a
sense between the communications that CRS has with Members.
However, when we talk about evidence production in the
executive branch, we are often encouraging transparency. I
think we are going to have to reconcile that.
Congress actually told the executive branch agencies to
have more transparency as it is producing evidence. That to me
seems like a bit of a conflict.
I think if CRS is going to have this legislation move
forward, that communication--maybe this is part of the
information campaign that you are describing--will have to
figure that out.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you.
Mr. Carey. Well, listen, I thank the witnesses, and I thank
the Chairwoman for being indulgent with her time.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Carey.
At this time, I recognize Ranking Member Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair.
First, I want to speak in support of the Committee
deconfliction tool, which my clone did not arrive at work
today.
Chairwoman Bice. Second.
Mr. Kilmer. First, I wanted to ask Dr. Hart, you know, for
folks who maybe are less familiar with the history of the U.S.
Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking and the work it did,
I was just hoping you would share a little bit about the nuts
and bolts of how the Commission was staffed, how its agenda was
set, what it did on a day-to-day basis.
You know, assuming the work was driven by trying to arrive
at a set of recommendations, were there predetermined
categories or areas of jurisdiction that the Commission used as
guideposts? Were there competing priorities? How were those
resolved?
Mr. Hart. Yes. The Evidence Commission from Ryan and Murray
had about 18 months to do its work. It was a very fast timeline
and was charged with, essentially, studying the whole of
Government, the whole of the executive branch.
Its initial charge was to answer a question about whether
there should be a clearinghouse for data in the executive
branch. That was a pretty wicked question, in essence. The
answer was very quickly no, by the way.
It had a staff of 10, so it was not a large staff. It
largely came from executive branch agencies and 15 politically
appointed Members, five of which were appointed for their
expertise in privacy, which was very important in the final
recommendation formulation.
SIn addition to the focus on that data clearinghouse
question, it had priorities that were very specifically around
data access, the theme of much of the conversation around CRS,
privacy protections, and the capacity of the executive branch
to actually do this work.
All of the recommendations from that Ryan-Murray
Commission, essentially, focused on those priorities. The way
that the Commission converged on those priorities I think was
something that is actually very relevant to the congressional
Evidence Commission. Some of it came from the Members, the
sponsors.
In the very first meeting of the Commission, the staff of
those Members presented and had some conversation with the
Members, but all of the individual Members went around the
table and said what one of their priorities was.
I still remember the co-chair, Ron Haskins, a former Ways
and Means staffer said if I get nothing else from this
Commission, I want there to be chief evaluation officers in
Government. By God, that was one of the recommendations of the
Commission.
One of the reasons that we have an evaluation function in
Government today that is across Government is largely a credit
to Ron Haskins.
I would say it was a very noncontroversial commission
behind the scenes. The Members really collaborated, much a
testament to good leadership from the chair, Katherine Abraham,
and the co-chair, Ron Haskins, but also to a very savvy
executive director, Shelley Martinez, who knew a lot about the
functioning of Government. She came from the Federal
statistical system over in the leadership office at OMB.
Good leadership, savvy first meetings, some good planning,
but it was a very efficient and fast mechanism to get to
recommendations.
Mr. Kilmer. You know, one of the issues that the
Modernization Committee looked at was just congressional
capacity. One of the things I sort of grapple with is if
Congress, if the institution were to have better access to data
and evidence, does the institution have the capacity to
actually use it and to incorporate it?
Are Members in their offices sufficiently trained in how to
actually use evidence for the purposes of public policymaking?
I would love to get your take on that, and if you do not
think we have the capacity, what do we do to develop that
capacity within the institution?
Ms. Bean. I will just say that I do think Congress has the
capacity to use it, but I think it depends on how it is set up.
For example, if you had an evidence-based policy commission,
perhaps they could work on developing what I would call
oversight dashboard for each Committee. Each Committee would
decide what is the information that they want that would help
them to do effective oversight.
For example, you might say for this agency--several
agencies that we oversee, improper payments. What is the
information out there on that? What are key lawsuits? Maybe
what are the high risks identified by GAO.
There are all kinds of ways to avoid being biased
information by using entities like GAO or IG or something like
that, and a way to focus. You are not going to get everything
about an agency, but what are the things that we would want
that would help us do evidence-based policymaking.
I think that is a way. You are going to have to set
priorities. You are going to have to focus. Yes, I think
Committees would love to have an oversight dashboard that gave
them certain kinds of information in a very easy way to access
and digest.
Mr. Kilmer. Anyone else want to swing at that pitch, or
should I yield back?
Mr. Glassman. I mean, I think that everyone is concerned
about sort of congressional capacity generally here. We have
had two broad periods of expansion of commercial capacity in
the 1940's and then again in 1970. Each followed a major
expansion of the executive branch.
We have had a third major expansion of the executive branch
after 9-11 in the last 20 years, we have had no sort of
corresponding increase from Congress.
You can see this from a CRS perspective. The number of
requests have exploded. The population is getting bigger. There
are more and more constituents communicating with Congress. The
number of staffers in those House offices remains at 18. I
think there is no doubt this is a challenge.
In regard to data, from my perspective at CRS, I do not
really envision a world where CRS had unfettered access to
executive branch data, which I do not necessarily think should
be the case, where a CRS analyst would be sort of, like,
digging through personally identified information or grabbing
terabytes of data from the Census Bureau in doing that.
In my experience, getting data from the executive branch
was almost always an on-demand sort of thing from Congress.
There were anticipatory reports I wrote where I needed some
data from the executive branch, but that was not where sort of
the bottlenecks were. The bottlenecks were when I was
responding to specific requests from specific requesters for
timely things.
I am not wholly concerned about sort of a flood of data
coming in if CRS were given sort of expanded data authorities
in that sense and having the capacity to deal with that.
That said, the broader issue of having a capable
legislative branch that can handle sort of the modern
responsibilities of this incredibly complex policymaking
requires increased capacity, not only of its workforce but of
the training and tools to use the data that is now out there.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks.
I will mention the Modernization Committee does have a
recommendation to increase the staff cap, too.
Chairwoman Bice. Parking. Parking is an issue for that,
certainly.
I would also just throw out there, Ranking Member Kilmer
and I have also been working on a provision that would allow
for itemized--what am I trying to say here--anonymized casework
data, so that we can actually see almost real time what is
happening from a casework standpoint.
I use the example of the issues of passports. Certainly,
after COVID, people wanted to travel again, and all of our
offices were absolutely bludgeoned with people's request for
new passports because many--and oftentimes their passports had
expired, and they were rushing to try to get new passports.
Had we known that that was coming, we would have been able
to maybe prepare accordingly or differently. That sort of
provision I think could be helpful in trying to address some of
the concerns.
Mr. Kilmer, any additional questions?
Mr. Kilmer. I yield back. Thanks.
Chairwoman Bice. Alright, fantastic.
Well, again, I want to thank our second panel of witnesses
for being with us today.
The Members of the Subcommittee may have additional
questions for you, and we ask that you would please respond to
those questions in writing should they be sent your way.
If there is no further business to be had, I thank the
Members for their participation.
Without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]