[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH SERVICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 20, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
[Star Print] 38-531 WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairperson
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois,
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California Ranking Member
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina MARK WALKER, North Carolina
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
PETE AGUILAR, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
JUNE 20, 2019
Page
Oversight of the Congressional Research Service.................. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairperson Zoe Lofgren.......................................... 1
Prepared statement of Chairperson Lofgren.................... 3
Hon. Rodney Davis, Ranking Member................................ 5
Prepared statement of Ranking Member Davis................... 6
WITNESSES
Dr. Mary Mazanec, Director, Congressional Research Service....... 9
Prepared statement of Dr. Mazanec............................ 11
Dr. Susan Thaul, President, Congressional Research Employees
Association.................................................... 16
Prepared statement of Dr. Thaul.............................. 18
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Dr. Mary Mazanec, Director, Congressional Research Service,
responses...................................................... 38
Dr. Susan Thaul, President, Congressional Research Employees
Association, responses......................................... 57
OVERSIGHT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren
(Chairperson of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Raskin, Davis of
California, Fudge, Aguilar, Davis of Illinois, Walker, and
Loudermilk.
Staff Present: Sean Jones, Legislative Clerk; Jamie Fleet,
Majority Staff Director; Lisa Sherman, Chief of Staff for Mrs.
Davis of California; David Tucker, Parliamentarian; Khalil
Abboud, Deputy Staff Director; Evan Dorner, Legislative
Assistant for Mr. Aguilar; Peter Whippy, Majority
Communications Director; Lauren Doney, Communications Director
and Deputy Chief of Staff for Mr. Raskin; Courtney Parella,
Minority Communications Director; Timothy Monahan, Minority
Director of Oversight; Jennifer Daulby, Minority Staff
Director; Nicholas Crocker, Minority Professional Staff; and
Susannah Johnston, Legislative Assistant for Mr. Loudermilk.
The Chairperson. The Committee will come into order. I am
happy that we are here today to have an oversight hearing on
the Congressional Research Service, which is one of the most
important support services available to Congress.
The professional staff of CRS provides objective,
authoritative, and confidential research and analysis on a vast
array of issues but, like any agency of its size, CRS faces its
share of challenges and this hearing is intended to have a
candid discussion of those challenges so CRS can continue to
support the Congress.
CRS must have an inspired and diverse workforce fostered by
an inclusive work environment to operate at its fullest
potential. Unfortunately, like most agencies, CRS has contended
with budgetary constraints at a time of increasing workload.
CRS's budget has remained mostly flat or has been decreased
substantially in particularly lean years. In fact, CRS's
operating budget in 2017 was $5 million less than its budget in
2010.
These constraints have resulted in less capacity to serve
Congress. It has resulted in fewer analysts doing more work.
This pressure, compounded by our failure to invest meaningfully
in personal office and committee budgets, has adversely limited
the scope and depth of services available to Congress. These
pressures also impact employee morale, which can further
negatively impact agency performance.
The cycle of asking congressional support staff in our
legislative branch agencies to meet more demands with fewer
resources is unsustainable and needs to be changed. Congress
depends on the expert services of CRS to perform its
constitutional duties, so when service is impacted, the work of
the Congress is too. We owe it not just to CRS to improve it
but to the American people who sent us here to be their voice
in Congress.
Although the Congressional Research Employees Association
represents more than 80 percent of the CRS workforce, a common
refrain is their exclusion from management decisions. By
ignoring them and their learned experiences at CRS, management,
I believe, is doing a disservice to both itself and its
employees.
At CRS, the workforce must be involved in the decision-
making and the direction-setting of the Service. The bargaining
unit should be consulted when actions are being considered that
will directly impact them and their work. Management should
listen to the concerns of the employees.
Our goal here today is to develop a full picture of the
challenges facing CRS and to devise solutions for the future.
CRS does not have to face this alone. In fact, it can't. It is
incumbent on this Committee and this Congress to ensure that
CRS and the broader Library of Congress are sufficiently
resourced with adequate support and funding.
I would now like to recognize our Ranking Member, Mr.
Davis, for an opening statement.
[The statement of the Chairperson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Chairperson Lofgren.
I would also like to welcome today's witnesses, Ms. Mary
Mazanec, Director of the CRS, and Dr. Susan Thaul, who is here
today in her capacity as the President of the Congressional
Research Employees Association.
I look forward to hearing your testimony and having a
productive dialogue about the current state of CRS and ways in
which improvements can be made.
You know, as the Chairperson said, Congress has relied on
CRS since the early 1900s as its primary support agency for
public policy research and analysis. Daily--and I can tell you
this as a 16-year former staffer. I know from working with CRS
that you provide Members and other staff with authoritative,
objective, and timely work products that assist all of us,
Members and staff included, in doing our jobs. An agency with
such an influential and rich history should be the gold
standard of research organizations not just here but worldwide.
However, it is clear to me there are some internal
struggles that have had a noticeable impact on the agency. I am
not interested in participating in a public dispute today
between management and rank-and-file employees. That is not the
purpose of a congressional hearing. What I am interested in
doing is having this Committee lay out our expectations for a
path forward that will drive the necessary institutional
changes that are needed in any agency.
CRS must improve their processes and mechanisms for
establishing the agency's mission and meeting Congress's needs
in the 21st century: strategic workforce planning, workforce
training, performance management, recruitment, hiring, and
diversity management.
Some of the ways in which this can be accomplished, in my
opinion, are through surveys and focus groups, both internally
and externally; IT analytics; management training and employee
development opportunities, demonstrating how training efforts
contribute toward improved performance and results. It is a
must to have a system in place to continually assess and prove
human capital planning and investment and its impact on
accomplishing your mission to transparently align individual
performance expectations to identify specific levels of
achievement within CRS's mission.
We hope you conduct employee exit interviews and track that
feedback to identify any trends that could be advantageous or
problematic. And we hope we would see a culture that encourages
a culture that creates and maintains a positive work
environment, where employees are valued and can maximize their
potential and contributions to CRS and, in turn, the mission of
the United States Congress.
I intend to focus my questions within these areas and hope
to learn more from our witnesses on the current procedures in
place at CRS and where there might be room for improvement.
Let me be clear: I expect the Congressional Research
Service and the Library of Congress to respond to the concerns
and recommendations expressed by the Committee today. These are
not merely suggestions; Congress needs to see action.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Thank you.
Members are invited to put opening statements in the
record.
The Chairperson. I would now like to welcome and introduce
our witnesses.
Thanks to you both for being here.
Ms. Mary Mazanec has served as Director of CRS since 2011.
Prior to her appointment as Director, Director Mazanec worked
at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where she
was Deputy Assistant Secretary and Director of the Office of
Medicine, Science, and Public Health in the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.
She was a Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellow, serving
as a senior advisor to the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Subcommittee on Public
Health. Earlier in her career, she served as a senior policy
analyst at the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
She received a Bachelor of Science from the University of
Notre Dame, summa cum laude, and a Doctorate in Medicine from
Case Western Reserve University Medical School and a Juris
Doctor from Case Western Reserve University Law School.
We are also joined by Dr. Susan Thaul. Dr. Thaul has served
as President of the Congressional Research Employees
Association, or CREA, since February, 2016. Working at the
Congressional Research Service as a specialist in drug safety
and effectiveness, her portfolio includes drug development and
approval, post-market safety studies and surveillance, drug
importation, pharmaceutical promotion to consumers and health
professionals, FDA appropriations, and regulatory science.
Before joining CRS in 2002, Dr. Thaul worked at the
Institute of Medicine at the National Academies; the Senate
Committee on Veterans' Affairs; the National Center for Health
Services Research, now AHRQ; and the Harlem Hospital Prevention
Prematurity Project; and the New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation. She earned a Ph.D. in epidemiology from Columbia
University and an M.S. in health policy and management from the
Harvard School of Public Health.
I would like to ask the witnesses to try and summarize
their written testimony in about 5 minutes. We operate under
the five-minute rule. I think you are familiar with our light
system, but when you are close to the end, the little yellow
light will shine. When the red light shines, your five minutes
are up and we would ask you to try and summarize.
You are both very distinguished individuals. We look
forward to hearing from you.
First, we turn to you, Director Mazanec.
STATEMENTS OF MARY B. MAZANEC, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH
SERVICE; AND SUSAN THAUL, PRESIDENT, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF MARY B. MAZANEC
Ms. Mazanec. Chairperson Lofgren, Ranking Member Davis, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today regarding CRS.
CRS appreciates its role as Congress's trusted resource. We
strive every day to maintain that trust and uphold our core
values of authoritativeness, confidentiality, nonpartisanship,
objectivity, and timeliness.
In my testimony today, I want to focus on three main
things: our commitment to serving all of Congress, workforce
initiatives, and our strategic planning efforts and future
directions.
CRS continues to interact with virtually every committee
and Member. In fiscal year 2018, CRS provided more than 62,000
custom products and services, authored and maintained
approximately 9,000 general distribution products, hosted more
than 8,600 congressional participants at our programs, and
published nearly 6,000 bill summaries.
We continue to support this Congress on a wide range of
policy issues, including energy, the environment, science,
healthcare, border security, immigration, foreign affairs, and
campaign finance.
CRS engages with Members at the very start of their careers
in Congress. In January, in cooperation with this Committee,
CRS was honored to again host the new-Member seminar in
Williamsburg, Virginia.
Next, I want to turn my attention to the CRS workforce. Our
most valuable resource is our corps of dedicated professionals
who work in concert across the organization to carry out our
mission. Just last week, during our annual staff appreciation
ceremony, I had the opportunity to acknowledge the outstanding
work of my CRS colleagues. I am proud and privileged to lead
our team.
CRS continues to broaden and strengthen its research and
analytical capabilities to ensure that we are able to provide
the full breadth of public policy and legal work that Congress
demands.
CRS, like Congress, is a workplace where every day is
different. The fluid nature of our work often requires that
staff prepare intricate analyses and respond to introductory
questions which lead to more complex requests. For individuals
who enjoy that challenge, CRS is a place where they can grow
and thrive.
With Congress's generous support in fiscal year 2019, CRS
has successfully strengthened coverage in a number of key
areas. In the year 2020, the Congressional Research Service
will continue to bolster its workforce. And even in this tight
labor market, CRS continues to attract and retain very high-
quality professionals who are drawn to our unique mission to
support the Congress.
But as Congress evolves, CRS cannot remain static. We must
continually evaluate how best to serve the Congress.
Accordingly, the Service engaged in a strategic planning
process with the Library. During the process, approximately 130
CRS staff participated in 12 working groups. The resulting CRS
Directional Plan identified two main goals: enhance service and
access for all of Congress and optimize resources utilization.
Nested under these goals are specific objectives and key
initiatives that emphasize CRS priorities, such as advancing
diversity and inclusion efforts and aligning the CRS work model
to meet Congress's needs.
An example of a recent key initiative was the public
release of nonconfidential written products. For the first time
in our history, in September of 2018, nonconfidential CRS
written products were made available to the public. Today, more
than 5,500 products are on Congress.gov. We are on track to
meet the remaining goals and deadlines by the end of this year.
Information technology is a critical tool that CRS uses to
create, deliver, and showcase our work. CRS continues to
support the Library-wide efforts to centralize information
technology. We meet regularly with our colleagues in OCIO and
are continually identifying means to ensure that this
transition period is seamless and that IT issues are addressed
promptly.
Moreover, CRS, in partnership with OCIO, has launched an
initiative to modernize the Service's IT systems. The goal of
this critical 5-year initiative is to improve efficiency and
foster innovation in CRS operations while continuing to protect
the security and the confidentiality of congressional data. CRS
is scheduled to test a prototype of a new content management
system in this fiscal year.
Finally, on behalf of my colleagues at CRS, I would like to
express my appreciation to the Committee for its continued
support. CRS looks forward to the Committee's input so that we
can continue to be Congress's foremost resource.
I am happy to respond to your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Mazanec follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Thank you very much.
Dr. Thaul, we would be happy to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN THAUL
Ms. Thaul. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairperson Lofgren, Ranking Member Davis,
the other Committee Members who are here--it is nice to see so
many here--and staff. Thank you for inviting me.
I am Susan Thaul, President of the Congressional Research
Employees Association, CREA. CREA represents about 500 of the
approximately 600 CRS employees.
I am happy to sit beside Dr. Mazanec. She has listened to
CREA. CREA's role, though, is not only to be heard. It is
sometimes to convince management that there is a problem, that
there is a solution, and that working together can help.
We don't always agree. In my written testimony, I mention
eight such issues, but today I will focus on three: the need
for a more diverse and inclusive workplace, the need to restore
confidence in our promotion and performance appraisal
procedures, and the need to fix the morale crisis in one of our
six research divisions.
First, diversity. In 2016, partly because of CRS employee
answers to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, Dr. Mazanec
appointed a diversity and inclusion advisory group. It had
managers and nonmanagers and a CREA representative.
The group did its homework. The report laid out a
thoughtful plan. But, somehow, central office staff changed
much of the report before submitting it to the Director in the
group's name. After much back-and-forth, the full report was
issued, but then the report that was posted on the CRS website
was missing some of those recommendations. I think there was a
communication opportunity that was missed there.
Since then, the Director has formed two other groups that
are looking at diversity issues, and we hope that the outcome
is different this time. There are so many ideas that we have
that could improve diversity and inclusion perception and
reality, but now, three years after the Federal survey, we
don't see that CRS has an effective plan or a way to measure
real progress.
Second, performance appraisals and promotions. Again, here,
CREA and management are not quite in sync.
CRS has, from what we can tell, no clearly stated policy or
standards for promotion, and it desperately needs one. CREA has
handled performance appraisal cases where there is clearly a
disconnect between supervisors and employees about what their
expectations are.
With access to anonymized data, CREA analysts could examine
whether promotions and performance ratings vary by
characteristics of the individual or of the immediate
supervisor or the division or office. There may be no problem
at all, but without our knowing that, suspicion abounds.
When employees perceive actions as unfair, management loses
some of its moral authority, and that can affect decisions to
leave. And such attrition is very costly. It takes time and
money to recruit, screen, hire, and train and that takes time
away from our ability to serve Congress.
CREA has raised issues about promotion, for example, again
and again. I think there is hope. Last month, Dr. Mazanec told
me that CRS management was interested in looking at promotion
procedures.
I propose that management involves CREA now. We have
experts who advise Congress on these issues. Why not use us to
boost the chances that the plan we develop and communicate to
supervisors and employees will succeed?
Okay, I am going to talk very fast.
Finally, let's fix the American Law Division.
ALD is one of the six research divisions within CRS. ALD's
work is unique, but so are the number and types of complaints
we hear from its staff. Current and former legislative
attorneys report a toxic environment. Employees fear speaking
up.
The numbers tell us that there is a problem. During the
last 3 years, attrition in our other five research divisions
averaged about seven and a half percent per year. For ALD, it
is a little over 19 percent each year. New hires haven't yet
gained the experience with the kind of work CRS does. At ALD,
the number of people who have been here for more than three and
a half years is about 46 percent.
Since the Committee announced today's hearing, we have
heard from many former ALD employees urging us to ask the
Committee for help. We are asking now: Please urge CRS
management to meet with CREA former employees and attorneys in
ALD now. Let's explore the reasons for what we are hearing.
Let's find solutions. I think they exist.
We have other issues. My written testimony talks about the
concern of shifting from experts to generalist staff. We talk
about work-life balance and issues of how to help that. And
finally, CREA is concerned that management's fear of the
potential reaction of some members makes them shy away from
controversial but important issues.
But it is time for your questions. I am interested in what
you suggest. I look forward to beginning working with Dr.
Mazanec and her staff so that we can turn all our energy toward
meeting the important and enormous needs of Congress. Thank
you.
[The statement of Ms. Thaul follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Thanks to both of you for this testimony.
I would turn now to the Ranking Member, the gentleman from
Illinois, for questions that he may have.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and
thanks for having this hearing.
It is good to see my colleagues too.
Mr. Aguilar, how is baseball going?
Mr. Aguilar. Good.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Pretty good? All right. I was hoping
not to get that answer. I don't want to do a CRS report on the
last 6 years of baseball victories at the Congressional
Baseball Game. I am aware of the record, unfortunately.
Ms. Mazanec, what do you see as the largest challenge for
CRS today?
Ms. Mazanec. I believe our largest challenge is to make
sure that we recruit and retain a diverse workforce with the
skills and expertise that we need to support you at a very high
level.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. All right.
Ms. Thaul, what do you think the biggest challenge is?
Ms. Thaul. I think we are a great group, and to keep us
going and to try to work together to stop these kinds of
internal frustrations, there is a lot we can do.
I think we need to figure out how to serve--at what level
to serve Congress. There is a lot of need for short-term things
that legislative correspondents and analysts need, and then
there is also work that a committee staffer might need to
really help develop a project.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Okay. Well, I am glad you brought up
Congress.
Ms. Mazanec, how does CRS capture feedback from Members of
Congress and their staff?
Ms. Mazanec. Thank you.
So, several years ago, I believe in 2016, the Library was
directed to do a survey of Congress about the products and
services they receive from the Library but especially CRS. CRS
took the lead on it. We contracted with Gallup. And we got very
encouraging, very positive feedback. CRS plans to do another
survey this fall to again try to capture feedback in a more
formal way.
But we get a lot of informal feedback on a day-to-day,
ongoing basis from your staff and directly from Members. I take
advantage of when I informally meet with Members to try to get
their input into how we are doing, what they would like to see
from us, and what we could do better.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Okay.
What type of IT analytics are used to capture information
about your work products?
Ms. Mazanec. We have a customer management system where we
basically put in requests, specific requests, that come from
Members and their staff. It is a data set that we look at to
try to spot trends.
Other things that we look at----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. So you are talking about trends just
on the----
Ms. Mazanec. Number of requests that we----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Number of requests. You know, is
there a trend on the type of request being made, the issue
areas?
Ms. Mazanec. Yes.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Are you guys using any of the IT
data analytic tools----
Ms. Mazanec. Yes.
Mr. Davis of Illinois [continuing]. Like Google has to look
at how many people have actually opened the reports that you
have put out there?
Ms. Mazanec. Yes. We do that too. We do that in cooperation
with OCIO. We capture how many times someone goes to a certain
page, how many times a certain report has been viewed. We are
doing that both on CRS.gov but we are also tracking
Congress.gov, where our reports are being pushed out to the
public.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Okay.
So, I mean, you have shown us that you get feedback from
Members of Congress, our offices, our staffs, our committees;
you use IT analytics.
How do you capture input from your employees that may
influence your strategic plan?
Ms. Mazanec. The strategic planning process that we
embarked on--it was probably a couple of years ago now--was
very inclusive. And we did that by design, and it was, I
believe, a significant change from past practice.
We invited staff to sign up for work groups, and we also
involved staff in a variety of venues, including focus groups,
townhalls. I myself conduct all-hands meetings. The various
divisions and offices will also have staff meetings. I have an
open-door policy if someone wants to come in directly to me, to
sit down with me and pitch an idea or to express a concern.
So I think we do this on a regular basis. There is always
going to be room for improvement, though.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I don't have much time left.
Ms. Thaul, do you agree?
Ms. Thaul. In large part, yes. I think the planning process
this year did involve staff at many different levels.
What we don't--once all that information comes in, we are
often not included in the discussions, though. And I think we
can do that better.
Staff meetings are good. The problem is people don't always
want to speak up. And we have to find a way to have that be a
safe environment where, if someone wants to speak about a
supervisor, that they are not immediately labeled a whiner.
Some people might be whiners, but some people might have
legitimate concerns.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Madam Chairperson, thank you so much.
I want to thank both Director Mazanec and Dr. Thaul for
being with us today and sharing your insight. I have always
thought that the Congressional Research Service is an enormous
asset to our work in Congress and an international marvel when
you think about it--the idea that you have one independent,
objective research authority for Members of Congress from
whatever political persuasion and that they get us information,
in fact, and we can rely on them.
I want to thank you both for the work that you are doing.
We are grateful for your expertise.
Let me start with you, Madam Director. Can you explain what
is the peer-review process at the Congressional Research
Service? And are the CRS products ever peer-reviewed by
externally entities?
Ms. Mazanec. We have a multitiered review process. It
begins with peer review, but then there is also section review,
division review, and then there is final review in the front
office. The review process is designed to ensure that the
product is consistent with our core values of objectivity,
authoritativeness, nonpartisanship, et cetera.
I think, for the most part, we do little external peer
review. There may be certain parts of a report that we ask an
outside expert to look at to make sure we get it right.
I feel, having written the policy reports, that the peer-
review process is an asset. It helps us make sure that we have
a comprehensive product that is of most help for Congress, and
I always welcomed it. I think part of the challenge is we are
working on very tight deadlines sometimes, and it takes time to
move a product through the process and have a back-and-forth on
the content.
Mr. Raskin. Gotcha.
Dr. Thaul, let me come to you. A lot of my constituents
work at the Congressional Research Service because I represent
Maryland's Eighth Congressional District, which includes
Montgomery, Frederick, and Carroll County. I definitely know a
number of people who come down to work here for CRS.
You mention in your testimony the need to create a fairer,
more hospitable work environment. That is something that is
obviously of concern to me since I have constituents who work
there. What are the obstacles to creating such a work
environment, and what are the specific problems that you are
identifying?
Ms. Thaul. Let me preface by saying I love working at CRS.
I was excited to come here. I have been here 16 years. And
there is most--that is wonderful. We are talking about things
on the edge, and we are trying to fix them now or address them
now before they spin out.
There are two--we want people to be treated--to be
respected for our work and for who we are. And that means, if
we are respected to advise Congress on Earth-changing issues,
why are we not respected on things like how we organize our
day. Or there are some flexibilities that Congress, the
Library, and CRS grants us, but different supervisors apply
those differently.
These are minor things compared to other things that your
Committee deals with, but it is the everyday pressure that then
affects how we might do our work.
Mr. Raskin. Are you in a process where you feel that you
can be heard and there is a collaborative, conciliatory
framework for dealing with these?
Ms. Thaul. We are doing better. I think we have made some
progress with that.
The one thing that I don't think we have figured out how to
do yet is if--just as not all employees are ace perfect, not
all supervisors are perfect. I mean, you have all seen that in
your lives. And our impression is, if we want to bring that up,
the reaction is that that is not a valid concern.
Mr. Raskin. Okay, so--but this is normal workplace stuff
that----
Ms. Thaul. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. And you are not dealing with problems of
harassment or discrimination that are not being effectively
addressed?
Ms. Thaul. There are ways we can address that through the
Library process. Now, partly because of your Committee, we can
also go to--they have new initials now--Office of Congressional
Workforce Rights.
Mr. Raskin. Okay.
Ms. Thaul. There are kinks along the way, but basically the
process is there.
Mr. Raskin. Okay.
Finally, Ms. Mazanec, did you want to respond to any of
that?
Ms. Mazanec. I certainly am willing to open a discussion
about how we can communicate better. It seems like there is a
communication issue raised by a number of concerns that Dr.
Thaul raised and how to capture input and feedback.
I meet with Dr. Thaul on a regular basis. My management
team meets with other representatives in CREA on a regular
basis. Maybe some of their concerns can be brought up in those
venues.
We also have other avenues where individuals can bring a
concern directly to me anonymously through a Director's comment
box. But if there are other ways that we can improve
communication, I am open to discuss it.
Mr. Raskin. Terrific. Thank you.
I yield back, Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Thank you both for being here today.
Director, what is the mission of CRS?
Ms. Mazanec. The mission of CRS is to provide information,
research, and analysis on all legislative issues in front of
Congress to aid them in carrying out their constitutional
duties.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you.
Do you agree with that, Dr. Thaul?
Ms. Thaul. I am sorry. I got a note and didn't----
Mr. Loudermilk. The mission of CRS.
Ms. Thaul. To serve Congress, to help you make better
decisions so that it is better for everybody.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you. I appreciate that----
Ms. Thaul. That is a summary.
Mr. Loudermilk [continuing]. Because that is the way I
feel----
Ms. Thaul. Yeah.
Mr. Loudermilk [continuing]. And I have had some concerns
about other aspects of the Library getting away from the idea
that they are predominantly a library that exists for Congress.
So it is refreshing to hear that.
And what you do is extremely important. As I am sure many
of my colleagues here use CRS extensively, we do, and it is
extremely important that--not that CRS be bipartisan but it be
unbiased, you know, not taking one side or the other.
And when this hearing was announced, I met with all of our
legislative staff, and I just asked them, what is your opinion
of the service that we are getting from CRS? And it was, for
the most part, very positive.
The only negative feedback we got was, on certain
occasions, in certain departments, it may not be unbiased.
There is some opinion put in, not in the reports but in the
conversations that they have. But we can work through that.
The process, Director, for getting a report approved, is
that process transparent to the employees? Do they know how
that process works?
Ms. Mazanec. Absolutely. They are actively engaged with the
individuals reviewing their report. And there should be a
dialogue or a back-and-forth. If you ask a peer to review your
work and they take the time to do it and they submit comments,
I would hope that that was the start of a conversation. That is
the way it should work.
Mr. Loudermilk. Yeah.
Dr. Thaul, do you agree that it is transparent?
Ms. Thaul. The process is transparent. Some people handle
it better than others----
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Ms. Thaul [continuing]. I mean, as in anywhere. I think
part of the problem is the expectation of what a CRS report is
has sort of varied over time, and there is a little confusion
about that. I agree that there should not be personal
opinions----
Mr. Loudermilk. Right.
Ms. Thaul [continuing]. In a report and probably not in
conversation either. But I think that it serves Congress best
if we, in addition to giving you a description of ``this is
what has happened before, this is what this bill would do, this
is what this other bill would do,'' if we could add an analysis
to give it a framework of how it fits into what we have seen,
those of us who have been hired as experts in our field.
I think, partly because of the volume of reports and
requests, we don't have time for that, and partly because we
seem to be moving away from that.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Thank you.
Director, how do you guys advertise for positions? If you
need to fill a position, where do you go and seek?
Ms. Mazanec. Our positions are posted in USAJobs.gov, but
we also send the descriptions or the announcements rather
broadly. If we are seeking a particular set of skills, we may
approach professional organizations, societies, academic
institutions. We have sent announcements over here, to offices
over here. And that is one of the ways we are trying to ensure
that we have a diverse applicant pool.
Mr. Loudermilk. You steal our guys. Oh, I see.
When it comes to the hiring process, what is the process
for hiring someone? You identify someone has a skill set. How
do you transition that person from being an applicant to being
an employee? Or who makes that decision?
Ms. Mazanec. The Library follows a merit selection process,
and we follow that process. After we post a job and the
position closes, the applications are reviewed to make sure
that they meet the minimal requirements outlaid in the position
description.
Then those candidates are invited in for a structured
interview where all applicants are asked the same questions.
There may be a second--after the leading candidates are
determined, there is usually one hiring manager.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Ms. Mazanec. There is a panel, a hiring panel, but one of
the individuals on the panel is the hiring manager. We try to
ensure that the members who are on the panel also are diverse.
Then an individual may be brought back to clarify responses
or to meet other people that they will be working with.
Then a decision is made. We work through the Library's HR
office. They extend the offer. After the offer is accepted, the
person is scheduled to come on board. They are put through a
Library orientation, and then CRS conducts its own orientation.
A lot of individuals who join CRS, especially analysts,
they are assigned a mentor. And it is a lot of mentorship on
the job, learning by doing.
I want to talk to a lot of the new people that we brought
on board recently to ensure that the onboarding process is
meeting their needs. And I have that planned to do, to meet
with some of the new hires in the last 2 years.
So that pretty much is how we bring people on board.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Thank you.
I see my time has expired, so I will yield back the
remaining time I don't have.
The Chairperson. Thank you very much.
The gentlelady from California is recognized.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you very much, Madam
Chairperson.
Thank you both for being here.
I know that you mentioned, Director, that CRS is the
foremost resource for Members of Congress. I can tell you, by
traveling around, we are kind of the envy of a number of other
democratic bodies as well because of how well-performing and
organized that is.
But I also know that the people are at the heart of that.
And so that is why I wanted to follow up with a few questions
around the people themselves.
And one of the things that I am hearing is that there are a
number of policies, perhaps in more divisions than not, among
relationships that are strained for whatever reason.
Ms. Mazanec. Yes.
Mrs. Davis of California. I wonder if you could speak to
that a little bit more and what you see. Clearly, communication
is often at the heart of that, but are there some policies that
are different and that people interpret differently, whether it
is leave policies or checking in, making sure that, you know,
they have to sign something if they are leaving? What is it
that you think may be at the heart of some of those concerns?
Ms. Mazanec. I think you have already identified it. I
don't think there are different policies; I think it is the way
the policies are implemented.
Several years ago, I set up a policy working group that is
run out of my counselor's office. I tasked them to review all
the policies in the Service and to clarify and update the
policies and that was an attempt to have a more uniform
application of the policy.
If there is still a need for clarification, my counselor's
office will talk to managers, talk to staff to further clarify
the policies.
Mrs. Davis of California. Yes.
Dr. Thaul, how would you respond?
Ms. Thaul. Right. I think that at the top level there are
some good flexibilities that CRS policies cover.
Dr. Mazanec has said that part of her management style is
to let the managers make their own decisions, which, in
general, I support because different offices have different
flows and need different things. But sometimes within the same
office there are different decisions made for different people,
and that creates stress.
I mean, that is not unlike other workforces, but you are
asking us about ours.
Mrs. Davis of California. Yes. I think I was hearing that
you are both interested in taking a look at that and seeing how
can we----
Ms. Thaul. Yes.
Mrs. Davis of California [continuing]. We improve that, and
I appreciate that.
The other issue really is a little bit--I think my
colleague has raised it somewhat. I might do it a little bit
differently. There has always been a policy of nonpartisanship,
but now I think there seems to be a concern--maybe this is more
in the Law Division--of one of neutrality, that providing
facts, obviously, is critically important to CRS, but that
there are some issues that are not even raised that should be.
Would you like to respond to that?
Ms. Thaul. May I go first? Okay.
Ms. Mazanec. Sure.
Ms. Thaul. She is my boss.
Mrs. Davis of California. I know. I looked at--whoever is
comfortable----
Ms. Thaul. But we coordinated our----
Ms. Mazanec. Thank you. I am fine.
Ms. Thaul. The--now I have forgotten the question. I am
sorry.
Mrs. Davis of California. Well, it is nonpartisanship
versus neutrality. How do you see that?
Ms. Thaul. Thank you.
Some issues need--they are so critical that there are--
there are facts, but there is also talking about the
ramifications of those. Sometimes that discussion can be
unbiased and nonpartisan but it is not always neutral, in that
an expert will have experience and a concept to put in. It is
important that they identify that. I think the review process
helps a lot.
But sometimes we are shying away from--several years ago--
this had nothing to do with the current administration--I was
counseled that I could write a descriptive paper on something
but not to get into the possible other ways to organize the
program that they were talking about, and I was told, ``Don't
do that. It is too controversial.''
Mrs. Davis of California. Yeah.
Ms. Thaul. And----
Mrs. Davis of California. Does that affect morale?
Ms. Thaul. Yeah. Well, it makes me feel----
Mrs. Davis of California. Yeah.
Dr. Mazanec.
Ms. Thaul [continuing]. You hired me for my----
Mrs. Davis of California. Sure. I am sorry. My time is
limited. I just want to give her a chance.
Ms. Mazanec. So I have a different point of view. It is
really not neutrality. What we strive for is objectivity. It is
one of our core values.
I would also assert--and maybe we have to reinforce this in
communication--that analysts are supposed to be analytical and
that not only should they present the facts but they should
also be analytical. Where we draw as the line is we don't make
recommendations, we don't advocate. We inform the debate, but
we are not here to tell you what the best policy option is.
We do tackle controversial subjects. I would point you to
reports on some of the topics that we have reports on and we
also do that with our targeted research requests, which are
confidential. We generate a lot of confidential memos that are
on controversial issues.
Mrs. Davis of California. Yes.
Thank you very much. I know my time is up.
The Chairperson. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Ohio is recognized.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Thank you both for being here today.
Let me just ask you, what is your policy, if any, on
diversity? And talk to me about the diversity of your staff.
Ms. Mazanec. Diversity in the workforce is a top priority
of mine. I think it is important, it is critical to bring all
perspectives to the issues that you are grappling with.
I can just give you a little bit of data because I have
looked at it recently. We looked at basically three years--
2009, 2013, and 2018. This is self-reported data. Twenty-eight
percent of the staff identified themselves as being part of a
minority group.
However, over the course of that time period, there have
been some shifting among the various minority categories, and
we have lost diversity at the most senior grades in the
Service.
This is a high priority. We are trying to identify specific
actions that we can do and put in place to make sure that our
applicant pools are diverse. As Susan mentioned----
Ms. Fudge. Excuse me just one--forgive me.
Ms. Mazanec. Yes.
Ms. Fudge. Do you have any people of color in your senior
leadership?
Ms. Mazanec. Yes. It depends on how you define ``color.''
If it is African American, no. We lost two African American
senior-level leaders in my tenure at CRS. They left to pursue
preferred opportunities. One told me she wasn't even looking.
Her dream job dropped out of the sky, and she wanted to take
the opportunity.
Ms. Fudge. So there are no people of color in upper
management?
I would just suggest to you that if you are having problems
finding them, we know people everywhere, and we can make
recommendations to you.
Ms. Mazanec. Okay.
Ms. Fudge. Not that I have any right now. I have no idea.
But I think that we should not have an agency or a department
as involved in what we do every day as you are that has no
person of color in your leadership.
Ms. Thaul. We have started to look at some of the numbers.
The numbers don't tell the whole story because I know there are
efforts to recruit minorities.
But when we looked at the percentage of African American--I
don't have the numbers in my head, but African Americans among
the baby-boomer group in the Library, in CRS, that was a higher
percentage of minorities in that group, my group, than in the
millennials who are the more recent hires. And that is really
concerning, because we are talking about diversity and
inclusion but it is not showing. So there is work.
Ms. Fudge. Okay. So tell me, then, how many people of color
do you have amongst your ranks of analysts and attorneys.
Ms. Thaul. I would have to look that up and tell you.
Ms. Mazanec. I can get back to you with those numbers, the
percentages----
Ms. Fudge. Let me just say that the Speaker of the House
has made diversity one of her main issues.
Ms. Mazanec. Yes.
Ms. Fudge. I would certainly hope that every single person
that has a role to play in hiring or promoting or including
people of color would make sure that that is done on a
consistent basis.
It is very difficult for me to understand that, as many
young lawyers and people as are around this Hill, there are not
people that you can find. They call my office looking for jobs
every day.
Ms. Mazanec. Yes.
Ms. Fudge. There is something that is not quite right. But
please let me know what your progress is on that. I will be
waiting to hear how things progress.
Ms. Thaul. Thank you.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I yield back.
The Chairperson. Thank you.
The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Dr. Thaul, you brought up concerns with the American Law
Division and its high turnover rate. Can you talk a little bit
about that division? Why is it different? And, in your opinion
why do we have a higher turnover rate in that area?
Ms. Thaul. That is a very good question, and I would like
to work towards finding that.
Some of that is normal. It is that people retire. Some of
it is people who may be retirement-age who are fed up or who
are feeling unappreciated and they leave. So that looks like a
normal retirement when we feel that it is not.
What is really concerning now is that the new people coming
in are picking up on the tensions even if they are not affected
by it and are looking for other jobs. And this could be such a
great place to work.
I am not part of that division. We have trouble--people in
that division are very wary about speaking to the union because
they have gotten the message that they are not supposed to do
that. And I am not saying that that comes--that anyone has said
that, but it is clearly--it is passed on from person to person.
We have to somehow break that and I think the Committee, by
asking these questions, might be helping start that
conversation.
Mr. Aguilar. Is your leadership team within the union--do
you have someone from that division? A shop steward or----
Ms. Thaul. No.
Mr. Aguilar. How does it function?
Ms. Thaul. We have governors and stewards in almost all of
the divisions. You know, it turns over. Sometimes there is no
one from the American Law Division. I think they see that as a
career-stopper. That may not be true, but I think they are
right.
Mr. Aguilar. Sure.
Ms. Thaul. So we get people meeting us for coffee offsite
or stopping by my office after-hours. I mean, it is almost--it
is really disturbing. And it is time to address it.
Mr. Aguilar. From your position, what is something we can
do to address the turnover rate? I hear what you are saying.
There are a lot of different factors----
Ms. Thaul. Yes.
Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. Including a snowball effect of
folks leaving as well as general attrition that you indicated.
What else can we do to blunt that turnover?
Ms. Thaul. I think that is a role of management. What
people have reported to me is that there are real problems in
the management and next-level supervisors in that division. And
it seems from the outside, it looks like Dr. Mazanec is not
engaging with that--not causing it, but not dealing with it.
I think we need to as you said, Representative Davis, this
is not a time to talk about personnel issues, but it is time to
talk about how we are going to talk about it. And I think----
Mr. Aguilar. Sure.
Ms. Thaul [continuing]. If you asked us to do that, maybe
that would help.
Mr. Aguilar. Sure.
Director.
Ms. Mazanec. I am aware of the concerns about the American
Law Division. The American Law Division did have a bump-up in
attrition rates. I think it was concurrent with a management
initiative to rebalance portfolios over there. It was also at a
time when our staff was decreasing in numbers.
Unequivocally, I will tell you that the American Law
Division produces exceptional work that is held in very high
regard. But it is a very difficult job. They are the smallest
division, and they have 37 legislative attorneys. Not only do
they do the legal analysis on the legal infrastructure under
policy issues, but they also tackle the purely legal issues.
I meet regularly with the management in ALD. I have brought
the concerns to them. We have strategized as to how we can
address the concerns.
Part of the problem is trying to pin down the root cause
though. The head of the American Law Division has taken efforts
to improve communications, both within the divisions and with
the other divisions, because there is cross-collaboration
across the Service.
Mr. Aguilar. Sure. If I could interrupt and ask one last
question, building off what my colleague from Ohio mentioned.
Director, if I define ``person of color'' as African
American, Latino, Asian American, Pacific Islander--that would
be my definition.
Let me get to the question. How many direct reports do you
have?
Ms. Mazanec. I think I have about 11 direct reports of
which 10 are members of my Senior Management team. All the
assistants and associate directors are direct reports to me, as
is the Deputy Director of CRS.
Mr. Aguilar. Okay. And out of those 12, how many people of
color as I defined?
Ms. Mazanec. So you broadened the definition----
Mr. Aguilar. I did.
Ms. Mazanec [continuing]. Of ``color.'' I am doing a quick
count in my head. One.
Mr. Aguilar. Okay. One in the Senior leadership team that
reports to me, one who is not Senior level and one among five
deputy assistant directors.
Ms. Mazanec. One.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
The Chairperson. Thank you.
Thanks to all the Members and both witnesses.
I think this has been an important hearing for a couple of
reasons.
First, the attendance here shows that we have very strong
interest in what is going on at CRS.
Two, although there are different viewpoints being
presented by CREA and Dr. Mazanec, it is very clear that you
are both committed to CRS and have an interest in making this
work well. And that, actually, is--if you want to take a look
and hope for the future, that is the bottom line that gives me
hope for the future.
In terms of follow up, obviously we don't want to have a
public--it would not even be functional to have a public
discussion of personnel items or anything of that nature. But I
do think that it sounds like there are opportunities for
improvement in certain areas.
The American Law Division is something I have run into in
one of my other committee assignments, the Judiciary Committee.
I will say, the members of the division have performed
admirably and provided a great service to the Congress as
they--you know, no one is questioning their motives; they are
just the analysts.
But it is not the easiest thing in the world to manage a
bunch of lawyers or to manage a bunch of Ph.D.s, for that
matter, either. I mean, these are highly talented people who
have their own views on how things should work. It is a very
different environment than certain other management challenges.
I am wondering if, at some future date--I don't want to set
a timeline--we could have an update on progress being made in
some of these divisions.
I will say, the idea that, of the 12 direct reports to you,
only one is a person of color is a concern. We are strengthened
as an organization if we have diverse viewpoints. All of us are
products of our experience. And we know that academic analysis
has shown that we will actually get better work product if we
have different viewpoints approaching that work product. So
let's take that very seriously.
I just want to ask a question, because I get complaints--
you know, being the Chairperson of this Committee is an
interesting experience because you get feedback from Members in
a very different way.
The CRS provides experts for committees in analyzing very
serious problems that are very complicated. But sometimes
Members call over for something that really isn't that
complicated. And I will give you an example from my own office
recently.
There are a whole bunch of Medicare for All bills that have
been introduced, and they are all different and I thought,
wouldn't it be great if CRS could just do a quick and dirty,
not how are they going to change society, not what they cost,
just, here are five bills, and here is how they differ.
After substantial back-and-forth, CRS said they couldn't do
that for me, which is fine. I mean, Vox News did it, and I
posted Vox News instead. I could have had an intern provide the
analysis in the time it took in the back-and-forth between my
office and CRS.
Because some of these questions are simple. They are not
really complex, sophisticated analysis that is being asked for
by Members. And I do get complaints from other Members that
they can't get, like, the dumb stuff done.
And I am wondering if there is a way to manage the office
so that, not to the detriment of the more sophisticated
analysis, which is the guts of your work, but the simple things
could be answered for Members.
That is question number one. You don't have to answer now.
I think, to some extent, I remember being on the Hill as a
staffer in the 1970s right after CRS was established, and the
role played then was very different than today because we have
Google now. We don't need to call CRS for some of these
answers. And I think that has probably changed the whole nature
of what you do.
And yet the authoritative nature of what CRS is, still
might call on the Congress to ask you, because you are known to
be objective, you know, what are the facts on this simple
question, that we don't want to quote Google, we want to quote
CRS.
Director Mazanec, can you address that at all?
Ms. Mazanec. Well, you have identified one of the
challenges that we have as a Service, that not only are we
trying to balance the highly analytical work, we are also
responding to a lot of basic informational questions.
What we try to do when we get a request is call back the
requester and really identify what do they need from us, so
that we try to meet your needs on your timeline.
I was aware of the request that your office put in. I am
sorry that we didn't get you what you needed. The analyst did
talk to your staffer----
The Chairperson. Multiple times.
Ms. Mazanec [continuing]. Multiple times to try to
clarify----
The Chairperson. And I have the email. I don't want to
revisit that, because Vox News----
Ms. Mazanec. Yes.
The Chairperson [continuing]. Did what we did, and we
posted their report online. It is just a quick and dirty
difference, what are the differences in the bills. I don't mean
to revisit that.
But the question is, are you set up to deal with Members
who have really simple questions that they want CRS to answer?
Ms. Mazanec. We do have a cadre of research librarians that
provide a lot of responses for purely informational requests.
They are embedded with the analysts, and they work side-by-
side.
We have tried to diversify our staffing structure. We
introduced a position of a research assistant, which will
hopefully also be able to work with the senior analyst to maybe
unload the senior analyst by taking on some of the requests.
Obviously, they would have to be reviewed by the senior
analyst.
So we have tried different things.
The Chairperson. Right.
Let me just ask this, in closing the hearing. And without
objection we will keep the record open for five legislative
days for Members who wish to submit statements or additional
questions.
The Chairperson. But when a toxic work environment develops
anyplace, it is really hard to break that up, because sometimes
it feeds on itself. It is almost independent.
Dr. Thaul, it sounds like your concern is that may have
developed in some of these divisions. It is very difficult to
unwind that. But it sounds like CREA is willing to be an ally
in unwinding that----
Ms. Thaul. Yes.
The Chairperson [continuing]. Which is a very positive
thing.
So, you know, given that we have challenges--the management
challenge of managing people who are as educated and expert as
you are is difficult in an environment where resources have not
grown and the challenges have. It is all a big challenge and it
is not going to be any easier if people don't feel good about
the workplace.
I am thankful that you are willing to work together. I am
looking forward to sometime in the near future where we can
touch base with you as a Committee and kind of get an informal
assessment of the growth that you have made.
I would thank you both for your important testimony and
note that, you know, it is not every day that CRS makes front-
page news.
So, with that, we will close this hearing and, without
objection, adjourn. Thanks very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]