Congressional Hearings
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
Congressional Hearings
SuDoc ClassNumber: Y 4.AP 6/2
Congress: Senate
CHRG-116shrg89104851
| AUTHORITYID | CHAMBER | TYPE | COMMITTEENAME |
|---|---|---|---|
| ssap00 | S | S | Committee on Appropriations |
[Senate Hearing 116-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
[Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
hearings on departmental and nondepartmental witnesses. The
statements and letters of those submitting written testimony
are as follows:]
DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Prepared Statement of the Government Publishing Office
Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Murphy, and Members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to offer this testimony in support of the
appropriations request for the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO)
for fiscal year 2020.
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
The U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO), a legislative branch
agency, is the OFFICIAL, DIGITAL, SECURE resource for producing,
procuring, cataloging, indexing, authenticating, disseminating, and
preserving the official information products of the Federal Government.
Under Title 44 of the U.S. Code, GPO is responsible for the
production and distribution of information products for all three
branches of the Government, including the official publications of
Congress and the White House, U.S. passports for the Department of
State, and the official publications of other Federal agencies and the
courts. Once primarily a printing operation, we are now an integrated
publishing operation and carry out our mission using an expanding range
of digital as well as conventional formats. In 2014, Congress and the
President recognized this change in Public Law 113-235, which contains
a provision re-designating GPO's official name as the Government
Publishing Office. As of September 30, 2018, GPO employed 1,737 staff.
Along with sales of publications in digital and tangible formats to
the public, we support openness and transparency in Government by
providing permanent public access to Federal Government information at
no charge through govinfo (www.govinfo.gov), the successor system to
the Federal Digital System (FDsys), which was retired in December 2018.
Today, GPO makes more than 2.5 million Federal titles available from
our servers and through links to other agencies and institutions, and
govinfo, together with its predecessor site FDsys, averaged
approximately 31 million retrievals per month in fiscal year 2018. GPO
also provides public access to Government information through
partnerships with 1,125 Federal, academic, public, law, and other
libraries nationwide participating in the Federal Depository Library
Program (FDLP).
In addition to our newly redesigned website, gpo.gov, we
communicate with the public routinely via Facebook facebook.com/USGPO,
Twitter twitter.com/USGPO, YouTube youtube.com/user/gpoprinter,
Instagram instagram.com/usgpo, LinkedIn linkedin.com/company/u.s.-
government-printing-office, and Pinterest pinterest.com/usgpo/.
history
From the Mayflower Compact to the Declaration of Independence and
the papers leading to the creation and ratification of the
Constitution, America is a nation based on documents, and our
governmental tradition since then has reflected that fact. Article I,
section 5 of the Constitution requires that ``each House shall keep a
journal of its proceedings and from time to time publish the same,''
establishing Congress's informing mission that GPO carries out. After
years of struggling with various systems of contracting for printed
documents that were beset with scandal and corruption, in 1860 Congress
created the Government Printing Office as its official printer. GPO
first opened its doors for business on March 4, 1861, the same day
Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as our 16th President. Since that time,
GPO has produced and distributed the official version of every great
American state paper and an uncounted number of other Government
publications, documents, and forms. These documents include the
Emancipation Proclamation, the legislative publications and acts of
Congress, Social Security cards, Medicare and Medicaid information,
census forms, tax forms, citizenship forms, passports, military
histories ranging from the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion
to the latest accounts of our forces in Afghanistan, the 9/11
Commission Report, Presidential inaugural addresses, and Supreme Court
opinions. This work goes on today, in digital as well as print formats.
strategic vision
GPO is transforming itself from a print-centric to a content-
centric publishing operation. This process is consistent with the
recommendations submitted by the National Academy of Public
Administration to Congress (Rebooting the Government Printing Office:
Keeping America Informed in the Digital Age, January 2013) regarding
our transition to a digital future.
GPO continues to develop an integrated, diversified product and
services portfolio that focuses primarily on digital to serve the
Government information needs of Congress, Federal agencies, and the
public. At the same time, we recognize that some tangible print will
continue to be required because of official use, archival purposes,
authenticity, specific industry requirements, and segments of the
population that either have limited or no access to digital formats,
though its use will continue to decline relative to the continued
growth in the provision of and access to digital formats.
GPO AND CONGRESS
For the Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate, and the
committees of the House and the Senate, GPO publishes the documents and
publications required by the legislative and oversight processes of
Congress in digital and tangible formats. This includes the daily
Congressional Record, bills, reports, legislative calendars, hearings,
committee prints, and documents, as well as stationery, franked
envelopes, memorials and condolence books, programs and invitations,
phone books, and the other products needed to conduct the business of
Congress. We produce all the printing work required every 4 years by
the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. We also
detail expert staff to support the publishing requirements of House and
Senate committees and congressional offices such as the House and
Senate Offices of Legislative Counsel. We work with Congress to ensure
the provision of these services under any circumstances, including
emergency weather and other conditions.
Today the activities associated with creating congressional
information datasets comprise the majority of the work funded by GPO's
annual Congressional Publishing Appropriation. Our advanced digital
authentication system, supported by public key infrastructure (PKI), is
an essential component for assuring the digital security of
congressional publications. The datasets we create are made available
to provide access to congressional publications in digital formats as
well as to support their production in tangible formats.
GPO's congressional information datasets also form the building
blocks of other information systems supporting Congress. For example,
they are provided to the Library of Congress to support its
Congress.gov system as well as the legislative information systems the
Library makes available to House and Senate offices. GPO also works
with the Library to make House and Senate bill summary and status
information in XML bulk data format on govinfo.
In addition, GPO works with the Library on a variety of digital
projects supporting Congress to make congressional information more
widely available, including the digitization of historical issues of
the Congressional Record. In 2018, GPO completed the project to
digitize the Congressional Record back to the first issue from March 4,
1873, which opens with a proclamation by President Ulysses S. Grant
formally convening a special session of the United States Senate. That
issue, and every subsequent issue, is now available free of charge to
the public on GPO's govinfo website. With the completion of this
important digitization project, GPO has now moved on to the
digitization of other historical congressional documents, beginning
with hearings.
gpo cuts the cost of congressional work
GPO's use of electronic information technologies has been the
principal contributor to lowering the cost, in real economic terms, of
congressional information products. In fiscal year 1980, as GPO
replaced hot metal typesetting with electronic photocomposition, the
appropriation for Congressional Publishing was $91.6 million, the
equivalent in today's dollars of $285.4 million. By comparison, our
approved funding for fiscal year 2019 was $79.0 million, a reduction of
more than 73 percent in constant dollar terms.
Since 2010, we have achieved a 26 percent reduction in the constant
dollar value of the Congressional Publishing Appropriation, consistent
with the continuing transformation of our technology profile, the
control of costs, and collaboration with Congress in carrying out
measures reducing print distribution in meeting the information needs
of the Senate and House of Representatives. Annual appropriations for
Congressional Publishing have been at or below $79.7 million in each
year fiscal year 2014-18.
Productivity increases resulting from technology have enabled us to
make substantial reductions in our staffing requirements while
continuing to improve services for Congress. In 1980, total GPO
employment was 6,450. At the end of fiscal year 2018, we had 1,737
employees on board, representing a reduction of 4,713, or more than 73
percent, since 1980. Our workforce levels over the past 3 years remain
the smallest of any time in the past century.
GPO AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
Federal agencies are major generators of information in the United
States, and GPO produces their information products for official use
and public access. Federal agencies and the public also rely on a
growing variety of secure credentials that we produce, including
travelers holding U.S. passports, members of the public who cross our
borders frequently, and other users. Our digital systems support key
Federal agency publications, including the annual Budget of the U.S.
Government and, most importantly, the Federal Register and associated
products. As it does for congressional documents, our digital
authentication system, supported by public key infrastructure (PKI),
assures the digital security of agency documents.
In fiscal year 2018, GPO was proud to complete a project,
undertaken in collaboration with Office of the Federal Register (OFR),
to digitize and make available every issue of the Federal Register,
dating back to its inception in 1936, for free on GPO's govinfo
website. This exercise required the digitization of more than 14,587
individual issues containing more than two million pages. The first
issue of the Federal Register, dated March 16, 1936, featured an
executive order of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt that expanded
the boundaries of a bird refuge in South Carolina.
GPO's partnership with the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) was further expanded in fiscal year 2018, with
the completion of construction of an approximately 25,000 square foot
space within GPO's Building A to serve as Phase I of NARA's Center for
Legislative Archives. NARA is expected to begin moving its legislative
archives material into the facility in early 2019, and GPO will
continue to work with NARA on the development of Phase II, which will
provide additional archival space within GPO's Building D. This work
follows GPO's successful renovation of 17,000 square feet of space on
the seventh floor of GPO's Building A to house the OFR and the Office
of Government Information Services (OGIS).
Another promising potential collaboration for GPO is its recent
work with the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) and the Library of
Congress' National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped (NLS) to determine if space within GPO's main facilities
can be renovated to provide high-quality DC office space for the NLS. A
study was recently completed to assess the feasibility of such a
collaboration, and conversations between the three agencies are
ongoing. GPO holds the NLS and its personnel in high regard and is
committed to doing all it can to support this prospective partnership.
partnership with industry
Other than congressional and inherently governmental work such as
the Federal Register, the Budget, and security and intelligent
documents, we produce virtually all other Federal agency information
products via contracts with the private-sector printing and
information-product industry. This work is administered through both
our central office and regional offices throughout the country. In
fiscal year 2018, this work was valued at approximately $375.7 million,
and represented 84,111 orders. More than 10,000 individual firms are
registered to do business with GPO, the vast majority of whom are small
businesses averaging 20 employees per firm. Contracts are awarded on a
purely competitive basis; there are no set-asides or preferences in
contracting other than what is specified in law and regulation,
including a Buy American requirement. This partnership provides
significant economic opportunity for the private sector.
security and intelligent documents
For nearly a century GPO has been responsible for producing the
U.S. passport for the U.S. Department of State. At one time no more
than a conventionally printed document, the U.S. passport since 2005
has incorporated a digital chip and antenna array capable of carrying
biometric identification data. With other security printing features,
this document--which GPO produces in Washington, DC, as well as at a
secure remote facility in Mississippi--is now the most secure
identification credential obtainable. In fiscal year 2018 GPO produced
16 million passports for the State Department, and has produced a total
of more than 166 million passports the past 11 years. In fiscal year
2020 and fiscal year 2021, GPO will continue to make investments needed
to support the State Department's next generation passport program.
This past year also marked the 10th anniversary of GPO's production
of secure identification cards for Federal agencies. Since 2008, GPO
has served as an integrator of secure identification smart cards to
support the credentialing requirements of Federal agencies and other
Government entities. To date, GPO has produced more than 21 million
secure credential cards across 11 different product lines. Among them
are the Trusted Traveler Program's (TTP) family of border crossing
cards--NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST, and Global Entry--for the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), which are used by frequent travelers across
U.S. borders. Another card produced for DHS is the Transportation
Worker Identity Card (TWIC). In addition, GPO produces the secure law
enforcement credentials for the U.S. Capitol Police that are used in
Presidential inaugurations.
GPO AND OPEN, TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT
Producing and distributing the official publications and
information products of the Government fulfills an informing role
originally envisioned by the Founders, as James Madison once said:
``A popular Government without popular information, or the
means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a
Tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern
ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors,
must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.''
GPO operates a variety of programs that provide the public with
``the means of acquiring'' Government information that Madison spoke
of. These programs include the Federal Depository Library program
(FDLP), govinfo, Publications Information Sales, Agency Distribution
Services, and Social Media.
federal depository library program
The FDLP has legislative antecedents that date to 1813 (3 Stat.
140), when Congress first authorized congressional documents to be
deposited at the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, MA, for the
use of the public. Since then, Federal depository libraries have served
as critical links between ``We the People'' and the information made
available by the Federal Government. GPO provides the libraries with
information products in digital and, in some cases, tangible formats,
and libraries in turn make them available to the public at no charge
while providing additional assistance to depository library users.
The FDLP today serves millions of Americans through a network of
1,125 public, academic, law, and other libraries located across the
Nation, averaging nearly three per congressional district. In fiscal
year 2018, four libraries joined the FDLP: the College of Staten Island
Library in New York, the Miles City Public Library in Montana, the Pope
County Library in Arkansas, and the Loudon County Public Library in
Virginia.
Print and some microfiche products remain important depository
library resources today, particularly in regional depository library
collections nationwide, while the program has expanded significantly
over the past 25 years to incorporate digital information products, and
today is supported by govinfo along with other digital resources. The
growing reliance on digital content was underscored by the first
digital-only Federal depository library designation in 2014.
govinfo
Under the provisions of Public Law 103-40, GPO has been providing
online public access to Congressional and Federal agency publications
since 1994, beginning with a site known as GPO Access. Fifteen years
later, GPO Access was retired and a significantly re-engineered system
debuted as GPO's Federal Digital System or FDsys. In early 2016, GPO
unveiled the next generation of our public access system with the
introduction of govinfo. Rolled out initially as a Beta, govinfo
improved upon FDsys by providing a modern website that is aligned with
the needs of today's Government information users for quick and
effective online access across a variety of platforms.
Following a period of iterative development and testing, the
govinfo website was moved out of Beta in December 2017. Throughout
2018, the FDsys and govinfo websites ran in parallel while GPO worked
with key stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition to govinfo. In
December 2018, the FDsys website was retired and replaced by the
govinfo website. The govinfo website features a mobile-friendly design,
current and historical content collections from all three branches,
enhanced search and intuitive browse, linked related documents, curated
feature articles, quick and easy social sharing, developer tools such
as XML bulk data and a public API, expanded help information, support
for redirects from millions of legacy FDsys links, and additional
enhancements based on stakeholder feedback.
Online access to Federal documents made available by GPO has
reduced the cost of providing public access to Government information
significantly when compared with print, while expanding public access
dramatically through the Internet. In fiscal year 2018, govinfo grew to
make more than 2.5 million titles from the legislative, executive, and
judicial branches available online from our servers and through links
to other agencies and institutions, and govinfo averaged approximately
31 million retrievals per month.
GPO has continually added content to govinfo to provide increased
public access to Government information. In fiscal year 2018, notable
new content included completing the digitized volumes of the bound
Congressional Record back to 1873, completing the digitized issues of
the Federal Register back to 1936, adding the digitized volumes of
Kappler's Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, and making various Panama
Canal related publications available on govinfo. An initial set of
Statute Compilations, the Asian and Pacific Islander Americans in
Congress, 1900-2017 eBook, and a new series of Precedents of the U.S.
House of Representatives were also added to govinfo in fiscal year 2018
along with numerous other Federal publications.
During fiscal year 2018, the govinfo repository underwent an audit
for certification as a Trustworthy Digital Repository in compliance
with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 16363. In
December 2018, GPO made history by becoming the first organization in
the United States and second organization in the world to achieve the
highest global standard of excellence for digital repositories. GPO's
govinfo was evaluated against 109 criteria covering all aspects of a
digital repository including organizational infrastructure, digital
object management, and infrastructure and security risk management.
Certification provides assurance to GPO stakeholders that govinfo is a
standards-compliant digital archive in which Government information is
preserved, accessible, and usable now and into the future.
In support of the Legislative Branch Bulk Data Task Force,
throughout fiscal year 2018, GPO worked with the Clerk of the House and
the Secretary of the Senate on initiatives to convert legacy file
formats into United States Legislative Markup (USLM) XML. In early
fiscal year 2019, the first project was completed with the release of a
subset of enrolled bills, public and private laws, and Statutes at
Large in Beta USLM XML on govinfo. USLM offers a standard XML schema to
promote interoperability among documents as they flow through the
legislative and regulatory processes. USLM also promotes international
interoperability with documents produced by governments world-wide.
GPO has also continued to invest in the IT infrastructure
supporting GPO's digital information system. This includes bandwidth,
storage, and servers needed for Production, COOP, Test, and Development
environments.
publication and information sales program
Along with the FDLP and our online dissemination system, which are
no-fee public access programs, GPO also provides access to official
Federal information through public sales featuring secure ordering
through an online bookstore (bookstore.gpo.gov), a bookstore at GPO
headquarters in Washington, DC, and partnerships with the private
sector that offer Federal publications as eBooks. As a one-stop shop
for eBook design, conversion, and dissemination, our presence in the
eBook market continues to grow. We now have agreements with Apple
iTunes, Google Play, Barnes & Noble, OverDrive, Zinio, EBSCO, ProQuest
and other online vendors to make popular Government titles such as Your
Guide to Breastfeeding, My Future, My Way--First Steps Towards College,
and Dietary Guidelines for Americans available as eBooks. We also offer
a print-on-demand service for sales titles through Amazon and others,
which enables us to offer more titles and avoid the expense of
additional warehousing.
agency distribution services (ads) program
GPO operates two distribution facilities which are strategically
located in Laurel, MD and Pueblo, CO. Through these facilities, GPO
administers distribution programs for the information products of other
Federal agencies. Today, over 55 Federal agencies utilize the
comprehensive services provided through the Pueblo and Laurel
facilities, which together offer more than 160,000 square feet of
climate-controlled distribution, storage, and fulfillment space.
Among the services provided through GPO's ADS program are website
hosting, consulting services, fulfillment and distribution, address
validation services, call center operations, and printing optimization,
just to name of few. These services are all designed to help Federal
agencies achieve savings in the distribution of their information
products.
The ADS program experienced significant growth in fiscal year 2018,
with revenues climbing to nearly $13 million, up from $9.2 million in
fiscal year 2017. Similarly, the total copies of agency materials
distributed through the ADS program increased to 69.2 million in fiscal
year 2018--an 11 million increase over the 58 million copies
distributed in fiscal year 2017.
gpo and social media
We use Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest,
and a blog to share information about GPO news and events, and to
promote specific publications and products. By the end of 2018, we had
9,828 likes on Facebook and 9,500 Twitter followers. On Instagram we
had 819 followers and 1,699 posts and posted our first-ever Instagram
Story. By the end of 2018, 1,100 people were subscribed to our YouTube
channel, which has nearly 265,000 views across our 78 videos. On
Pinterest, we had 899 followers pinning on 22 boards of Federal
Government information. We had 3,498 followers on LinkedIn. Our blog,
Government Book Talk, focuses on increasing the awareness of new and
classic Federal publications through reviews and discussions.
GPO FINANCES
business operations revolving fund
All GPO activities are financed through our Business Operations
Revolving Fund, established by section 309 of Title 44, U.S.C. This
business-like fund is used to pay all of our costs in performing
congressional and agency publishing, information product procurement,
and publications dissemination activities. It is reimbursed from
payments from customer agencies, sales to the public, and transfers
from our two annual appropriations: the Congressional Publishing
Appropriation and the Public Information Programs of the Superintendent
of Documents Appropriation.
retained earnings
Under GPO's system of accrual accounting, annual earnings generated
since the inception of the Business Operations Revolving Fund have been
accumulated as retained earnings. Retained earnings make it possible
for us to fund a significant amount of technology modernization.
However, appropriations for essential investments in technology and
plant upgrades are requested when necessary.
appropriated funds
GPO's Congressional Publishing Appropriation is used to reimburse
the Business Operations Revolving Fund for the costs of publishing the
documents required for the use of Congress in digital and tangible
formats, as authorized by the provisions of chapters 7 and 9 of Title
44, U.S.C. The Public Information Programs of the Superintendent of
Documents Appropriation is used to pay for the costs associated with
providing online access to, and the distribution of, publications to
Federal depository libraries, cataloging and indexing, statutory
distribution, and international exchange distribution. The
reimbursements from these appropriations are included in the Business
Operations Revolving Fund as revenue for work performed. Congress has
also, in years past, appropriated funds directly to the Business
Operations Revolving Fund in support of specific capital investments.
In recent years such appropriations have been provided in support of
information technology and cybersecurity investments.
annual independent audit
Each year, GPO's finances and financial controls are audited by an
independent outside audit firm working under contract with GPO's Office
of Inspector General. For fiscal year 2018, the audit concluded with
GPO earning an unmodified, or clean, opinion on its finances, the 22nd
consecutive year GPO has earned such an audit result.
fiscal year 2018 financial results
Revenue totaled $874.5 million and resulted in a net income of
$20.4 million, excluding income planned to be invested in passport-
related capital assets and funds resulting from a downward adjustment
to GPO's long-term workers' compensation liability under the Federal
Employees Compensation Act (FECA).
Funds appropriated directly by Congress provided nearly $119.5
million (including funds from the Congressional Publishing and Public
Information Programs appropriations, along with appropriations to the
Business Operations Revolving Fund), or about 13.7 percent of total
revenue. All other GPO activities, including in-plant publishing (which
includes the production of passports), procured work, sales of
publications, agency distribution services, and all administrative
support functions, were financed through the Business Operations
Revolving Fund by revenues generated by payments from agencies and
sales to the public.
FISCAL YEAR 2020 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
GPO is requesting a total of $117,000,000 for fiscal year 2020.
This is the same level of funding GPO requested in fiscal year 2019,
and the same amount appropriated in fiscal year 2019. Through fiscal
year 2019, total GPO appropriations have declined by 21 percent since
fiscal year 2010 and are currently at their lowest level since then.
GPO's continued transition to digital technologies and products has
increased our productivity and reduced costs. Additionally, maintaining
financial controls on our overhead costs, coupled with a buyout in
fiscal year 2015 that reduced GPO's workforce by 103 positions, has
helped make this funding request possible. Finally, the utilization of
the unexpended balances of prior year appropriations, which we are able
to transfer to GPO's Business Operations Revolving Fund with the
approval of the Appropriations Committees, has made it possible in
recent years to hold the line on the level of new funding we request.
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO GPO
Fiscal Year 2010-2019 and Fiscal Year 2020 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Appropriation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................ $147,461,000
2011............................ $135,067,324
2012............................ $126,200,000
2013............................ $117,533,423
2014............................ $119,300,000
2015............................ $119,993,000
2016............................ $117,068,000
2017............................ $117,068,000
2018............................ $117,068,000
2019............................ $117,000,000
2020............................ $117,000,000 (Requested)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our fiscal year 2020 request will enable us to:
--meet projected requirements for congressional publishing;
--fund the operation of the public information programs of the
Superintendent of Documents; and
--develop information technology, including IT cybersecurity
measures, and perform facilities maintenance and repairs that
support our congressional publishing and public information
programs operations.
congressional publishing appropriation
GPO is requesting $79,000,000 for this account. This is the same
amount requested in GPO's fiscal year 2019 budget submission for the
Congressional Publishing account, and the same amount Congress
appropriated in fiscal year 2019.
Overall, the annual appropriations for Congressional Publishing
been flat since fiscal year 2014 and have declined by more than 15
percent since fiscal year 2010 as the result of our continuing
transition to digital technology and products, as well as actions taken
in cooperation with the House of Representatives and the Senate to
control congressional publishing costs. Unspent prior year balances
from this account that have been transferred to GPO's Business
Operations Revolving Fund are available for the purposes of this
account.
CONGRESSIONAL PUBLISHING APPROPRIATION
Fiscal Year 2010-2019 and Fiscal Year 2020 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Appropriation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................ $93,768,000
2011............................ $93,580,464
2012............................ $90,700,000
2013............................ $82,129,576
2014............................ $79,736,000
2015............................ $79,736,000
2016............................ $79,736,000
2017............................ $79,736,000
2018............................ $79,528,000
2019............................ $79,000,000
2020............................ $79,000,000 (Requested)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Report 114-110, accompanying the Legislative Branch
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016, requires the presentation of
budget requirements from a zero base. However, GPO has no control over
the workload requirements of the Congressional Publishing
Appropriation. These are determined by the legislative activities and
requirements of the House of Representatives and the Senate as
authorized by the applicable provisions of Title 44, U.S.C. GPO
utilizes historical data incorporating other relevant factors to
develop estimates of likely congressional publishing requirements.
These requirements are used as the basis of the budget presentation for
this account.
In GPO's fiscal year 2019 budget submission for the Congressional
Publishing account, a non-recurring amount of $3.7 million was included
to fund the production of the 2018 Edition of the U.S. Code, which is
carried out every 6 years in accordance with law. While the fiscal year
2020 request for the Congressional Publishing account excludes this
item, all other congressional activity in 2020 is expected to exceed
the fiscal year 2019 level by $2.8 million. In addition, price-level
and wage increases (if implemented), are expected to increase expenses
to the Congressional Publishing account by an additional $3.4 million.
In order to accommodate these increases and hold the fiscal year 2020
request for the Congressional Publishing account to $79,000,000, GPO
plans to use about $2.0 million of prior-year transfers in GPO's
Revolving Fund to support its Congressional Publishing work in fiscal
year 2020.
As shown on page D-4 of our budget justification for fiscal year
2020, the unexpended balances of prior year appropriations that have
been transferred to GPO's Business Operations Revolving Fund will be
used to offset anticipated requirements for fiscal year 2020, so that
appropriation requirements can remain stable. The balance of these
funds is earmarked for several ongoing and future projects, including
GPO's critically important Composition System Replacement (CSR)
project, involving the development of an XML-based composition system
to replace our 30+ year-old Microcomp system used in the preparation of
congressional documents for digital and print access, and other
congressional information projects as indicated on page F-6. Those
initiatives, which include anticipated projects in support of the
Legislative XML Working Group and Bulk Data Task Force, including the
Documents in USLM Projects and USLM Project for Statute Compilations,
are further described on page F-7.
public information programs of the superintendent of documents
GPO is requesting $31,296,000 for this account, which is a
reduction of $704,000 from the amount GPO requested, and Congress
appropriated, in fiscal year 2019. This account pays for the cost of
providing Federal Government publications in digital and tangible
formats to 1,125 Federal depository libraries nationwide, cataloging
and indexing, the distribution of documents to recipients designated by
law, and international exchange distribution.
This appropriation request represents a nearly 24 percent reduction
from the amounts appropriated in fiscal year 2010. This reduction has
been made possible by our continuing transition to digital technology
and products which has made the increased dissemination of official
Government information to the public less costly and more efficient.
The requested amount is based on the outcome of using zero-based
budgeting to determine the proper levels of funding needed to perform
program activities at minimum levels, as directed by House Report 114-
110.
PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAMS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
APPROPRIATION
Fiscal Year 2010-2019 and Fiscal Year 2020 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Appropriation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................ $40,911,000
2011............................ $39,831,178
2012............................ $35,000,000
2013............................ $31,437,000
2014............................ $31,500,000
2015............................ $31,500,000
2016............................ $30,500,000
2017............................ $29,500,000
2018............................ $29,000,000
2019............................ $32,000,000
2020............................ $31,296,000 (Requested)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The funding we are requesting for fiscal year 2020 will cover
mandatory pay and related cost increases, and support GPO's efforts to
maintain a 100 full-time-equivalent (FTE) workforce to support the
Superintendent of Documents' Public Information Programs.
Last year, GPO's fiscal year 2019 budget request for $32,000,000 to
support the Public Information Programs account included funding to
enable an increase of 11 FTE positions to achieve a 100-FTE level. GPO
had requested this staffing level increase in order to handle
significant increases in program activities dealing with historic
document digitization and collection management, web harvesting,
inventory, cataloging, and preservation of tangible collections in FDLP
libraries. GPO continues to work toward that goal and the funding
requested in fiscal year 2020 would support that level of staffing.
A significant difference between GPO's fiscal year 2020 and fiscal
year 2019 requests for the Public Information Programs account is that
in fiscal year 2019 GPO had to budget for a non-recurring $2.0 million
cost to support the production of the 2018 Edition of U.S. Code, which
is required by statute to be carried out every 6 years. Without the
need to provide for that cost in fiscal year 2020, GPO has been able to
request $31,296,000 for the Public Information Programs account. This
figure represents a net reduction of $704,000 from GPO's fiscal year
2019 request, even though GPO estimates that mandatory pay and related
increases of approximately $882,000 and price-level increases of
$414,000 for this account in fiscal year 2020.
GPO plans to utilize carry-over balances from funds transferred to
the Business Operations Revolving Fund to support high-priority
information services and products funded by this account as indicated
on page F-6 of our budget justification for fiscal year 2020, including
the collection preservation of new and historic documents and continued
development of govinfo content and capabilities.
business operations revolving fund
GPO is requesting $6,704,000 for this account, to remain available
until expended, to support continued investment in information
technology and cybersecurity projects. This compares with the
$6,000,000 GPO requested, and Congress appropriated, for these same
purposes in fiscal year 2019. Funding provided to this account
represents an increase to working capital for specified projects.
Since fiscal year 2013, these projects have consistently included
improvements to GPO's FDsys website and its successor govinfo, which
have expanded public access to congressional and other Government
information products in digital formats while decreasing the costs of
distributing traditional print formats. They have also included efforts
to harden and secure GPO's IT infrastructure from persistent external
cybersecurity threats.
APPROPRIATIONS TO THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS REVOLVING FUND
Fiscal Year 2010-2019 and Requested for Fiscal Year 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Appropriation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................ $12,782,000
2011............................ $ 1,655,682
2012............................ $ 500,000
2013............................ $ 3,966,847
2014............................ $ 8,064,000
2015............................ $ 8,757,000
2016............................ $ 6,832,000
2017............................ $ 7,832,000
2018............................ $ 8,540,000
2019............................ $ 6,000,000
2020............................ $6,704,000 (Requested)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
govinfo projects for fiscal year 2020--$5,704,000
--General System and Collection Development ($4,400,000).--
Development of new govinfo features to support identified needs
of key stakeholders, including developing new content
collections, increasing content in existing collections,
enhancing the accessibility of content, and increasing the
discoverability of information.
--Infrastructure ($1,304,000).--Infrastructure for the hardware,
storage, and environments to manage system performance as
govinfo content and usage continues to grow.
cybersecurity projects for fiscal year 2020--$1,000,000
--Security Enhancements for Advanced Persistent Threat
($1,000,000).--The cybersecurity threat environment faced by
Government agencies continues to change rapidly and presents
substantive risks and dangers to organizations. The requested
funding is planned to address that evolving threat environment
by implementing enhanced IT security systems that are intended
to reduce the risk of unauthorized data exfiltration,
unauthorized access, unauthorized changes to data, and related
impacts.
Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Murphy, and Members of the
subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of GPO I want to express
our deep appreciation for the support you gave our fiscal year 2019
appropriations request, and for your continuing interest in the
important work performed by dedicated employees of the Government
Publishing Office.
Thank you for this opportunity to offer testimony in support of
GPO's fiscal year 2020 appropriations request.
[This statement was submitted by John W. Crawford, Acting Deputy
Director.]
Prepared Statement of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
Madam Chairman Hyde-Smith, Ranking Member Murphy, and Members of
the subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, thank you for allowing me
the opportunity to submit for the record this statement regarding the
budget request for fiscal year 2020 for the Office of Congressional
Workplace Rights (OCWR). I want to express our appreciation to this
subcommittee for its continued support of the OCWR and its mission of
advancing workplace rights, safety, health, and accessibility for
employees in the legislative branch and visiting members of the public.
The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) embodies a
promise by Congress to the American public that it will hold itself
accountable to the same Federal workplace and accessibility laws that
it applies to private sector employers and executive branch agencies.
Congress established the OCWR--until recently known as the Office of
Compliance--to administer the CAA.
the ocwr's statutory mandate
The OCWR is a very small office with a very broad mandate. With 28
FTE positions, inclusive of a part-time Board of Directors, the OCWR
serves the same functions as multiple agencies in the executive branch,
including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, the Department of Labor, the
Department of Justice, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority. We
enforce Federal workplace and accessibility laws that cover more than
30,000 employees in the legislative branch, including the Senate, the
House of Representatives, the United States Capitol Police, the Library
of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of the
Architect of the Capitol, the Office of the Attending Physician, the
Office of Congressional Accessibility Services, and our own office,
among others. We administer the administrative dispute resolution (ADR)
system established by the CAA to resolve workplace disputes; we carry
out a program of education respecting the laws made applicable to
employing offices of the legislative branch by virtue of the CAA and to
inform individuals of their rights under those laws; and we advise
Congress on needed changes and amendments to the CAA.
Furthermore, our Office of General Counsel (OGC) is responsible for
inspecting--at least once each Congress--over 18 million square feet of
facilities and grounds in the legislative branch for Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSH) violations, as well as the public areas of
all facilities in the legislative branch for compliance with titles II
and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Moreover, the OGC
investigates allegations of OSH, ADA, and unfair labor practice (ULP)
violations filed under sections 210, 215 and 220 of the Act, and for
filing and prosecuting complaints of OSH, ADA and ULP violations. With
no redundant staff, the OCWR also regularly contracts for the services
of other individuals such as mediators, hearing officers, and safety
and health inspectors, in support of its statutory mandate.
the caa reform act
On December 21, 2018, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995
Reform Act was enacted. Public Law No. 115-397. Not since the passage
of the CAA in 1995 has there been a more significant moment in the
evolution of legislative branch workplace rights. The new law focuses
on protecting victims, strengthening transparency, holding violators
accountable for their personal misconduct, and improving the
adjudication process. The CAA Reform Act includes many important
changes that dramatically expand the OCWR's duties and
responsibilities, as well as the number of employees covered by the
CAA.
These new duties and responsibilities include:
--substantially modifying the ADR process under the CAA, including
creating additional procedures for preliminary hearing officer
review of claims;
--developing and implementing procedures for current and former
Members of Congress to reimburse awards or settlement payments
resulting from harassment or retaliation claims;
--developing and implementing procedures for employing offices to
reimburse payments resulting from specified claims of
discrimination;
--appointing one or more advisors to provide confidential information
to legislative branch employees about their rights under the
CAA;
--renaming our office as the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
to more clearly inform the legislative branch community of our
mission;
--extending CAA protections to unpaid staff, including interns,
detailees, and fellows, as well as employees of the John C.
Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development, the
China Review Commission, the Congressional-Executive China
Commission, and the Helsinki Commission;
--significantly expanding OCWR reporting obligations;
--developing and administering a biennial climate survey of all
legislative branch employing offices to collect information on
the workplace environment and attitudes regarding sexual
harassment;
--creating a program to permanently retain records of preliminary
reviews, mediations, hearings, and other proceedings;
--establishing an electronic filing system to receive and keep track
of claims; and
--developing and implementing means by which legislative branch
employees who work outside of the Washington, D.C., area--such
as in Members' district offices--have equal access to OCWR
services and resources.
Some of the changes in the CAA Reform Act became effective
immediately upon enactment, such as the renaming of the Office, but
most became effective 180 days from enactment, i.e., on June 19, 2019.
The biennial climate survey, being designed in fiscal year 2019, will
be administered for the first time in fiscal year 2020.
the ocwr's fiscal year 2020 budget justification
For fiscal year 2020 operations, we are requesting $6,332,670,
which is the same amount as our fiscal year 2019 enacted level.
Approximately 60 percent of the requested amount provides pay and
benefits to OCWR employees. The remainder focuses on supporting the
OCWR's statutory mandates and improving the delivery of services to the
covered community under the CAA. It also reflects the OCWR's
implementation and administration of the changes set forth in the
Reform Act, discussed above. This amount will also allow us to carry
out our statutory mission to educate and train Members of Congress,
their staff, and other legislative branch offices and employees on
their rights and responsibilities under the CAA by developing education
and training courses specifically designed for the legislative branch,
which are easily understood, practical rather than legalistic, and
proven effective. The education and training programs mandated by the
Reform Act reflect Congress's ongoing commitment to foster and promote
a healthy workplace culture on Capitol Hill.
The OCWR received a substantial increase to its funding for fiscal
year 2018 and fiscal year 2019. Using this funding, we implemented the
statutorily mandated changes by June 19, 2019, including the design and
development of a secure e-filing system, and revision of all
publications and education and training materials that the OCWR
produces to incorporate the changes set forth in the Reform Act.
Although the initiatives mandated by the Reform Act required
substantial funding in fiscal year 2019, many of those initiatives will
also require ongoing funding in fiscal year 2020 and beyond. For
instance, the e-filing system will require continuing cybersecurity
upgrades and modifications. Online training and educational modules
must be continually updated. New ADR procedures, such as preliminary
review by hearing officers of certain claims, will affect the costs
associated with adjudicating those claims.
One of the most costly and laborious tasks for OCWR is the
designing, development and implementation of a biennial climate survey
on the workplace environment and attitudes regarding sexual harassment
in the legislative branch. Conducting the survey beginning in fiscal
year 2020 and every 2 years thereafter, updating the survey, and
interpreting the data resulting from the survey, will result in
additional recurring costs.
Of the fiscal year 2020 requested amount, the OCWR is requesting
that a total of $1,000,000 remain available until September 30, 2021,
for the services of essential contractors, including hearing officers,
mediators, and safety and health inspectors and to design, develop, and
implement a climate survey of the legislative branch employing offices.
alternative dispute resolution program
The OCWR requests a total of $300,000 for non-personnel services
for fiscal year 2020 for administration of its ADR program, which
represents our best estimate for the cost of administering that program
in the coming fiscal year based on past and current expenses. The CAA
establishes an ADR process that provides employing offices and covered
employees a neutral, efficient, and cost-effective means of resolving
workplace disputes. We strive to ensure that stakeholders have full
access to these ADR procedures. The OCWR enjoys a 100 percent
affirmance rate in employment cases by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit. We continue to do more with less, maintaining a
flat rate of pay for contract mediators, a standardized hourly fee for
hearing officers, and rate limitations for other outside service
providers.
In any given year, it is difficult to predict the number of cases
that will be filed with the OCWR's ADR program, the complexity or
duration of administrative proceedings, or the overall costs associated
with case processing and adjudication. In fiscal year 2018, for
example, Library of Congress employees were allowed to file claims with
the OCWR for the first time. This has already added to the number of
cases filed with the OCWR, and we expect that number will continue to
increase. Fully implementing the CAA Reform Act in the last quarter of
fiscal year 2019 adds to the difficulty of making such predictions for
fiscal year 2020. The new ADR process, as required by the Reform Act,
is outlined in our fiscal year 2020 budget justification. As discussed
above, these changes require, among other things, that an additional
hearing officer be appointed to conduct a preliminary review in each
case filed on or after June 19, 2019, that involves claims arising
under part A of title II of the CAA. Furthermore, the changes set forth
in the CAA Reform Act required the OCWR to amend its Procedural Rules,
modify its Case Management System, develop and maintain a full
electronic filing system, and improve IT infrastructure and
cybersecurity. Other changes in the Reform Act--such as extending CAA
protections to unpaid staff, including interns, detailees, and
fellows--are highly likely to add to the number of cases on the ADR
docket. Our budget justification takes these considerations into
account when projecting the costs for administering this program in
fiscal year 2020.
education and training programs
The OCWR is requesting a total of $370,000 for non-personnel
services for fiscal year 2020 for its Education and Training Programs.
Our office has a statutory mission to educate and train Members of
Congress and legislative branch employees on their rights and
responsibilities under the CAA. In fiscal year 2019, demand for our
educational and training materials on preventing harassment and other
forms of discrimination in the workplace dramatically increased, and we
anticipate continued demand for these educational services.
During fiscal year 2019, at the request of the Congressional
Research Service, OCWR presented in- person training during District
and State Staff Institute programs. During each training session, the
OCWR interacted with approximately 40-50 congressional staffers new to
their jobs in district and State offices located around the country. In
fiscal year 2019, the OCWR delivered training to thousands of
legislative branch employees in-person, via webinar, and online. Topics
included the rights and protections under the CAA and OCWR procedures,
as well as training on specific areas of the law including Veterans
Employment Opportunities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. In
addition, the OCWR provided training on CAA-related curricula designed
to promote awareness and compliance with the Act, including training on
bystander intervention and unconscious bias. The OCWR also prepared and
distributed thousands of Notices to employing offices that describe the
rights, protections, and procedures under the CAA.
The OCWR also reorganized and updated its website and added
additional tools in fiscal year 2019, including interactive information
on safety and health issues, and publications to educate the covered
community. The OCWR's monthly publications and quarterly electronic
newsletters are aimed at keeping the congressional community up to date
on developments in the areas of safety and health and workplace rights.
The OCWR continues to meet this need for education and information on
the CAA.
In fiscal year 2019, the passage of the Reform Act required the
OCWR to modify its publications and online training and education
materials, and provide equal access to OCWR services and resources for
out-of-area employees. Virtually everything that the OCWR produces,
including publications and training materials, has been revised. In
addition, we are developing new tools, and expanding online offerings
to include videos on the CAA and OCWR procedures, as well as ADA
instructional guidance. We are working with covered employing offices
to support their programs to train and educate employees on their
rights and protections. Our ongoing mission to provide stakeholders in
the legislative branch with current, dynamic and innovative educational
and outreach materials will require substantial funds in fiscal year
2020.
safety and health and public access
The OCWR is requesting a total of $302,600 for non-personnel
services for fiscal year 2020 for its OSH and ADA public access
inspection programs. Before the OCWR opened its doors in 1996, Capitol
Hill buildings had not been subject to even the most basic building
codes or regulations. The first inspections led to the discovery of
serious fire and other safety hazards in House and Senate buildings and
around the Capitol. As a result of OCWR inspections, Congress has
abated thousands of serious hazards, reduced numerous barriers to
access for individuals with disabilities, and dramatically improved the
overall safety and accessibility of the Capitol Hill campus. The OCWR
has been instrumental in developing and implementing cost-effective
solutions to safety and access problems by working directly with the
Architect of the Capitol and other offices on the Hill. It is during
these inspections that our inspectors, who are trained OSH and ADA
specialists, can work directly with employing offices, providing
technical support at the point where assistance is needed. Our budget
request will allow us to continue to provide the level of expertise and
assistance that the community deserves.
additional services
The balance of the requested amount covers contract services,
including those furnished by cross-service providers, such as the
Library of Congress and the National Finance Center, and other
services, equipment and supplies needed to operate the OCWR.
Thank you very much for providing us with this opportunity to brief
you on our fiscal year 2020 budget request. As the Executive Director
of the OCWR, I am proud of the work that our highly professional,
talented, and motivated staff members perform every day. We are
available to answer any questions or to address any concerns that the
Chair, Ranking Member, or Members of the subcommittee may have.
[This statement was submitted by Susan Tsui Grundmann, Executive
Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Open World Leadership Center
Chairwoman Hyde-Smith, Ranking Member Murphy, and Members of the
subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on the Open
World Leadership Center's budget request for fiscal 2020. In this
request, the Center is asking for $5.8 million, an increase of $200,000
or 3.6 percent over the 2019 enacted appropriation. Open World has been
at the current enacted level since fiscal 2016. The increased funds are
needed mostly for program costs, especially airfare, accommodations,
and other logistical expenses.
The Center conducts a one-of-a-kind, peer-to-peer exchange program
in the legislative branch that has hosted more than 28,000 emerging
leaders from Russia, Ukraine and other post-Soviet and transitional
states since 1999. In 2018, more than 140 of our participants were
either Members of Parliament, Parliamentary staff, or regional and
local legislators. By the end of this year, we will have hosted our
20,000th Russian participant.
As a legislative branch agency, the Center is well-placed to
provide critical support to Congress in its foreign affairs oversight
responsibilities. Indeed, this placement is the leading component of
the success of the Open World program in these strategically important
countries. Providing programs for informed citizens and in turn for
more informed legislators is universally a good thing--and we do this
in an extremely critical region of the world where transparency and
accountable governance are not traditions.
On the program side, Open World has an American hosting network of
service clubs, local NGO's and community colleges as well as thousands
of volunteer host families. In 2018, these host families lived in
nearly 120 congressional districts in 48 states and contributed nearly
$2 million worth of in-kind contributions. Coupled with an increasing
number of U.S. embassies working directly with Open World and other
cost sharing partners, this keeps the per person cost of an Open World
delegate at about $9,000--far below the standard executive branch rate
of nearly $20,000 per person.
Open World's young leaders stay in private homes in American
communities across the country. They discuss topical issues of mutual
interest and experience firsthand the functioning of our democratic
institutions. They talk with their counterparts during the professional
program and go back to their countries with high praise for that and
for their American host families. This is how the Open World program
nurtures civil society that develops not only from the top down, but
from the ground up and the periphery in. Each year, there are new
American civic organizations such as Friendship Force, Rotary, Sister
City or other clubs joining the Open World network. And because of this
network, these future leaders from Eurasia form positive views of the
United States which in turn will influence attitudes in their home
countries.
But the most important work we do is to showcase the American
system of governance, in particular the legislative process. Did you
know that the Americans with Disabilities Act has impacted communities
far beyond our borders? Last year, a delegation from Azerbaijan with
three disabled participants went to Reno, Nevada to examine how that
law could be replicated in their country. That the GI Bill and other
Veteran-related legislation inspired the Ukrainian Parliament to
establish the Ministry of Veterans' Affairs last year? An Open World
delegation hosted in Maryville, Tennessee on Veterans' Issues is taking
the lead to help craft legal and legislative language addressing these
needs. That the Freedom of Information Act leaves an indelible
impression on the many Russian journalists and media specialists that
come on the Open World program? When a state journalist from Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov's press pool expresses a favorable impression of
the work of the Voice of America, acknowledging its independence, no
less, we have just made an inroad in countering disinformation.
For the United States Congress, the Open World Leadership Center is
a resource: our delegations are ready and willing to provide on-the-
ground information--unfiltered information--about events and
developments in their countries.
Open World is an asset: our Parliamentary program is unmatched in
the Legislative Branch. When your counterparts in Open World countries
meet with you, you are getting direct and firsthand information. This
in turn becomes the basis for a more informed foreign policy.
Open World is an investment: bringing delegations of rising leaders
to meet with their counterparts here creates a global network of
partners united in a common goal--to endow democracies in transition
with the basic ingredients of accountable governance and transparency
in a civil society.
The Open World program is your toolkit for supporting democracies
in transition; a toolkit that creates opportunities for Open World
participants to experience how legislative action is the change agent
their governments may need; a toolkit that allows America's
constituents to engage personally in strengthening civil society in
other countries. In these countries that do not have a tradition of
open debate or legitimate opportunities to propose alternatives for
their government, our participants see how the legislative process can
empower them to be that force for change.
Most importantly, though, the Open World program is an effective
one precisely because it is in the legislative branch. In today's
geopolitical environment, legislative diplomacy emerges as a unique but
no less powerful tool for engaging governments in critical regions of
the world.
There are good examples of Open World success stories itemized in
the Congressional justification. This unique program continues to
succeed in a shifting landscape where it has achieved a special status
in the successor states of the former Soviet Union and elsewhere. On
behalf of all of us at the Center, I thank the subcommittee for its
interest in and support of the Open World Leadership Center.
[This statement was submitted by Jane Sargus, Executive Director.]
----------
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Law Libraries
Chairman Hyde-Smith, Ranking Member Murphy, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
The American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) is pleased to have
the opportunity to submit written testimony in support of the fiscal
year 2020 requests of the Government Publishing Office (GPO) and the
Library of Congress.
AALL is the only national association dedicated to the legal
information profession. Founded in 1906 on the belief that people--
lawyers, judges, students, and the public--need timely access to
relevant legal information to make sound legal arguments and wise legal
decisions, its more than 4,100 members are problem solvers of the
highest order.
AALL members rely on GPO, the Library of Congress, and the Law
Library of Congress for access to and preservation of official,
trustworthy government information. Adequate funding for these agencies
ensures access to information, which supports access to justice and
preserves the rule of law.
funding for the government publishing office
Under Title 44 of the U.S. Code, GPO is responsible for the
production and distribution of information products for all three
branches of the Federal Government. GPO produces, authenticates,
disseminates, and preserves government information in multiple formats.
Since fiscal year 2018, GPO has completed several important
projects to provide greater access to digitized historical material,
including working with the Office of the Federal Register to digitize
and provide public access to every issue of the Federal Register back
to 1936 and the bound Congressional Record back to 1873. Increased
access to both historical and current content on GPO's govinfo website
is beneficial to researchers, librarians, and members of the public who
can view bills and statutes, budget materials, executive agency
publications, and judicial opinions.
We commend GPO for recently achieving certification as a
Trustworthy Digital Repository in compliance with International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) 16363. GPO is the only
organization in the United States and the second organization in the
world to achieve the highest global standard of excellence for digital
repositories.
AALL has a special interest in full funding for GPO's Public
Information Programs account that supports the Federal Depository
Library Program (FDLP). The requested funding level of $31.3 million
will allow GPO to provide additional support for locating and
processing Federal information for inclusion in the FDLP and the
Cataloging and Indexing Program, among other priorities.
GPO administers the FDLP by providing Federal Government
information products in multiple formats to more than 1,100
participating libraries across the country. These libraries are charged
with ensuring no-fee access to government information to the public,
including residents of your districts. Members of the public visit
depository libraries to access essential legal titles on topics such as
health information, bankruptcy, and housing services. Approximately 200
law libraries participate in the FDLP, including my own institution,
Duke University School of Law. The J. Michael Goodson Law Library, open
to the public, celebrated its fortieth year as a selective depository
library in 2018.
AALL also supports full funding for the Congressional Publishing
appropriation and Revolving Fund so that GPO may continue to publish
legislative information and support the development of govinfo to add
new content collections and improve the accessibility and
discoverability of information.
funding for the library of congress
AALL is grateful to this subcommittee for its approval of past
requests to replace broken shelving, implement a digitization strategy
to provide access to public domain U.S. legal and legislative
materials, and allow the Law Library to continue to work toward
completion of the K Class modern classification standard to increase
public access to its law collection.
The Law Library is a treasured institution with an unparalleled
collection of domestic, foreign, and international legal material. The
Law Library is a world leader in providing access to reliable legal
materials in print and electronic formats and it must have adequate
funding to meet the needs of Congress, the Supreme Court and other
court judges, attorneys, and the public.
AALL supports the Law Library's $18 million request for fiscal year
2020 so that it may, among other priorities, complete Phase 3 of the
project to archive the Law Library's Global Legal Research Directorate
reports and continue its digitization efforts to provide access to
historical Congressional and other public domain materials. AALL also
urges continued investment in the development of Congress.gov, the
official website for Federal legislative information and an essential
tool for legal research.
We commend the Library of Congress for updating its information
technology operations and meeting nearly all of the recommendations
from the Government Accountability Office's 2015 report on the
Library's information technology. We also express appreciation for
modernization efforts at the Copyright Office, which has been working
in close coordination with the Library's Office of the Chief
Information Officer. We welcome Dr. Hayden's appointment of Karyn A.
Temple as the new Register of Copyrights, and we are confident the
Office's modernization will continue under her leadership.
conclusion
Thank you once again for the opportunity to submit testimony on the
fiscal year 2020 requests of GPO and the Library of Congress. AALL
urges you to approve full funding for these legislative branch
agencies.
[This statement was submitted by Femi Cadmus, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Library Association
On behalf of the American Library Association, thank you for the
opportunity to submit this testimony regarding Legislative Branch
Appropriations for fiscal year 2020. We respectfully request the
Committee's support for funding for the Library of Congress and the
Government Publishing Office, which provide valuable services to
libraries and the public nationwide.
library of congress
The Library of Congress is the largest library in the world, with
millions of books and other items in its collections. In addition to
serving Congress, the Library is a resource to libraries across the
country and the American public. The Library's proposed visitor
experience enhancements would highlight its unique collections and
inspire millions of visitors to learn, create, and innovate. In
addition, the Library's services support education and research far
beyond the walls of its buildings.
Through its National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped, for instance, the Library of Congress serves readers who
cannot see print or handle print materials. This national program
provides access to books and reading materials for people across
America, including through a network of regional libraries, such as the
Mississippi Library Commission's Talking Book Services and the
Connecticut State Library's Library for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped.
The Library of Congress also provides access to a wealth of
information online for users nationwide. The Library is digitizing
thousands of pages of its collections and records and making that
information available to anyone with an Internet connection. For
instance, digitizing historical copyright records will make it easier
for users to identify the rightsholder or status of works that were
registered with the Copyright Office. Additionally, every year the
Library creates thousands of catalog records and shares them for the
use of libraries around the country.
government publishing office
The Government Publishing Office (GPO) provides essential
information to America's businesses, legal system, and researchers.
GPO's online repository of government information and the public
information programs of GPO's Superintendent of Documents benefit users
and libraries nationwide.
The Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), administered by GPO,
helps people access Federal laws, regulations, and publications in
communities across the Nation. More than 1,100 libraries participate in
the FDLP, such as the University of Southern Mississippi's Joseph
Anderson Cook Memorial Library and the University of Connecticut's
School of Law Library. Modernization legislation introduced in the
115th Congress would further strengthen the program, if enacted; we
hope that Congress will reintroduce and pass it in the 116th
Congress.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FDLP Modernization Act of 2018, H.R. 5305, 115th Cong. (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, GPO annually adds thousands of new government
publications to its free online repository, govinfo.gov. GPO also
catalogs thousands of publications every year to assist researchers in
locating them. To ensure that these important documents of our republic
remain available over the long term, GPO manages a cooperative
preservation program with libraries across the country.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee in
support of the fiscal year 2020 requests of the Library of Congress and
the Government Publishing Office. We ask for the subcommittee's support
in meeting the requests for these important national programs that
serve Congress, libraries, and the American public.
[This statement was submitted by Kathi Kromer, Associate Executive
Director, Public Policy and Advocacy.]
The American Library Association (``ALA'') is the foremost national
organization providing resources to inspire library and information
professionals to transform their communities through essential programs
and services. For more than 140 years, the ALA has been the trusted
voice for academic, public, school, government and special libraries,
advocating for the profession and the library's role in enhancing
learning and ensuring access to information for all.
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Responsive Politics
Chairman Hyde-Smith, Ranking Member Murphy, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on a
simple way the Senate can improve the transparency of lobbyist
disclosures.
I am executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a
nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization based here in Washington
that monitors and analyzes campaign contributions in Federal elections,
lobbying, and other forms of money and influence in U.S. politics and
policy.
The Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House serve as the
repositories for over 20 years of data detailing the lobbying
activities of thousands of organizations that are required to file
under rules set forth by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA) and
Honest Leadership & Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA). These reports
serve as the basis for important public resources that allow
investigations by academics, journalists and Congress itself that
contribute to the integrity of policy making processes.
Annually, these reports list more than 11,000 individual lobbyists
as having undertaken significant ``lobbying activities.'' \1\ The
Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) and others rely on this data both
to populate the OpenSecrets.org website, which is free and open to the
public, as well as to provide additional research assistance for
journalists, nonprofits, academic institutions and interested citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lobbying Disclosure Act Guidance, Revised January 31, 2017;
https://lobbying
disclosure.house.gov/amended_lda_guide.html#section4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This work includes normalizing individual lobbyist names to
facilitate tracking their employment history and political campaign
contributions. There is currently no publicly available identifier that
makes clear that names reported as ``Jane Davis,'' ``Jane A. Davis,''
and ``Jane Ann Davis'' all refer to the same individual lobbyist. In
fact, our research finds that over the last 20 years, an average of 12
percent of names reported annually are extraneous variations due to
typographical errors, nicknames, and name changes. Recent years have
been consistently in the 8 percent range. Despite this recent
improvement, considerable labor is expended reconciling the different
versions as well as verifying that individuals with similar or common
names are in fact, different people. Changes to a lobbyist's legal name
based on changed marital status are common and present further
challenges as there is often not an easily accessible way to confirm
that ``Jane Doe'' and ``Jane Buck'' are, in fact, the same person.
Considerable effort goes toward creating and maintaining a version
of lobbyist IDs through algorithmic matching as well as human review.
Following a quarterly filing deadline, considerable effort (both
algorithmic and human review) is required to reconcile variations in
lobbyist IDs caused by typos, nicknames, name changes due to marriage
and changes in associated registrants, delaying the release of an
improved data set.
Based on official filing manuals,\2\ the Secretary of the Senate
and Clerk of the House assign a unique identifier to each lobbyist
during the filing process that is used to track each person across
reports (e.g., between LD-1 to LD-2; across various registrants; and in
the LD-203 contribution reports). However, publicly released
downloadable data does not include unique IDs. The existing non-public
identifiers that are used to login can easily and programmatically be
used to produce ones that are safe to disclose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Employed lobbyists are assigned a unique ID when they are
registered with the House and Senate to lobby and added to the
Contribution Reporting System by the person in your organization who
manages the registration and reporting filings.''--From the LD-203
``Help''
manual for filers: https://lda.congress.gov/LC/help/
default.htm?turl=WordDocuments%2F
accessingthesystem.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honest Leadership & Open Government Act's revolving door
provisions make it clear that Congress believes that tracking
registered lobbyists' employment across government and the private
sector is essential to monitor for conflicts of interest and to protect
the integrity of the Federal Government. The recently released
Government Accountability Office annual review of LDA compliance found
that 19 percent of 2018 \3\ reports failed to fully comply with
requirements to disclose previous government employment as required, up
from 15 percent in 2017. \4\ The ability to easily and accurately
identify individuals throughout their lobbying careers is integral to
research and oversight by civil society actors that fill that
compliance gap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``GAO 2018 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists'
Compliance with Disclosure Requirements,'' March 2019: https://
www.gao.gov/assets/700/698103.pdf.
\4\ ``GAO 2017 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists'
Compliance with Disclosure Requirements,'' March 2018: https://
www.gao.gov/assets/700/690988.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We respectfully request the addition of unique identifiers for
individual lobbyists that are currently available only internally to
the offices of the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House to
the publicly available data files that are updated daily. If the
addition of such identifiers is not possible at this time, we request
that a study be undertaken to determine the feasibility of doing so in
the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments. We welcome
the chance to discuss them further or answer any questions the
subcommittee may have. Please feel free to contact me at
skrumholz@crp.org.
Sheila Krumholz,
Executive Director.
----------
Sheila Krumholz is the executive director of the Center for
Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks money in
politics. Ms. Krumholz became Executive Director in 2006, prior to
which she was CRP's research director for 8 years. As research
director, she supervised data and analysis published on CRP's website,
OpenSecrets.org, and research for investigative journalists and CRP's
partners and clients in the media, academia and elsewhere.
Ms. Krumholz has testified before Congress and the Federal Election
Commission on issues related to government transparency and
accountability, and is cited frequently in prominent national news
outlets. She regularly makes presentations to citizen's groups,
scholars, government officials, NGOs that conduct research and
advocacy, and at meetings of professional news organizations. She has a
degree in international relations and political science from the
University of Minnesota.
______
Prepared Statement of the Data Coalition
Subject: Recommendation for Congress to Leverage USAspending.gov by
Supporting a Congressional Research Service DATA Act
Information System
Chairwoman Cindy Hyde-Smith, Ranking Member Chris Murphy, and
Members of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to provide written testimony on behalf of the Data
Coalition. As we submitted in 2018, this written testimony describes
how Congress can strengthen its operational capacity and effectiveness
by utilizing the new government-wide Federal spending data openly
published under the U.S. Treasury maintained USAspending.gov.
Additionally, this testimony argues that Congress should invest in a
DATA Act Information System to incorporate this new national Federal
spending resource into the Legislative Branch's Budget, Appropriations,
oversight, and policymaking workflows.
The Data Coalition was founded in 2012 to advocate on behalf of the
private sector and public interest for the transformation of government
information into standardized, open, and machine-readable data. Based
in Washington D.C., the Data Coalition represent technology and data
analytic companies as well as public sector focused consulting and
accounting firms. We empower these data companies to help make our
government more transparent and efficient.
As the Committee is aware, in 2014 Congress unanimously passed the
Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act) (Public Law 113-
101) which charged the White House Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the Department of the U.S. Treasury (Treasury) with the task
of transforming government-wide spending information into standardized,
searchable open data on a central website.
Currently the USAspending.gov website reflects the entirety of the
fiscal year 2018 fiscal year's agency spending data for the public and
Congressional scrutiny.
The DATA Act: Value, Function, and Vision
The DATA Act's unified open data set provides a comprehensive map
of the executive branch's expenditure accounts, their balances, and
funds available to be spent. Such information had never before been
publicly-available in an electronic form. The data set also connects
every account with the contract and grant awards which it funds. Before
the DATA Act's mandate, this connection between accounting and award
data did not systematically exist.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Landefeld, Frank, Jamie Yachera, and Hudson Hollister. The DATA
Act: Vision & Value. MorganFranklin Consulting. Data Foundation. July
2016. http://www.datafoundation.org/data-act-vision-and-value-report/.
See Section III ``How Does the DATA Act Work?''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May of 2017, nearly every CFO Act agency began reporting its
spending to Treasury using this data format (beginning with fiscal year
2017-Q2). Now, as required by law, agencies are reporting, and Treasury
is publishing, a unified open data set of executive-branch spending on
a quarterly basis. By December 2018, the data set reflected the
entirety of fiscal year 2018, its first complete fiscal year using a
consistent data structure.\2\ Over 85 Federal agencies are actively
reporting across over 1,600 Federal accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ By May 2018, USAspending.gov will reflect a full consecutive
years' worth of Federal spending: the latter three quarters of fiscal
year 2017 and the first one of fiscal year 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This spending information is centrally defined by Treasury's DATA
Act Information Model Schema (DAIMS).\3\ The DAIMS is a government-wide
standardized collection of 400 interconnected data elements together
representing the relational data structure by which all Federal
agencies must now map their financial account systems and award
reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``DATA Act Information Model Schema (DAIMS) v1.3.1'' Bureau of
the Fiscal Service, Data Transaprency. Accessed May 03, 2018. https://
fiscal.treasury.gov/data-transparency/DAIMS-
current.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is merely the beginning.\4\ For instance Treasury has
built a number of visualization tools in their Data Lab to demonstrate
how the DAIMS enables a browsable government account structure or can
visually represent how the purpose of spending (Budget Function)
relates to the actual spending mechanism (Object Class).\5\
Furthermore, Treasury's Strategic Plan sets a goal to expand the DAIMS
to cover other ``administrative data and link more domains . . . to
support decisionmaking and provide metrics for evaluating program
performance and outcomes''.\6\ And agencies are also seeing financial
management benefits of agency-wide financial viewpoints enabled by a
unified data set.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Mader, Dave, Tasha Austin, Christina Canavan, Dean Ritz, and
Matt Rumsey. DATA Act 2022: Changing Technology, Changing Culture.
Deloitte. Data Foundation. May 2017. http://www.datafoundation.org/
data-act-2022/. See ``Realizing the Vision'' for seven Cultural and
Technical DATA Act recommendations.
\5\ Data Coalition. ``Treasury Launches Data Lab on Revamped
USASpending.gov.'' News release, April 5, 2018. DataCoalition.org.
https://www.datacoalition.org/press-releases/treasury-launches-data-
lab-on-revamped-usaspending-gov/.
\6\ Department of the Treasury. Strategic Plan 2018-2022. https://
www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/strategic-plan/Documents/
2018-2022_Treasury_Strategic_Plan_web.pdf.
\7\ Landefeld. Vision & Value. See Section IV ``Who Benefits From
the DATA Act?'' for a full discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, the DATA Act is the start to realizing a full life-cycle
picture of the U.S. Government's financial information.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Using the DATA Act to Restore the Power of the Purse, 114th
Cong. (2016) (testimony of Hudson Hollister, Executive Director, Data
Coalition). https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/
2016-12-01-DATA-Hollister-Testimony.pdf.
USAspending.gov and Congress: Real-time Insights, Better-Informed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decisions
The real value of the DATA Act as a resource for government-wide
spending information is in how it can be both publicly accessed via
USAspending.gov through intuitive visualizations or complete bulk data
downloads \9\ and automated APIs \10\ for technically advanced users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``How to Access the USAspending.gov Amazon RDS Snapshot.''
USAspending.gov Database on AWS. Accessed April 16, 2018. https://
aws.amazon.com/public-datasets/usaspending/.
\10\ ``The USAspending Application Programming Interface (API).''
USAspending.gov. https://api.usaspending.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, the USAspending.gov data provides sufficient
information, in a readily-available electronic form, for software
applications to more efficiently conduct the following tasks:
--Identify the particular agency accounts funded by a Congressional
appropriation, select the contract and grant awards paid out of
those accounts, and map the geographic impact of those awards
by State, zip-code, and potentially Congressional district;
--Identify all of the agency expenditure accounts funding a Federal
grantmaking program, and assess the impact of future
appropriations decisions on that program;
--Identify and track all of the unobligated balances across
government, within a particular agency, or within a particular
appropriations subcommittee jurisdiction, and reconcile this
with approved spending allocations and supplemental budget
requests;
--Make more informed appropriations decisions by comparing the annual
budget request to current fiscal year government-wide agency
account balances and spending activity;
--Tag spending to particular programmatic missions, track these
resources over time, and pair with additional data sets to
assess programmatic performance;
--Autonomously monitor the impact of Federal spending activity on a
geographic region;
--Access consistent and accurate data to inform Congressionally
commissioned government reform and deficit reduction
decisionmaking bodies.
However, to derive such conclusions requires in-depth analysis and
parsing of the bulk data and the raw agency data submissions,\11\ where
the real value and insights exist. This is often beyond the technical
capabilities and time resources of Congressional staff who more often
possess deep expertise in specific policy issue areas and disciplines
like public administration, law, business, or policy analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``FilesDirectory Listing for Raw Financial Assistance Files/
Raw Quarterly DATA Act Files.'' USAspending.gov Agency Submission
Files. Accessed April 16, 2018. http://usaspending-
submissions.s3-website-us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/.
Recommendation: Provision a CRS Congressional Facing DATA Act
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information System
Congress should fund a project at the Congressional Research
Service to build a Congressional facing DATA Act Information System.
Such a platform would pull USAspending.gov's bulk data and make it
readily accessible for the unique budget, appropriations, and oversight
workflows of Congressional staff, Member Offices, and Committees.
Specifically, this software-based platform could provide
Congressional staff with a financial performance and accountability
dashboard that organizes spending by budget function, maps the impact
of spending to Congressional districts and Committee jurisdictions,
includes information on known data quality issues and limitations, and
links other Federal open data sets for performance analysis.
Congressional staff could also track specific agency accounts and
programs through a tailored dashboard equipped with custom alerts,
report building functionality, and interactive data visualizations.
The implementation of the DATA Act's USAspending.gov represents a
significant Congressional investment. The Congressional Budget Office
originally estimated $300 million in associated implementation costs
from fiscal year 2014-2018 (though we estimate actual implementation
costs were ultimately much lower).\12\ For instance, more than $30.7
million in dedicated funds were appropriated in fiscal year 2016.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ S. Rep. No. 113-139 (2014). https://www.congress.gov/113/crpt/
srpt139/CRPT-113srpt
139.pdf. See page 12.
\13\ DATA Act Implementation Check-In, 114th Cong. (2016)
(testimony of David Mader Controller, Office of Management and Budget).
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016-04-19-
Mader-OMB-Testimony.pdf. See Appendix B for a summary chart of
Congressional appropriations for DATA Act implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is imperative that Congress now also invest in its own capacity
through system upgrades that leverage newly provisioned national
information resources such as USAspending.gov.
Conclusion: Data-Driven Decision Making for Congress
Congress needs to utilize this information resource to enhance the
way it conducts the day-to-day work of executive branch oversight,
budget formation, appropriation funding, programmatic authorizations,
and constituent relations work. Otherwise the government risks this
legal mandate becoming yet another Federal compliance exercise.
By fully leveraging USAspending.gov's consistent and reliable
spending data with a CRS built system, Congress will enhance its
ability to fully understand how Federal taxpayer funds are ultimately
used. And in turn, make better, data-driven decisions on behalf of the
public.
[This statement was submitted by Christian A. Hoehner, Senior
Director of Policy.]
______
Prepared Statement of Demand Progress
Dear Chairman Hyde-Smith, Ranking Member Murphy, and Members of the
subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to the Senate
Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. Our testimony focuses
on technological innovation in the legislative branch, with a
particular focus on the Bulk Data Task Force and the Library of
Congress.
But before we get into the details, thank you for your bipartisan
leadership in the 115th Congress in support of a number of initiatives
to modernize the United States Senate. You included more than a half-
dozen significant reforms--including a study on staff pay and
retention, addressing child care, improving cybersecurity, evaluating
and strengthening Congress's science and technology expertise,
addressing the campaign e-filing requirement, and funding internships--
and we can already see the positive effects. We know it was not easy to
do this and we are deeply thankful for your efforts.
As you know, Congressional technological innovation is important
because it implicates the very ability of the Senate to carry out its
legislative, oversight, and constituent service duties in an effective,
efficient, and responsive manner. The offices and agencies that support
the work of Members of the U.S. Senate rely upon a complex series of
interdependent technologies that together affect how easy or difficult
it is for Congress to do its job. When the Legislative Bulk Data Task
Force was created by Congress in 2013, we saw marked improvements in
how these offices and agencies worked with one another and communicated
with the general public. The Task Force had a limited purpose, but the
collaboration it fostered changed the culture of Capitol Hill for the
better.
We propose to build upon the accomplishments of the Bulk Data Task
Force and to address a recurring concern regarding communications with
the Library of Congress. We make the following four requests:
1. Create a legislative branch Chief Data Officer
2. Expand the Bulk Data Task Force into the Congressional Data
Task Force
3. Establish a Public Information Advisory Committee for the
Library of Congress
4. Publish the SOPOEA as Structured Data
the bulk data task force and a chief data officer
In recent years, the legislative branch has made significant
advances in releasing legislative information to the public online as
data. This has served Congress well, as it has facilitated Congress's
access to its own data--both as raw structured data and as data refined
by third parties. These data publication initiatives have included the
online publishing of bills; committee schedules; CRS reports (as PDFs);
the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (as PDFs);
the new joint meetings calendar; as well as holding regular meetings of
the Bulk Data Task Force. These efforts are welcome and encouraged.
Senate Webmaster Arin Shapiro has served as an excellent
representative of the Senate Sergeant at Arms at the Task Force's
public meetings and we are grateful to him. We are hopeful that other
Senate offices will increase their participation.
With the complexity and distributed governance of information in
Congress, it is helpful to have a touchstone that can help facilitate a
coordinated approach to manage that data and support ongoing work to
transform it into useful information.
We respectfully request that you establish a Legislative Branch
Chief Data Officer. The CDO should have the responsibility for tracking
datasets released by the legislative branch; providing advice,
guidance, and encouragement to offices regarding the publication of
legislative branch information as data; supporting the work of the Bulk
Data Task Force; coordinating the annual Legislative Data and
Transparency Conference; and providing assistance to the public with
finding and obtaining legislative data.
We additionally recommend an expansion of the role of the very
successful Bulk Data Task Force into the Congressional Data Task Force.
Congress established the Legislative Bulk Data Task Force with a focus
on the question of determining whether Congress should make the
legislative data behind Congress's information system, THOMAS and LIS,
available to the public as structured data. Ultimately the Task Force
recommended and GPO implemented the publication of bill summary,
status, and text information online as structured data.
Perhaps more importantly, the Task Force--which brought together
many of the technology stakeholders inside the legislative branch as
well as members of civil society--continues to hold public meetings on
a quarterly basis as well as innumerable Congress-only meetings. This
has led to ongoing collaboration among all the stakeholders that has
changed the culture of Congress and quietly led to many technological
advances concerning legislative operations and transparency.
We encourage you to expand the Bulk Data Task Force into the
Congressional Data Task Force. An expanded mission would formally allow
the Task Force to look at how data is handled throughout the
legislative branch. It would officially allow it to expand its scope
beyond bills and the data attendant to them. This would allow
consideration of other legislative documents, the handling of
information used for oversight, and providing key insights about the
operations of Congress itself.
public information advisory committee for the library of congress
The Library of Congress is proud of its reputation and role as the
largest library in the world. The Library plays an important role in
providing information about Congress to Congress and the general public
(such as through the website Congress.gov), but the Library--at least
in our experience--has not prioritized its role as a source of
information and is not in regular contact with civil society,
especially those with expertise in facilitating public access to
congressional information. This is a missed opportunity and reflects an
unfortunate pattern of behavior.
The Library of Congress did not consult with civil society prior to
releasing its Digital Strategy, which notably did not address the
Library's role in collecting, organizing, preserving, digitizing,
publishing, and contextualizing the legislative activities of Congress
for the American people. There are significant deficiencies in the
Library's implementation of the congressional calendar that you
requested in last year's appropriation bill, most notably in how the
information is displayed, which is a design issue. We continue to have
deep concerns with its implementation of the CRS Reports website,
especially in that information is published only as a PDF. For a decade
we have asked that the Constitution Annotated be publicly available in
a more usable format, but the Library has not engaged with us even as
it apparently moves forward with plans for a major upgrade. We have
trepidation concerning the Library's plan to create a Congress.gov app
for $750,000. And we note its decades-long opposition to public access
to the legislative data.
This is not intended as a broadside of criticism against the
Library, especially as it has been under new leadership for the last
few years. We believe the Library is a pivotal institution in providing
Congressional and public access to information about Congress's work.
We support its funding request in full. But we in civil society are
bewildered when we hear that Library staff feel discouraged from
participating in the Legislative Data and Transparency Conference or in
talking with its participants. We are dismayed when the Library does
not fulfill a request from a Member of Congress to have someone from
the Library talk with civil society about the CRS Reports website. And
we are saddened when the Library's implementation of requests from
Congress do not to satisfy the purposes for which the request was made.
The Library's difficulties in managing its information technology are
well documented by the Government Accountability Office, and we welcome
the creation of the position of Chief Information Officer. There is no
doubt there are good people at the Library who strive to support
Congress and the Library's public mission, and we want to empower them.
It is not unusual for agencies to show reticence to talk with civil
society, but there is a model that can support changing an agency's
culture to one of inclusion and conversation. Other legislative and
executive branch agencies and entities routinely meet with civil
society stakeholders to share information and provide a foundation for
collaboration. Inside the Legislative Branch, the aforementioned Bulk
Data Task Force meets quarterly concerning bulk access to congressional
data, the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress semi-annually
convenes congressional historians, and the Federal Depository Library
Council is an ongoing point of contact for depository libraries.While
we note that the Library participates in the Bulk Data Task Force,
there are significant limits to its engagement that reflect its
functional units and institutional reluctance.
To our knowledge, the Library of Congress does not have any regular
mechanism by which it convenes external and internal stakeholders to
share information on the Library's legislative information activities.
Because of the Library's outsized role as an information provider, we
believe it is important for it to scale its public-facing engagement to
match. We recommend that such an advisory body be established with
broad internal and external stakeholder representation that would hold
regular public meetings where a productive interchange can take place.
These stakeholders should reflect the functional units inside the
Library and the civil society organizations that are well known to
Congress regarding public access to congressional information.
Accordingly, we urge the creation of a Library of Congress Public
Information Advisory Committee. We recommend the following report
language:
The Library of Congress is encouraged to create an Advisory
Committee on Public Access to Congressional Information,
composed of internal and external stakeholders that may be a
source, consumer, or republisher of information or data
concerning Congress, with a particular focus on legislative
information. The Advisory Committee shall meet no fewer than 6
times a year in open session. The Library is encouraged to
consult the Advisory Committee on a regular basis, not just at
its meetings, concerning the information it gathers, holds, or
publishes regarding Congress, and how that information is
presented and released to the public.
We understand that the Library may not initially welcome the
creation of such an advisory committee. Nevertheless, we believe that
deepening engagement with civil society on technology will help the
Library of Congress fulfill its mission to ``engage, inspire, and
inform Congress and the American people with a universal and enduring
source of knowledge and creativity.'' Conversation across government
silos and with those on the outside often results in the sharing of new
approaches to addressing technology challenges, the resolution of
problems before they crop-up, greater understanding of the
opportunities and constraints posed by new technology, and increased
adaptability of technology for more uses and for more users. In short,
this would be a win for Congress, a win for the Library, and a win for
the public.
publish the sopoea as data
The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-
68) required the Secretary of the Senate to publish the Senators'
Official Personnel and Official Expense Account (SOPOEA) Report online
starting with the first full semiannual period of the 112th Congress.
This twice-annual report records all the expenses of the United States
Senate, and has been published and made available to the public in its
current incarnation since 1964.
Publication of spending data as a PDF has significant limitations,
and we request that it be published as structured data. A model could
be the House of Representatives, which has published its Statement of
Disbursements as a spreadsheet file (a CSV) starting in early 2016.
Publication in other formats was contemplated in the 2010 legislative
language and we urge the Senate to include report language directing
the SOPOEA be published in a ``structured data format.'' This will
allow an improved understanding of the information it contains.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[This statement was submitted by Daniel Schuman, Policy Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of Grant Tudor and Justin Warner, Harvard University
Dear Chairman Cindy Hyde-Smith, Ranking Member Chris Murphy, and
subcommittee Members:
We are graduate students from Harvard Business School and the
Harvard Kennedy School of Government. We spent the prior 8 months
engaging in research for the Technology and Public Purpose (TAPP)
Project at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Led
by Belfer Center Director and former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter,
the TAPP Project works to ensure that emerging technologies are
developed and managed in ways that serve the public good. Specifically,
our work interrogated the drivers and potential solutions for the
widening gap between responsive lawmaking in Congress and the deepening
complexity of advancements in science and technology (S&T).
This work was based on more than 40 in-depth interviews; analysis
of original datasets; a review of archival material; and a literature
review on the experience of the now-defunct Office of Technology
Assessment (OTA), technology assessment, and Congress's relationship
with technical expertise. Our interviews included Members of Congress
and their staff; leading thinkers from science, industry, and civil
society; current and former employees of legislative support bodies and
executive branch agencies; and those previously affiliated with OTA.
Our report \1\ finds that weakened institutional capabilities have
limited the legislature's absorptive capacity, or the ways by which it
recognizes the value of, assimilates, and makes use of knowledge
outside of itself. Congress does not lack an availability of expertise,
but instead lacks the capabilities to make use of expertise. In this
testimony, we describe the observed problem; present our most relevant
findings regarding the factors handicapping Congress and the limits of
currently proposed solutions; and briefly outline a recommended
approach: the design of a new internal body--the Congressional Futures
Office--as a potential response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Online publication through the Belfer Center for Science &
International Affairs forthcoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
observed problem
Federal lawmaking is failing to adequately address issues of public
interest associated with S&T advancements.
A 2019 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) details a
daunting menu of S&T issues likely to confront the 116th Congress, from
the proliferation of advanced gene editing tools to emerging crises in
water quality and scarcity. These fast-moving and technically complex
issues carry profound social, economic and security implications for
the U.S. We observe that lawmakers are increasingly struggling with
their complexity.
As a result, devised policies (or an absence of policies) are
generating unintended consequences, permitting large-scale waste of
Federal dollars, and stalling regulatory overhauls necessary for U.S.
competitiveness. Legislative responsiveness to S&T issues has
deteriorated as the complexity of S&T issues has considerably deepened,
with far-reaching implications.
key findings
An overview of the report's three most important findings is
featured below.
Finding #1
The critical issue facing Congress is not a lack of technical
expertise but a lack of absorptive capacity: its ability to recognize
the value of new, external information, to assimilate it, and to apply
it to desired ends. Congressional Members and staff are inundated with
information from both external (e.g., lobbyists, think tanks) and
internal sources (e.g., CRS). Internal capabilities, however, have been
unable to keep up. In our report, we consider three dimensions of
capabilities (resources, processes, and priorities) and find severe
weaknesses across each, suggesting an impaired ability to intake and
make use of external knowledge. For example, resources within Congress
(e.g., staffing in committees and support bodies) have significantly
diminished while traditional processes for transforming expertise into
legislation (e.g., hearings) are frequently circumvented. Absent
adequate resources and strengthened process, Congress will continue to
make inadequate use of available expertise.
This suggests that solutions must be focused on improving the
information intake and processing capabilities of Congress, not just
creating and delivering analysis.
Finding #2
Existing internal and external resources are insufficiently
equipped to address the issue. External resources (e.g., industry,
civil society, scientific associations) are frequently not useful, lack
credibility, and are difficult to mobilize effectively. For example,
qualitative research suggests that information and analysis supplied to
congressional Members and staff often fails to address their needs,
even if the analysis is sound. This is partly explained by the distance
of external actors to Congress, making them poorly positioned to
respond to the nuanced and day-to-day needs and evolving priorities of
Members and staff. We find that Congress's existing internal support
functions (e.g., CRS and GAO), similarly, are significantly limited in
their S&T-related capabilities given their current mandates, methods,
and products.
Finding #3
Currently contemplated solutions (e.g., expanding STAA at GAO,
reviving OTA) are unlikely to address these institutional challenges.
In our work, we identified a vast array of S&T-related needs of Members
and staff across the policymaking process; for example, the need to
assess the credibility of technical information provided by external
sources. These needs reflect fundamental information processing
challenges. STAA and OTA, however, attempt to solve the problem by
producing more analysis. Given that Congress struggles to process the
existing analysis available to it, more analysis is unlikely to solve
the problem. More lengthy reports will not alone solve Congress's S&T-
related challenges. STAA is further hamstrung by its relative distance
from Congress given that accessing GAO is difficult for most Members
(and unavailable to staff), and by a mandate that reflects the audit-
oriented priorities of its host institution, which may crowd-out the
need for S&T-focused priorities.
Therefore, we believe that the current debate between reinstating
OTA or expanding resources for STAA is the wrong debate to be having.
Rather, a solution must be developed that better reflects the nature of
the challenge: an inability to make use of expertise, not a lack of it.
A new solution could coexist with STAA, but STAA alone is insufficient.
recommendations
Congress should establish a new and deeply embedded internal
support body better suited to Congress's needs and its contemporary
context. Strengthening Congress's capabilities requires a reinvented
model for integrating external expertise into the policymaking process,
not a revival of past solutions. The rationale for such an approach is
threefold.
First, support bodies deeply embedded within Congress are better
positioned to have an impact. Such embeddedness allows internal bodies
to ascertain the needs of Members and staff, respond to institutional
challenges, and learn through day-to-day engagement.
Second, establishing a new body enables the design of a solution
appropriate to the current problem and context. Specifically, the
design of a new body should reflect a calibrated response to Congress's
central problem of low absorptive capacity. Its mandate, strategy,
operating model, and product suite decisions could be formulated
accordingly. It should also draw upon the learnings and shortcomings of
OTA and other support bodies, which we distill in our full report.
Third, creating an internal S&T support body is an opportunity to
set a new standard for S&T policymaking. OTA exemplified a standard-
setting approach in 1972, inspiring other legislatures around the world
to follow suit. Congress should again engage its imagination for a
novel era rather than simply revive old solutions (OTA) or give old
solutions a new home (STAA).
We recommend appropriating $8 million in funding to support the
initial development of the organization and its products, potentially
increasing to $30 million in annual funding over time. Our report
provides a detailed specification for a new congressional support
body--which we call the Congressional Futures Office (CFO)--embedded
within Congress. This specification is intended to be an actionable
blueprint for the design and operationalization of the body.
Six features summarized here reflect the most salient departures
between our proposed design and the approach of STAA or a potentially-
revived OTA. These features focus on improving Congress's internal
capabilities to address the fast-moving S&T issues facing the
institution.
--CFO should be established with a `problem-driven' mandate rather
than an `activity-driven' mandate. Activity-driven mandates
pre-determine what products to produce (e.g., `technology
assessments' mandated for OTA and STAA), whereas problem-driven
mandates only articulate the problem to be solved. This
approach permits needed experimentation. Specifically, CFO
should be charged with ``enhancing Congress's abilities to
collect, process, and make use of technological and scientific
knowledge.''
--CFO should address the proximate needs of Members and staff. We
find that Members and staff have an array of S&T-related needs.
Proximate needs are those that reflect the immediate
requirements of Members and staff--for example, providing rapid
technical analysis of draft legislation. Given fast-moving
congressional priorities, products that fail to address
proximate needs are unlikely to create value for their intended
audience. Most decisions will not typically be enhanced by a 2-
year analytical report by STAA or OTA.
--CFO must serve a broad constituency of Members and staff rather
than narrow audiences. Services that can be provided to many
Members and staff are more likely to strengthen S&T
capabilities within Congress broadly. In contrast, OTA and STAA
deliver services based largely on seniority and to narrower
congressional constituencies. Of note, OTA was easily defunded
in 1995 in large part due to a failure to serve a broad
constituency, instead focusing exclusively on serving a handful
of powerful committee chairs.
--CFO should be led by an empowered Director rather than a board of
party leaders. Elected by a newly created bipartisan and
bicameral Joint Committee on Science & Technology (JCST), the
Director would have broad discretion in defining, managing, and
evolving the new organization. Our research suggests that OTA's
Technology Assessment Board (TAB) would suffer in today's
polarized environment, for example, and that it would fail to
give CFO needed flexibility to experiment and adapt to evolving
congressional needs.
--CFO should organize its staff by product offerings (i.e., specific
congressional needs) rather than by domains of topical or
technical expertise. Forming a product-centric organizational
structure--for example, distinguishing research analysts from
those responsible for the day-to-day support of Members and
staff--will allow a new body to match talent to specific
problems. In contrast, domain-centric structures used by OTA
and STAA mirror that of universities, elevating the priories of
experts rather than congressional needs.
--CFO should cultivate and leverage global networks as its primary
source of expertise in lieu of in-house subject matter experts.
This will allow it to meet congressional demands with fewer
resources, respond quickly to shifting priorities, and access
expertise that is increasingly distributed, fast-paced, and
global. In contrast, STAA is developing extensive technical
talent in-house. Such an approach is expensive, creates
organizational rigidity, and fails to consider the pace and
distribution of today's S&T knowledge.
As an alternative, OTA could be significantly adapted. If OTA were
revived, its enacting legislation must be amended (e.g., governance,
mandate) to reflect current challenges and contexts, not those of 1972.
STAA, on the other hand, would require more fundamental changes: for
example, to rethink congressional request protocols and traditional
`technology assessment' products that make its use by most Members and
staff out-of-reach and unresponsive.
The scale, speed, and complexity of S&T advancements are escalating
while lawmaking struggles to keep pace. As the gap between the two
widens, efforts that fail to improve congressional capabilities will
also fail to improve policy outcomes. We believe Congress should not
only invest significantly in itself, but also devise a bold solution
commensurate with the scale of the S&T challenges it must confront.
Authors:
Grant Tudor is graduate student at Harvard Business School and the
Harvard Kennedy School of Government and a Fellow at Harvard
University's Center for Public Leadership.
Justin Warner is a graduate student at Harvard Business School and
the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and a Fellow at Harvard
University's Center for Public Leadership.
The authors can be reached at tudor.grant@gmail.com and justin_
warner@outlook.com.
______
Prepared Statement of the Innovation Defense Foundation
Today's Congress has limited capacity when addressing complex
scientific and technological issues. Currently, there are various
proposals to bolster Congress's abilities to conduct the necessary
technological assessments. The two most prominent recommendations
include reviving the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) or
strengthening the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) ability to
provide technological assessments for Congress. This testimony will
explore these proposals to improve congressional capacity with respect
to questions of science and technology, with a recommendation that
bolstering the GAO's role may be the most efficient and efficacious way
to do so.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This testimony is drawn from a working paper by Wayne T. Brough
and Josh Withrow, ``Congress, Science, and Technology,'' available at
www.innovationdefense.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress faces two significant challenges with respect to assessing
complex scientific or technological questions. First, misguided
legislation can generate real economic harm, or, contrarily, proper
legislation can promote dynamic and innovative markets. Second,
appropriations and oversight of Federal agencies requires a degree of
expertise. As the Department of Transportation, for example, prepares
rulemakings on driverless cars or drones, the corresponding
congressional committees need a level of informed oversight to
facilitate outcomes that encourage innovation rather than bureaucratic
impediments to new technologies.
If Congress lacks these abilities, the void in information will be
filled by other actors, either in the executive branch agencies
implementing legislative mandates, or special interests pursuing their
own agendas. For the typical member of Congress, information can be
derived from personal staff, committee staff, Federal agencies, and
special interest lobbyists; a lack of congressional capacity biases the
results towards agencies of the executive branch and interest groups.
Political scientists have explored in great detail how principal-agent
models can be used to analyze questions of political organization and
congressional control.\2\ Political scientists such as Mathew McCubbins
suggest that institutional design has allowed Congress to continue its
control over the bureaucracy at a relatively low cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ While their output is prolific, the seminal piece is M.
Mcubbins, R. Noll, and B. Weingast, ``Administrative Procedures as
Instruments of Political Control,'' Journal of Law Economics and
Organization, 1987, vol. 3, no. 2: 243-247.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But some see a shift away from congressional control created by
executive branch review of agency rulemakings by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and
Budget, which began in the Reagan era but has been a critical tool for
every president since then.\3\ This review mechanism provides the
president and the administration an opportunity to help shape
rulemakings according to their preference rather than the will of
Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' Executive Order 12866, 58
Federal Register 51735, October 4, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishing an agency within the legislative branch that provides
members of Congress with assessments of science and technological
issues may be a way to address information asymmetries between the
branches of government. Additional expertise could leave implementing
agencies with far less discretion when it comes to interpreting
legislative mandates. Additionally, the technological assessments
provided to members of Congress can enrich the congressional record,
should legislation or their implementing regulations face any legal
challenges.
With respect to building congressional capacity to address issues
of science and technology, various strategies have been proposed. One
is to expand congressional staff, which perhaps may be viewed as the
most simple and direct approach to the problem. Other proposals include
developing a new institution responsible for providing scientific and
technological oversight for Congress. Along these lines, some advocate
reviving the Office of Technology Assessment, which served this role
for Congress from 1972 until its dissolution in 1995. Alternatively,
some suggest that science and technology assistance can be housed in an
existing institution, such as the Government Accountability Office
(GAO), and, indeed, the GAO has launched a new initiative to provide
technological assistance to Congress.\4\ Assessing monitoring costs and
principal-agent problems of these various options may provide insights
into the efficacy of each approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Adam Mazmanian, ``GAO Expands and Elevates Tech Assessment,''
FCW, Jan. 29, 2019, available at https://tinyurl.com/y9dhwerh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not evident that additional staffing would improve the
situation. In a recent paper, Jesse Crosson, Geoffrey M. Lorenz, Craig
Volden, and Alan Wiseman determined that a larger staff does not
necessarily benefit a lawmaker; rather, what does provide benefits are
more experienced staff members. The authors found that those
legislators (especially committee chairs) with more experienced staff
were more effective and advanced more substantive legislation.\5\ Given
the need for more experienced staff and the high turnover of
congressional staff members, establishing a body within the legislative
branch with the expertise to help members of Congress and their staff
members evaluate complex policy issues may be a more effective
solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Jesse Crosson, Geoffrey M. Lorenz, Craig Volden and Alan
Wiseman, ``How Experienced Legislative Staff Contribute to Effective
Lawmaking,'' Center for Effective Lawmaking, CEL Working Paper 2018-
002, September 2018, available at https://tinyurl.com/yyefgvjy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recognition that Congress needed an objective, expert source of
technological understanding stretches at least as far back as the early
1960s. Congress finally established the Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA) in 1972 to serve this role. The goal was to provide objective,
unbiased analysis of complex questions of science and technology. For
the next two decades, the OTA produced hundreds of reports and
consulted with members of Congress and committees throughout the
legislative process. Indeed, OTA offered studies of a number of
important issues, from acid rain to the role of polygraphs to missile
defense systems.
While the line between expert analysis and agenda control could at
times be blurry, the OTA was by necessity very cognizant of the need to
maintain a reputation as an apolitical agency. Nevertheless, the shadow
of partisan influence dogged the OTA throughout its existence--at times
more fairly than others. Thanks in large part to such partisan
concerns, OTA's fate was effectively sealed by the Republican tidal
wave of 1994. Part of incoming Speaker Newt Gingrich's ``Contract with
America'' was a promise to scale back the footprint of Congress
itself.\6\ While most congressional support agencies saw their belts
tightened, the OTA received the axe--seeing its entire $22 million
budget and full-time staff of 143 (and dozens of temporary staff)
eliminated overnight in 1995.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Text of the Contract from America has been archived at: https:/
/tinyurl.com/yyx64oxu.
\7\ This translates to a bit under $37 million in December 2018
dollars. https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator_inside.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever issues the OTA may have had, its core functionality was
not replaced. This was exacerbated by the fact that other staff who may
have had some ability to fill the void were also drastically reduced.
The Government Accountability Office staff was cut by nearly 30 percent
between 1993 and 1997, while the Congressional Research Service took
more than a 10 percent trim.\8\ Notably, the House Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology also took one of the most drastic cuts--
laying off nearly half its staff members, dropping from 86 in 1994 to
45 the following year.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, Vital Statistics on
Congress, Brookings Institution, Table 5-1, May 2018, available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8kab7w9.
\9\ Ibid., Table 5-6, available at https://tinyurl.com/yb8e92ba.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political challenges aside, it is useful to thoughtfully evaluate
some of the ways that another body might provide not merely a
replacement but even an improvement on key aspects of the OTA. One
structural flaw that presented substantial principal-agent issues in
the OTA was its controlling body, the Technology Advisory Board (TAB),
which consisted of six members each from the House and Senate. Although
the board was evenly split between the dominant parties, by law the
members were all chosen by the majority leadership of each chamber,
lending some automatic credence to charges of bias.
If a renewed OTA is not the best option for providing a 21st
century level of objective technological and scientific expertise for
Congress, the beginnings of another solution may already exist in the
small technological assessment program run by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO). In addition to its mission to perform
audits and investigations to root out waste, fraud and abuse, the GAO's
2002 technology assessment pilot program was expanded into an official
office in January 2019 to expand its analytical capabilities and advise
Congress on science and technology matters. The GAO's technological
assessment program immediately showed promise even with very limited
reach and resources.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Jon M. Peha ``Science and Technology Advice for Congress:
Past, Present, and Future,'' Renewable Resources Journal, 24:2, pp. 19-
23, available at: https://tinyurl.com/y22kn558.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the pilot program's solid performance, the GAO was
authorized to explore a major expansion in its assessment activities
that has resulted in the opening of the new office of Science,
Technology Assessment, and Analytics (STAA).\11\ The office launched in
January 2019 with 70 staffers, with plans to double that number in the
near future.\12\ This new STAA office brings the practical advantage of
already existing as a funded entity with an existing body of high-
quality reports from which to build. Which brings with it the political
advantage of not adding ``one more boondoggling board to what we
already have,'' a concern voiced by Congressman H.R. Gross during the
debate over creating the original OTA that would certainly be voiced
again by conservatives today.\13\ Moreover, the monitoring costs are
lower and the principal-agent problems are fewer when comparing the GAO
to a revived OTA model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill 2019 (Senate), Rep.
115-274, at p. 48, available at https://tinyurl.com/ydcxm8fr.
\12\ Adam Mazmanian, ''GAO Expands and Elevates Tech Assessment,''
Federal Computer Week, Jan. 2019. https://tinyurl.com/y2t64ky3.
\13\ Kunkle, op. cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But more than a mere matter of convenience, continuing to house
technology assessment within the GAO could provide some distinct
advantages over the workings of the old OTA. Eliminating the
leadership-dominated TAB and its bureaucratic delays is one such
advantage, as previously discussed. Instead, the new GAO program
actually allows any member of Congress to submit a request, although
prioritizing requests by the chairs or ranking members of the
committees.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ GAO's Congressional Protocols, July 17, 2017. https://
tinyurl.com/y3nnvkzb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That said, for the STAA program in the GAO to truly replace the
positive attributes of the OTA, it would clearly need some
modifications by Congress. It would likely require making the
technology assessment program a somewhat independent sub-unit of the
GAO with its own director, allowing it to develop its own culture
independent from the sole oversight model of the GAO at large.\15\
However, these modifications are likely far easier and more realistic
than efforts to merely revive the old OTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Zach Graves, ''Technology Assessment: Can the GAO Fulfill
OTA's Mission?'' on LegBranch.org, April 20, 2018, available at https:/
/tinyurl.com/y83zcv2n. and Will Rinehart, ``Should Congress Revive the
Office of Technology Assessment?'' American Action Forum Insight, Oct.
29, 2018. https://tinyurl.com/y5g5y93q.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike rebuilding OTA, expanding and improving GAO's capacity does
not involve creating a new government bureaucracy. The GAO also has a
strong reputation for maintaining political neutrality and producing
impartial work. In many respects, this may prove the more feasible
option by avoiding some of the political pitfalls associated with the
previous incarnation of the OTA. The GAO is respected as a nonpartisan
organization with little political baggage that is building out its
expertise in its new STAA program. If done with foresight and an
understanding of the principal-agent challenges facing any new
legislative agency, it may be the most efficacious approach to
increasing congressional capacity in critical areas of science and
technology.
[This statement was submitted by Wayne T. Brough, President.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Lincoln Network
Dear Chairman Cindy Hyde-Smith, Ranking Member Chris Murphy, and
Members of the subcommittee:
My name is Zach Graves. I am the head of policy at Lincoln Network,
a non-profit organization whose mission is to bridge the gap between
Silicon Valley and DC. Last year, I submitted testimony on enhancing
congressional capacity on science and technology.\1\ Following a
bipartisan effort in the last Congress, the fiscal year 2019
Legislative Branch Appropriations bill included two important
provisions on this subject. One provided for a major study conducted by
the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). The other
provided for the elevation and expansion of GAO's science and
technology program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See: ``Written Testimony of Zach Graves before the Legislative
Branch Subcommittee,'' April 27, 2018. https://www.rstreet.org/2018/04/
27/testimony-of-zach-graves-before-the-u-s-senate-
committee-on-appropriations-subcommittee-on-the-legislative-branch/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the NAPA study is still in progress, GAO has reorganized and
significantly expanded its program into a 15th mission team, called
``Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics'' (STAA). While the
STAA team is new, its core program goes back nearly two decades. The
original technology assessment pilot at GAO was created in 2001 with
$500,000 in dedicated funding.\2\ Its first study, ``Using Biometrics
for Border Security,'' was released in November, 2002. This report was
reviewed favorably in an external evaluation, which concluded GAO ``did
a very good job'' on its inaugural assessment, but raised concerns the
nascent program would face significant challenges to build its own
culture and scale its capabilities.\3\ In the next couple of years,
funding for the pilot was expanded, allowing the production of 2-3
reports a year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ H. Rept. 107-259, 107th Congress. https://www.congress.gov/
congressional-report/107th-
congress/house-report/259/1.
\3\ M. Granger Morgan, Jon M. Peha, Science and Technology Advice
for Congress (Routledge, 2003), Appendix 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An effort came together to build off of the GAO pilot's success. In
2004, Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., introduced legislation (with 9 other
Democrats and 5 Republicans as original cosponsors) to elevate the GAO
pilot to a formal technology assessment office in GAO called the
``Center for Scientific and Technical Assessment'' (CSTA).\4\ This
entity would have adapted major structural features from the defunct
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), such as its bipartisan,
bicameral Technology Assessment Board. The CSTA proposal went through a
review process that incorporated feedback from civil society experts,
as well as the office of then Comptroller General David M. Walker.
While the proposal was favorably received and had bipartisan support,
it failed to move forward, seemingly due to its large budget
requirements. Nonetheless, it showed that GAO was a viable location for
this function, and that such a proposal could attract bipartisan
support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ H.R.4670, 108th Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-
congress/house-bill/4670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than partisan politics, the primary challenge to reviving a
technology assessment office has been finding the necessary resources
in the constrained legislative branch budget.\5\ Thanks to the efforts
of this committee and Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, this challenge
appears to be in the process of being overcome--particularly if GAO's
fiscal year 2020 budget request can be accommodated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``The Congress's Edifice Problem,'' First Branch Forecast,
March 1, 2019. https://firstbranchforecast.com/2019/03/01/the-congress-
edifice-problem/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its next challenge is figuring out how to structure a nimble, semi-
independent, and forward-looking research unit within another large
agency, while mitigating potential conflicts in mission, function, and
process. These were concerns that Rep. Holt and others saw and spent
considerable time contemplating. If these issues are to be resolved and
adapted to the needs of our current environment, it will require the
steady oversight and expert guidance of this committee and other expert
stakeholders.
recommendations
The strategic plan \6\ for STAA rightly identifies some of the most
important structural and methodological issues to address, including:
(1) the inclusion of policy options in its reports; (2) the creation of
an advisory board that includes industry, government, and civil
society; (3) the development of additional product types including
shorter form analysis; and (4) the refinement of its technology
assessment methodology. It will be critically important to get the
details right for implementing these features. I thus urge the
Committee to consider the following recommendations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``GAO Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics Team:
Initial Plan and Considerations Moving Forward,'' Government
Accountability Office, April 10, 2019. https://www.gao.gov/pdfs/about/
GAOScienceTechPlan-2019-04-10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
External Advisory Board
STAA has said it will create a new S&T advisory board of top
experts. No doubt, this will be valuable in providing ad hoc advice to
the Comptroller General and STAA directors on matters such as research
design, peer review, and related issues. This board should also be
encouraged to produce periodic analysis and recommendations oriented to
congressional stakeholders regarding the continued evolution of STAA.
Refining GAO's TA Methodology
Given its past resource limitations, it was likely not possible for
GAO's technology assessment program to utilize in-house experts for its
reports in the manner that OTA did. But the reliance on external
experts has some significant limitations, inhibiting the capacity for
experts to serve as ``shared staff'' for Congress, and detracting from
the robustness of the reports themselves. I believe this methodological
difference has contributed significantly to skepticism of GAO's
program.\7\ STAA should be encouraged to prioritize the recruitment of
in-house experts (permanent staff and project-based contractors/
detailees) and adjust its technology assessment methodology
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., Kevin R. Kosar, ``GAO versus the ghost of OTA''
LegBranch.org, March 20, 2019. https://www.legbranch.org/gao-versus-
the-ghost-of-ota-who-will-win-the-science-and-technology-assessment-
race/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy Options
One of the most valuable features of OTA reports was providing
policymakers with an authoritative, multi-disciplinary analysis of the
tradeoffs of different policy options. Yet, OTA's options methodology
was not always internally consistent, and had considerable room for
improvement. A 1993 OTA self-assessment suggested its options
methodology warranted a ``more rigorous'' approach. The same report
also suggested its options may have skewed towards ``increased Federal
intervention rather than market solutions.'' To address this, STAA
should be encouraged to develop a formal options methodology that
prioritizes the inclusion of economic analysis and gives consideration
to potential solutions from the states or private sector.
Talent Flow and Expert Networks
OTA widely utilized temporary contractors for its reports. This
helped bring in best-in-world talent and specialized experts, and
facilitated the development of expert networks outside Congress. STAA
should be encouraged to explore greater utilization of the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act, or other mechanisms, to bring in
outside talent on an individual project-basis. It should also be
encouraged to include project-specific external advisory committees to
assist with individual major projects (beyond the overall external
advisors noted above).
OTA vs. GAO
The fiscal year 2020 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill in the
House of Representatives included $6 million in funding to revive OTA.
While both STAA and OTA do ``technology assessment,'' the focus and
mission of each entity is quite different. Thus, each is likely to have
a different comparative advantage: OTA at horizon-scanning and
anticipating the social, ethical, and economic effects of emerging
technologies; and STAA at evaluating Federal Government programs and
expenditures on S&T, the functioning of regulatory agencies governing
innovative technologies (e.g. NHTSA's approach to autonomous vehicles,
or FCC's approach to spectrum policy), and the promotion of responsible
utilization of new technologies by the Federal Government. Each of
these fields is massive, and critically important to our national
interest. In considering this issue, I urge the Committee to consider
the value of having both OTA and STAA functions to assist the Congress.
______
Prepared Statement of Jon M. Peha \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Jon M. Peha, Carnegie Mellon University, Professor, Dept. of
Engineering & Public Policy and Dept. of Electrical & Computer
Engineering, peha@cmu.edu, www.ece.cmu.edu/ peha/bio.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testimony on Funding Technology Advice for Congress
The purpose of this testimony is to urge this subcommittee to fund
an organization that can provide reliable, objective and timely
information to help Congress address policy issues that are infused
with technology or science. Ideally, this would fill the void left by
the demise of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), and surpass
the capabilities that OTA once provided.
I am a professor of electrical engineering and public policy at
Carnegie Mellon University. I have provided technology advice to
policymakers in my current position, and while serving in the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, at the Federal Communications Commission
as Chief Technologist, and in the White House as Assistant Director of
the Office of Science and Technology Policy. I am co-author of a book
entitled Science and Technology Advice for Congress \2\ about this very
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ M. G. Morgan and J. M. Peha, Science and Technology Advice for
Congress, RFF Press, 2003. https://www.amazon.com/Science-Technology-
Advice-Congress-Granger/dp/1891853740/ref=tmm_pap_title_0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thirteen years ago, I testified before the House Science Committee
on this topic, arguing that Congress needs this capability to fulfill
its role as a co-equal branch of government. It isn't possible to
provide effective oversight of the executive branch while relying too
heavily on executive-branch experts, any more than one can pass
effective legislation that affects the private sector while relying too
heavily on experts who collect their salaries from private-sector
stakeholders. The ways that Congress meets this need with non-technical
issues tend to work poorly in matters of technology and science. Sadly,
that 2006 testimony \3\ is just as relevant today. Even the examples
still apply. I argued that most Members of Congress lacked the
technical basis to assess the arguments both for and against network
neutrality, and to learn the potentially life-saving lessons of how
technology failures during Hurricane Katrina cost so many lives. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ J. M. Peha, Testimony before House Science Committee, Hearing
on Scientific and Technical Advice for Congress, July 25, 2006. http://
users.ece.cmu.edu/ peha/Peha_
testimony_House_Science_Committee_2006.pdf.
\4\ For today's Congress, we need only replace ``Hurricane
Katrina'' with ``Hurricane Maria'' to see how life-saving lessons about
how technology works in disasters are not being learned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few things have changed in the last 13 years. First, thanks to
growing partisan skepticism, there has never been greater need to
establish a set of basic facts that all sides can rely on when debating
complex policy issues. Second, thanks to the Internet, it has never
been easier for Members of Congress and their staffs to gain unfettered
access to policy-relevant content. Third, it has never been harder to
tell the accurate, rigorous and unbiased content on the Internet from
dangerously misleading content. There is far more of the latter than
the former, and to the untrained eye, it can all look the same. A new
organization serving the Legislative Branch could greatly reduce this
problem.
Congress receives extensive input, but not enough actionable info on
technology issues.
Information is constantly flooding into Congress, but it is rarely
the kind of information that can serve as the foundation for a policy
debate on a highly technical issue. Stakeholders and the lobbyists who
represent them are more than willing to provide extensive and timely
information, but it is necessarily biased. Some outside experts such as
myself who have no vested interest in an issue try to provide
information where we can, but precisely because we have no vested
interest and most of us have day jobs, we lack resources, incentive
and/or ability to provide information at the time Congress needs it, in
the form Congress needs, and with the depth Congress needs. The
National Academies and Legislative-branch organizations such as CRS and
GAO provide valuable information, but of a different sort. For some
things, Congress needs a level of technical rigor that CRS and GAO
cannot provide. Congress also needs foundational information that
everyone from the far right to the far left can use without making a
specific recommendation as National Academy reports typically do.
Figure 13-2 from Science and Technology Advice for Congress, by M. G.
Morgan and J. M. Peha.\2\
Every Committee in Congress needs advice on science and technology.
While some mistakenly view this as an issue only for a Science
Committee, a quick look at recent Congressional hearings shows that
every committee in Congress must grapple with a few issues with complex
technical or scientific content. For example, the Veteran's Affairs
Committee must understand why telehealth has not yet met its potential
to improve the lives of veterans. The Transportation Committee must
understand how changes in connected vehicles and autonomous vehicles
demand new public policies. The Foreign Relations Committee must
understand how cybersecurity issues have changed the line between war
and peace. Every committee will be more effective with a technology-
savvy organization whose entire purpose is to serve Congress.
Objective technical analysis is possible, but it is not a skill most
Hill staffers have.
People call what OTA did ``technology assessment,'' but that phrase
is misleading. Congress doesn't typically need an assessment of
technology. Often, Congress needs an organization to clarify the policy
options available, the extent to which they are technically and
scientifically feasible, and the myriad pros and cons of each, while
leaving it to the elected Members of Congress to make value decisions
about which option is best. In an age where facts are often spun, some
people even question whether such an objective assessment is possible.
It is, but it requires training, and a culture of objectivity. This
runs directly counter to what most lawyers must learn, as in the law
framing an argument to advance the interests of one's client is usually
a virtue. Engineering training is extremely valuable, but incomplete,
as the goal of ``technology assessment'' is not to identify the best
policy ``design.'' Similarly, backgrounds in science, and in social
science are helpful, but technology assessment is not a search for
truth. Thus, few members of Congressional staff (or even temporary
Fellows) would have the full range of skills needed today. Even if they
did, such individuals would work for one Congressional office and one
party, and therefore would never have the credibility to provide the
factual foundation for a policy debate.
Nevertheless, there are outstanding examples of balanced
assessment, some from the old Office of Technology Assessment. Those
who doubt that analysts can be systematically trained for this task
should visit my Carnegie Mellon University classroom in the Fall, or
meet those who have graduated with a Ph.D.
A stand-alone organization would be more effective.
Some have suggested incorporating the capability for science and
technology advice with an existing legislative-branch organization,
i.e. GAO, CRS or CBO. This would certainly be a step forward from what
we have today, but it is not the most effective approach. GAO, CRS and
CBO have established methodologies that are well-honed for their
specific missions, but that are not generally appropriate for advising
Congress on science and technology. These organizations have recruited
staffs that are well-suited for the current missions, not for
technology assessment. These organizations have earned reputations on
Capitol Hill, throughout government, and in the broader world that help
them to do their current jobs. People who read their reports know what
to expect, as do people who provide these organizations with
information. However, these reputations can be a hindrance if the
organization were to take on a very different mission. While the people
in these organizations have made valuable contributions, there are
advantages to establishing a new organization, perhaps under the old
banner of OTA, or perhaps as something new.
Spending pennies to save dollars.
The Appropriations Committee must make hard decisions about how to
best spend a limited budget. For this committee, technology assessment
is especially important. As individuals, we know that it is sometimes
wise to pay for information from a doctor as we confront a medical
problem, or an accountant as we plan our financial future. The cost of
a bad decision can far exceed the cost of obtaining information. This
is even more true when we consider legislation, and appropriations in
particular. A new organization to advise Congress may cost millions.
Timely and objective information about how to spend tax-payer dollars
in a cost-effective way can inform appropriations decisions in a way
that saves billions.
______
Prepared Statement of the R Street Institute
Thank you, Chairman Hyde-Smith, Ranking Member Murphy and Members
of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee for holding this
open hearing, and thank you for receiving my testimony.
I am vice president of policy at the R Street Institute, and I
previously spent 11 rewarding years as an analyst and acting research
manager at the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
After serving CRS, I joined others in advocating for equitable
public access to CRS reports. I believed that it was unfair that the
public had no online source for getting authenticated copies of the
reports, whereas lobbyists and others within the Beltway had easy
access. I also contended that in the age of ``fake news'' and
``alternative facts'' the public and media need more objective sources
of information for reference.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kevin Kosar, ``Where taxpayers pay ($100 million a year) but
interest groups benefit,'' The Washington Post, Nov. 10, 2015. https://
www.washingtonpost.com/news/Federal-eye/wp/2015/11/10/where-taxpayers-
pay-100-million-a-year-but-interest-groups-benefit/?utm_term=
.965e4c523c42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This subcommittee acted and fixed the problem. Two years ago, it
wrote a law that struck down the 1954 appropriations rider that created
inequitable access.\2\ Thank you, again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-141).
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1625/
text?format=txt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am also pleased to see that CRS has made great progress
implementing the law's provisions. Crsreports.congress.gov is now
online and has posted 80 percent of its ``active'' reports.\3\ The
agency also has committed to posting its very useful In Focus and
Insights publications on this public website.\4\ CRS and the Library of
Congress deserve credit for this work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A report is deemed ``active'' if its content is current and the
subject matter is of interest to Congress.
\4\ Carla Hayden, letter to Rep. Mike Quigley, March 1, 2019. The
statute requires public release of: ``any written product containing
research or analysis that is currently available for general
congressional access on the CRS Congressional Intranet, or that would
be made available on the CRS Congressional Intranet in the normal
course of business and does not include material prepared in response
to Congressional requests for confidential analysis or research.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I would like to call your attention to one aspect of
implementation that has been less than satisfactory. At present, CRS is
posting reports only in PDF format. That makes them difficult to read
and slow to load on mobile devices. Legislators and congressional
staff, meanwhile, have access to both mobile-friendly HTML copies and
PDFs through the non-public crs.gov.
Why the public-facing site offers only PDF copies is unclear. These
report files are not born as PDFs. Indeed, CRS analysts and experts
create their reports as Microsoft Word files, which then are converted
into both HTML and PDF files during the publishing process.
I and others request the subcommittee to please direct CRS to post
its reports in HTML or other mobile-friendly formats on
crsreports.congress.gov. This implementation shortcoming should be
easily solved.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The privately created site Everycrsreport.com, which cost less
than $20,000 to build, has both HTML and PDF copies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if I may raise one additional matter, CRS has a large trove of
what are called ``non-current reports.'' These are reports that have
been placed in the CRSX archive and made unavailable to Congress except
upon request of a legislator or legislative staff. CRS' rationale for
this obscurity has varied. In some cases, the subject of the report is
not actively being considered by Congress. In other instances, the
author of the report has retired or otherwise departed from the agency,
or the report has been superseded by a new report. But many reports are
locked in CRSX simply because they are more than a few years old.
To date, CRS has been loath to make these reports available outside
of the private CRSX archive. When Rep. Quigley asked CRS whether it
would place these reports online, the Librarian of Congress replied
that the task was outside the scope of the 2018 Consolidated
Appropriations Act's requirements.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Carla Hayden, letter to Rep. Mike Quigley, March 1, 2019. Which
prompts the question: Can CRS avoid publishing a report publicly
through a declaration that the report is no longer ``active''?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a shame. There are an enormous number of informative
reports in CRSX that would benefit the public. I would encourage the
subcommittee to please direct CRS to begin sharing reports from CRSX on
the publicly available site this year.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Some of these reports--especially reports published more than a
decade ago--might only be available in PDF format. Although not ideal,
access to PDF copies of old CRS reports would be better than no access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, and on another subject, in the past couple of years CRS
has stopped releasing its data on CRS employee turnover. Previously,
they would report these data to Congress in their annual reports. This
is concerning, as all reports I have received indicate that CRS is
experiencing higher than average levels of turnover.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For additional details on CRS turnover and staff morale issues,
see Kevin R. Kosar, Written testimony on more equitable access to
Congressional Research Service reports and CRS employee morale, U.S.
Senate, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Legislative
Branch, April 27, 2018. http://kevinrkosar.com/kosar-written-testimony-
to-CRS-Senate.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your time and consideration. I would be happy to
answer any questions the subcommittee or its staff may have.
[This statement was submitted by Kevin R. Kosar, Vice President of
Policy.]
Disclaimer:
Please refer to the About page for more information.