[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                 MODERNIZING THE CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT 
                  AGENCIES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF AN EVOLV-
                  ING CONGRESS

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

           SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS

                                OF THE

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 21, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-11

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Modernization of 
                                Congress
                                
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                


                    Available via http://govinfo.gov
                    
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-121                     WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
                   
           SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS

                    DEREK KILMER, Washington, Chair

 ZOE LOFGREN, California              WILLIAM TIMMONS, South Carolina,
 EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri             Vice Chair
 ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              BOB LATTA, Ohio
 DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota             RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
 NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia             DAVE JOYCE, Ohio
                                      GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
                                      BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas

                            COMMITTEE STAFF

                     Yuri Beckelman, Staff Director
                 Derek Harley, Republican Staff Director
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page

Chairman Derek Kilmer............................................     1
Vice Chairman William Timmons....................................     2

                               WITNESSES

The Honorable Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General, Government 
    Accountability Office (GAO)
    Oral Statement...............................................     3
    Written Statement............................................     5
Dr. Mary Mazanec, Director, Congressional Research Service (CRS)
    Oral Statement...............................................    36
    Written Statement............................................    38
Dr. Phillip Swagel, Director, Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
    Oral Statement...............................................    45
    Written Statement............................................    47
Discussion.......................................................    50
Mr. Zach Graves, Head of Public Policy, Lincoln Network
    Oral Statement...............................................    64
    Written Statement............................................    67
Dr. Wendy Ginsberg, Staff Director, House Committee on Oversight 
    and Reform
    Oral Statement...............................................    77
    Written Statement............................................    80
Dr. Philip G. Joyce
    Oral Statement...............................................    86
    Written Statement............................................    89
Discussion.......................................................    99

             APPENDIX I: ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

The Honorable Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General, Government 
  Accountability Office (GAO)....................................   110
Dr. Mary Mazanec, Director, Congressional Research Service (CRS).   119
Dr. Phillip Swagel, Director, Congressional Budget Office (CBO)..   120

            APPENDIX II: ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

Statement by Rep. Zoe Lofgren....................................   124

 
 MODERNIZING THE CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT AGENCIES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF AN 
                           EVOLVING CONGRESS

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
                            Select Committee on the
                                 Modernization of Congress,
                                                    Washington, DC.
     The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:01 a.m., in Room 
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Derek Kilmer 
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
     Present: Representatives Kilmer, Perlmutter, Phillips, 
Williams, Timmons, Davis, and Joyce.
     The Chairman. Okay. The committee will come to order.
     Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the committee at any time.
     I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening 
statement.
     So one of the most amazing things about serving in 
Congress is the access Members have to expertise on every issue 
imaginable. The range and complexity of issues that Members 
encounter on a daily basis can be totally overwhelming, and 
schedules leave little, if any, time for doing independent 
research. So the ability to call on subject-matter experts for 
nonpartisan analysis on issues before Congress and in their 
districts back home undoubtedly helps Members do their jobs 
better.
     Expertise also helps Congress do its job better. This 
committee has done a lot of work focused on strengthening 
Congress's Article I capacities, and ensuring that Congress is 
well-staffed with expertise is an important part of that. The 
legislative branch's informational and analytical capabilities 
need to be on par with those of the executive branch if 
Congress is to fulfill its obligations as a co-equal branch of 
government.
     The legislative support agencies make Congress and its 
Members smarter. Armed with budget scores, policy analyses, 
legal assessments, and accountability measures, Members are 
better equipped to make informed decisions on behalf of the 
American people.
     So today's hearing is about showcasing the terrific work 
that GAO, CRS, and CBO are doing and highlighting the 
innovative steps they are taking to update their products and 
services. This committee recognizes the tremendous value these 
agencies provide to Congress, and we are looking forward to 
supporting their work in any way we can.
     Today's hearing will also consider how Congress's support 
agencies can adapt to best meet the needs of an institution 
that is constantly evolving. Quick accessibility to information 
is key for Members and staff who spend much of their days on 
the go. If a question comes up in the middle of a hearing, 
staff should be able to instantly find an answer using their 
phones.
     Expertise that meets Members and staff where they are is 
also important. A junior staffer in a personal office probably 
has different informational needs than senior committee 
staffers. And while some Members want verbal briefings, others 
prefer dense reports. Tailoring information to the end user's 
needs facilitates learning and ultimately helps Members and 
staff better serve the American people.
     The expertise that is available to Congress is truly 
remarkable; it is also somewhat of a mystery to many who work 
on the Hill. I am hoping we can also discuss how the agencies 
can ensure that Members and staff know about the incredible 
array of resources available to them.
     The committee will once again make use of the committee 
rules we adopted earlier this year that give us the flexibility 
to experiment with how we structure our hearings. The goal is 
to encourage thoughtful discussion and the civil exchange of 
ideas and opinions.
     So here is the wonky part. Therefore, in accordance with 
clause 2(j) of House rule XI, we will allow up to 30 minutes of 
extended questioning per witness. And, without objection, time 
will not be strictly segregated between the witnesses, which 
will allow for extended back-and-forth exchanges between 
members and the witnesses.
     Vice Chair Timmons and I will manage the time to ensure 
that every member has equal opportunity to participate. Any 
member who wishes to speak should signal their request to me or 
Vice Chair Timmons.
     Additionally, members who wish to claim their individual 5 
minutes to question each witness pursuant to clause 2(j)(2) of 
rule XI will be permitted to do so following the period of 
extended questioning.
     I feel like I really nailed that, you guys.
     All right. I would like to now invite Vice Chair Timmons 
to share some opening remarks.
     Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
     Good morning. Great to be with you. Sorry for the schedule 
change. We appreciate you all accommodating it. And, really, I 
just want to say thank you so much for coming, yourselves. It 
means a lot.
     And we are here to discuss what additional tools and 
resources you all need to do your jobs better. And we have been 
trying to fix the same problems for decades. Immigration comes 
to the front of mind--debt, healthcare. We are not really 
getting very far, and we have to change the way we are doing 
things in Congress.
     And so the purpose of this committee is how to make 
Congress more effective, efficient, and transparent for the 
American people. That is the tag line. But, really, it is, how 
do we solve these big challenges that we are facing? And, 
honestly, your role in how to make Congress do its job better 
could not be more important. The resources that you all provide 
really make a big difference.
     And the question is, what can we do to help Members of 
Congress and to help your various groups, support agencies, 
make us better at our job? And so, really, we appreciate you 
taking the time. Our hope is to figure out what we can do to 
help you do your jobs better so Congress can do its job better.
     So, again, just thank you so much for taking the time to 
come, yourselves. And we look forward to learning more. And be 
prepared; this is not a normal hearing. We will all ask 
questions, and we will go back and forth, and it is really more 
of a roundtable setting. So it should be fun, and, again, thank 
you for being here.
     The Chairman. Terrific.
     We have two panels today. I am honored to welcome our 
first panelists who are here to share with us the efforts their 
agencies are taking to continue providing top-notch support to 
Congress.
     Witnesses are reminded that your written statements will 
be made part of the record.
     Our first witness is Gene Dodaro, the Comptroller General 
of the United States and the head of the Government 
Accountability Office. He has served in that role since 
December of 2010. Previously, he served as Acting Comptroller 
General and as the Chief Operating Officer of the GAO.
     Mr. Dodaro, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE GENE DODARO, COMPTROLLER GENERAL, 
    GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; MARY MAZANEC, PH.D., 
 DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE; AND PHILLIP SWAGEL, 
          PH.D., DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

             STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GENE DODARO

     Mr. Dodaro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congressman 
Timmons. Good to see you both this morning. I appreciate the 
opportunity to talk about GAO's service to the Congress.
     GAO has evolved over the past century--and, this year, we 
celebrate the 100th anniversary of the GAO--to provide a wide 
range of services to the Congress. For example, we deploy 
multidisciplinary teams of subject-area and technical experts 
to look at hundreds of Federal programs and activities every 
year. Now, these audits result in tens of billions of dollars 
in financial benefits to the government, as well as over a 
thousand improvements to government operations, public safety, 
improvement of services to the American people.
     Secondly, we have developed the capabilities, evolved over 
time, in order to monitor, real-time, what is happening, 
particularly in national emergencies. For example, on the 
coronavirus issues now, we have been giving monthly briefings 
to the Congress. Since the March 2020 CARES Act, we have been 
reporting bimonthly. We have issued over 100 reports to the 
Congress, made over 200 recommendations to improve the Federal 
response to the coronavirus issue as well as increase the 
transparency and accountability of the $4.8 trillion that 
Congress has appropriated for those funds.
     We have also greatly expanded our capabilities in the 
science and technology area. We are doing many more reviews, 
technology assessments--artificial intelligence, quantum 
computing, 5G. We have many underway. We have increased the 
short-term and medium-term products to the Congress in the 
technology area based upon a need that was demonstrated 
recently, and also to provide more technical assistance to the 
Congress.
     We are on track to enhance our operations in the science 
and technology area with a plan that we were asked to provide 
to Congress in 2019, so we will more than double the size of 
that group by the end of this fiscal year. And I have asked for 
additional resources from the Congress. This is a top priority 
for me, and I believe we need to be able to provide this for 
the Congress as well.
     We have also developed the capability to identify overlap, 
duplication, and fragmentation in the Federal Government. Our 
work there has resulted, in the last decade, in 1,200 
recommendations. And Congress has acted, either fully or 
partially, and the administration, on over 70 percent of those, 
and it has already resulted in half a trillion dollars in 
financial benefits to the government.
     Now, of course, we provide our traditional financial 
management operations as well. We audit the financial 
statements of the government. We give advice to the Congress on 
the fiscal trajectory issues, the debt issues, and other 
factors.
     And then we also act as guardians of the role of the 
Congress to control the power of the purse. We issue legal 
opinions on the impoundment issues, on antideficiency issues, 
any appropriation law issues. We have a wide range of services.
     Now, I would say, we are also well-postured in order to 
continue to evolve to meet the needs of the Congress as they 
change. You know, GAO has a unique structure. The Comptroller 
General is selected from a bipartisan, bicameral congressional 
commission, you know, confirmed by the Senate, for a 15-year 
term. So we have more continuity than any other Federal agency, 
and it is important, then, to use that wisely to continue to 
enhance our services.
     We have a tremendous, dedicated, talented, 
multidisciplinary task force with all sorts of skills. We have 
a strong strategic planning and strategic foresight operation. 
We have been ranked consistently in the Best Places to Work in 
the Federal Government. This year, we were ranked number one in 
midsize agencies across the government. We have an extensive 
network of experts who work with the private sector, academia, 
the National Academies, and other services.
     So I am happy to be here. I appreciate the interest in 
GAO. And I would be happy to enter into a discussion, dialogue, 
about how we can continue to work on evolving to meet the 
Congress's needs.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Our next witness is Mary Mazanec. Dr. Mazanec has served as 
Director of the Congressional Research Service since December 
2011.
    Before joining CRS, Dr. Mazanec served as a Deputy 
Assistant Secretary and Director of the Office of Medicine, 
Science, and Public Health in the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the Department of 
Health and Human Services.
    Dr. Mazanec, welcome. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                STATEMENT OF MARY MAZANEC, PH.D.

    Ms. Mazanec. Chairman Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons----
    Mr. Dodaro. Press it one more time. There we go.
    Ms. Mazanec. Is it on?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yep.
    The Chairman. Now it is on.
    Ms. Mazanec. Anyway, thank you for the opportunity to speak 
with you today about the efforts of the Congressional Research 
Service to optimize its services for Congress.
    In addition to addressing your questions, I will highlight 
some of the initiatives CRS has undertaken to ensure that we 
continue to provide exceptional support to a 21st-century 
Congress. I will also outline some of the challenges that CRS 
faces as it strives to keep pace with the evolving needs of 
Congress.
    Since its establishment in 1914, CRS has diligently carried 
out its mandate to provide Congress with timely, objective, 
nonpartisan research, analysis, and information. However, the 
current Congress operates in a markedly different environment 
than that of its predecessors. In addition, Congress continues 
to grapple with increasingly complex public policy issues in a 
period of constrained resources.
    Also, technological advancements provide Congress immediate 
access to more information sources than at any prior time in 
history. However, not all of these sources are authoritative 
and without bias. Also as a result of advances in IT, 
congressional offices can now instantly communicate by way of 
email, the internet, and other web-based applications. These 
innovations have created expectations on the part of 
congressional users that the information, analysis, and 
consultative support they need will be readily available and 
accessible whenever and wherever they wish to retrieve it.
    To this end, as Congress has evolved and in response to 
feedback from congressional stakeholders, the Service has 
undertaken a number of initiatives. And I want to give you some 
examples.
    In order to meet the diverse needs of congressional users, 
in addition to our longer analytical reports, the Service has 
developed shorter, more concise products to provide timely 
information and analysis on emerging issues.
    Also, CRS has diversified its product line, creating and 
piloting new visual and audio formats such as instructional 
videos, interactive graphics, and podcasts. These newer 
products enable Members and staff to access the Service's 
expertise at their convenience and in a format that they 
prefer.
    In response to congressional interest, CRS has instituted 
hiring actions to bolster expertise in emerging or expanding 
policy areas. For example, CRS created 12 additional positions 
to strengthen our support on science and technology issues.
    The Service continues to work with the Library's Office of 
the Chief Information Officer to modernize its IT 
infrastructure. This multiyear initiative will provide CRS 
staff with the best resources to create and deliver products 
and services to Congress.
    Finally, CRS continues to collaborate with the Legislative 
Branch Bulk Data Task Force, the House Clerk, and the House 
Legislative Counsel to implement modern legislative data 
interchanges and develop tools and data standards that are 
critical to analyzing the impact of proposed legislation.
    Now I would like to turn and flag three pressing challenges 
that the Service faces.
    First, continued recruitment and retention of a dedicated, 
professional workforce is essential to the Service's mission 
and is a top priority for CRS. Given the current market for 
talent, this will require resources to bolster and replenish 
the analytical capacity necessary to support the Congress.
    Additionally, CRS recognizes that Congress represents an 
increasingly diverse constituency. Therefore, it is imperative 
that the Service continues to build and maintain a diverse 
workforce. As such, CRS is implementing a number of strategies 
to address this other top priority.
    Second, preserving CRS's institutional knowledge is an 
important component to our ability to serve you. CRS is 
developing and implementing strategies to manage the knowledge 
that it creates, including the capture of tacit knowledge held 
by senior analysts, attorneys, and information professionals.
    Third, our experience during the pandemic only reinforced 
the fact that information technology is a critical tool that 
the Service employs to accomplish its mission. Implementing and 
maintaining useful technology is costly and labor-intensive yet 
mandatory to support our work for you.
    Finally, I want to thank you for allowing me to contribute 
to this discussion today, and I will be happy to respond to 
your questions.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Mazanec.
    And our final witness on this panel is Phillip Swagel. Dr. 
Swagel has served as the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office since June of 2019.
    Prior to joining CBO, he was a professor of international 
economics at the University of Maryland's School of Public 
Policy. He previously served as the Assistant Secretary of the 
Treasury for Economic Policy from 2006 to 2009. Dr. Swagel has 
also served as chief of staff and as a senior economist at the 
White House Council of Economic Advisers.
    Dr. Swagel, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

               STATEMENT OF PHILLIP SWAGEL, PH.D.

    Mr. Swagel. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Kilmer, Vice Chair 
Timmons, and members of the select committee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to discuss the efforts of the Congressional Budget 
Office to enhance our transparency, our effectiveness, and 
efficiency.
    Today, I will highlight four aspects of our work.
    First, CBO is focused on responsiveness and on 
transparency. Beginning in fiscal year 2019, the Congress 
increased our budget to bolster that process, to expand 
staffing in high-demand areas, such as healthcare and 
immigration, to organize our staff to work on broader shared 
portfolios, and to publish more data and documentation about 
our methods. And we report to the Congress about our work in 
progress every 3 months.
    We work hard to make our work accessible. We have improved 
access to our cost estimates, in particular, on our website, 
for example, by improving our search function and adding more 
information to the web pages for each bill. There is a link to 
the bill text and other information on Congress.gov from the 
CBO landing pages.
    Okay. So that is one, on responsiveness and transparency.
    Second, we are working, you know, as my colleagues here in 
the other agencies have said, to increase the diversity of our 
workforce. And attracting and retaining a diverse workforce, it 
helps us have the best possible staff, and our work benefits 
from these different perspectives and different experiences.
    So, last year, in 2020, we created a diversity and 
inclusion working group. And the mandate of that group includes 
recommending ways to increase the representation of diverse 
staff--of women, minorities, people with disabilities--in our 
agency's workforce and then, on the substance of what we do, to 
ensure that all staff can contribute successfully to our work 
and to our culture.
    So that is number two.
    Number three is, we at CBO are increasing access to data. 
We have in place more than three dozen data agreements for 
protected information, and we are working to arrange agreements 
that allow our analysts even greater access to data, especially 
remote data. We have done a lot during the pandemic to enhance 
our ability to access information remotely and to do it 
securely, as well, to guard against cyber threats.
    And fourth and lastly, we continue to make organizational 
changes and operational changes to better serve the Congress. 
And part of that is that, as legislation has grown more 
complex, we are just doing more work and spending more time 
providing technical assistance during the drafting stage of 
legislation. You know, so it doesn't always result in a cost 
estimate, but our work will be generally with the committee 
staff while they are developing legislation.
    On cost estimates, we have prepared cost estimates more 
often for bills that are heading for votes without being marked 
up for committees. And we strive to do this to meet the needs 
of the Congress while fulfilling our statutory requirement to 
prepare cost estimates for bills approved by committees and 
other reports specified in law about the budget and the 
economy.
    We have reorganized our staff as well. You know, part of it 
is to address three priority areas that we see the Congress 
focusing on. One is healthcare, second is income security, and 
a third is the combination of climate, energy, and 
infrastructure. And then we have also created a new unit in our 
Budget Analysis Division focused on education, housing, and 
finance, essentially to improve our capacity to do cost 
estimates in those areas.
    So let me finish there. In conclusion, CBO remains 
committed to becoming even more transparent, more effective, 
and more efficient, and we will continue to innovate to best 
support the Congress.
    Thank you.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Chairman. Thank you.
    I now recognize myself and Vice Chair Timmons to begin a 
period of extended questioning of the witnesses. Any member who 
wishes to speak should just signal their request to either me 
or to Vice Chair Timmons.
    So I have two threads I want to pull, and then I am eager 
to kick it to others.
    One, I just want to give you an opportunity--we are going 
to hear from a second panel of folks who have looked at your 
agencies from the outside and maybe have some ideas around 
areas we could optimize, better support your missions. I know 
you had a chance to look at their testimony, and I just wanted 
to invite--if you have insights into anything that they are 
going to tell us, I want to give you an opportunity to swing at 
that pitch. So anybody have anything they want to say on that 
front?
    Yeah, go ahead. And I will just go down the line.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. First, I appreciate the interest, always, 
from anybody, and ideas. And that is the way you improve your 
operations.
    The person who will be testifying regarding GAO is, you 
know, complimentary of the accomplishments of the agency and is 
advocating for additional resources and makes a number of 
suggestions. I am, obviously, very supportive of the increased 
resources there.
    There is one proposal, though, a major proposal, that is 
made that I am not in favor of at all. And that is creating a 
separate entity within GAO for science and technology policy 
issues.
    This is how duplication and overlap start in the Federal 
Government. We have issued hundreds of reports on these issues 
over the years, and this is not a good idea. And I also don't 
think that--placing a decades-old model that Congress has 
decided not to fund for 25 years in GAO is not my idea of 
modernization. And I just think it would be a bad idea.
    I think that the independent study done by the National 
Academy of Public Administration that concluded that Congress 
support GAO and CRS and, if they wanted additional--if Congress 
wanted an additional resource, to create a small office in the 
Congress for technology absorption issues, I think that is a 
better approach in those areas.
    And so, you know, I mean, to take, you know, as I am 
saying, an old model and put it in an otherwise well-
functioning organization, it reminds me of the Hippocratic 
Oath, you know, ``First, do no harm.'' And I think that that 
would harm GAO's reputation over time.
    And I am happy to talk to Congress and focus on what 
outcomes that you want, as opposed to what kind of process, you 
know, that we decide, you know, and how we manage the agency. 
But bifurcating an agency is not a good idea.
    The Chairman. Uh-huh.
    Go ahead.
    Ms. Mazanec. Okay. So I read with great interest----
    The Chairman. You may want to move the mike closer. It may 
be on, but just far away.
    Ms. Mazanec. Is it on?
    The Chairman. That is on. Yeah.
    Ms. Mazanec. Okay. Thank you.
    I take feedback about CRS very seriously, and I wish we 
could actually get more feedback from congressional users so 
that we can help you better.
    There are some points in her testimony that I agree with, 
and then there are other points that I do not concur with.
    So I agree with the fact that Congress needs shorter 
products. We recognized this need about 5, 6 years ago and 
started to create shorter products. We serve a diverse 
congressional user population, and they have varying needs.
    I do not agree that the longer analytical reports are not 
being read. I have heard from Members and from congressional 
staff that they do read our longer analytical reports.
    We are always trying to present our research and analysis 
in different and new formats to be digested by the 
congressional user in the way that they find best for them.
    So that is one point.
    An issue was raised about a timeliness of a product. And 
that was the first I heard about that. Timeliness is one of our 
core values. We do whatever we can to meet your deadlines.
    However, we are a high-volume operation. In fiscal year 
2020, we had over 75,000 targeted research requests, and we 
have limited staff. And so we do prioritize, starting with 
requests that are time-sensitive--if they are tied to floor 
action, a markup, or something that is moving.
    We do talk to the requester. We try to come up with an 
agreed-upon approach moving forward. We try to meet your 
timeline, like I said, with what we can deliver on your 
timeline. Because we know you have deadlines that you have to 
meet.
    The other issue that was surprising to me is an issue that 
was raised about gender issues and gender equity. As the first 
woman to head up CRS since its beginning, I take that very 
seriously. And, in fact, last spring, we did look at hiring, 
salary, and promotion with respect to gender, and we did not 
find a consistent pattern that would suggest that there is a 
gender equity issue. But we are always tracking that and 
watching that.
    Like most Federal agencies, we are challenged by the 
diversity issue. We want to recruit and retain a diverse 
workforce, and that would include women. Actually, we are 
predominantly women; we are 57 percent women at this point in 
time. So we have a strategic initiative focused on that.
    So I think those are the points that I would mention at 
this point, but I am happy to follow up on other ones if you 
have specific questions.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Swagel. Yeah, great, thank you. And, yeah, I thought 
Phil Joyce's testimony was excellent. And, I mean, he has 
written the book on CBO, so it is not surprising.
    I will just mention two things from his testimony.
    One, you know, the first one, I just deeply agree on, and 
this is the key aspect of making sure our work is nonpartisan 
and objective. And, you know, obviously, that is my foremost 
responsibility as Director. You know, fortunately, it is deeply 
embedded in the agency, in the DNA of the agency.
    So, you know, I think that is number one. And this is where 
we are the opposite of Gene and opposite of GAO, right? You 
know, such a valuable part of the work at GAO are the 
recommendations, right? Here is a problem, here are suggestions 
on how to fix it. And, you know, we stay away from that. And, 
again, it is just a different--it is a different mission.
    The other aspect of Phil's testimony that I think is really 
interesting and, again, I agree with is the thinking about the 
broader issues, you know, so the benefits. And, of course, you 
know, at CBO, our bread and butter is the cost, you know, how 
much does something cost. But, of course, we know Members want 
to know, well, what are the benefits? And that, we strive to 
provide as much information as we can--you know, first explain 
the costs and then provide the completeness on what are the 
impacts.
    And, of course, the thing we need to stay away from is 
saying it is worth it or it is not worth it. Because, you know, 
intrinsically, that is up to you, up to policymakers, and not 
up to us. So that is just the balance we are trying to 
maintain. And, again, I agree with what he put.
    On broader issues, the other one that is something I have 
been thinking a lot about is, what more information can we 
provide? And, of course, there is a lot of interest in the 
Congress on distributional analysis. And we have been 
increasing our capacity to do that. You know, we have 
longstanding reports on distributional issues, but we are 
trying to do more, and not just by income but by geography, by 
race, by other dimensions. And the data can be a challenge, but 
we are working on that.
    And the challenge is, there are just these limitations. You 
know, there is no distributional baseline. We don't know the 
distribution of the existing, you know, current law, so it is 
hard to say how the distribution changes for every single piece 
of legislation. But it is something we are working on.
    And kind of the same thing applies to regulation, that the 
idea of having us analyze every regulation is kind of beyond 
the edge of what we do or what we are set up to do. We can do 
it in limited fashion. If there is legislation to undo a 
regulation, well, of course we would analyze that and provide 
the costs and the impacts of that, but it would be hard for us 
to do it more broadly.
    The Chairman. I want to just piggyback on the point you 
just made, because I think--I can't remember if it is the next 
or one of the next hearings we are going to have is related to 
evidence-based policymaking. It seems like one of the things 
that Congress grapples with as an institution. Members can't 
even agree on some of the facts and problem definition, let 
alone solutions. And so looking at how we elevate that issue is 
something that this committee is going to look at.
    Mr. Swagel. Uh-huh.
    The Chairman. You know, a few of you mentioned in your 
testimony, you know, trying to get more data analytic 
capabilities, access to data sets.
    I just want to ask hopefully a short, directed question, 
because I want to get to other members.
    Do you need anything further from Congress to be able to 
drive that kind of 21st-century data analytic capabilities 
within your institutions, or do you have it covered? Do you 
need more access to data sets? Do you need more access to data 
scientists? Do you need more access to--what?
    Ms. Mazanec. All of the above.
    So we do deal with data sets, and we use it both for our 
research but we also use it to track usage and utilization of 
our products and services so that we can better position 
ourselves to support the Congress.
    I think not only resourcing the technology that is needed 
to mine the trends--we do have a balanced scorecard initiative 
at CRS that is in pilot phase--but also personnel, data 
personnel, data scientists, would also be helpful.
    So I agree with that. The more information we can get out 
of the data that we sit on, or data sets that other people have 
that we can obtain--and that would go to our research needs, 
which are expensive. Some of the research materials that we 
need to purchase are expensive. So that would be helpful.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. As part of our effort to enhance our 
capabilities, we have set up an innovation lab in our science 
and technology function, and this would take a lot of data 
sets.
    I have hired our first chief data scientist at GAO from the 
private sector, a well-qualified individual. We are bringing 
the data scientists. It is on our plan for this fiscal year to 
hire six or seven more data scientists. So we are in the midst 
of doing that, and I have asked for additional resources from 
the Congress to expand it.
    Now, this data lab, so far, I mean, we are working on 
identity verification issues as part of a joint project with 
OMB and the Treasury Department to really figure out, you know, 
with all the fraud that occurs, to try to use data matching 
better to do identity verification, how to audit blockchain 
technologies. We have issued a first foundational document on 
how to audit artificial intelligence algorithms and have a 
framework for that. So we are off to a very good start with 
this activity.
    Now, we have asked for some access modernization, and we 
have given Congress draft legislation to give us access to 
people and electronic data more. We have pretty good access to 
information throughout the Federal Government. We have unique 
access that, really, a lot of other people don't have. And so 
it is very important.
    But we are augmenting that with additional data collection. 
I mean, as you know, the amount of data that is available 
exponentially grows every year, and your ability to absorb it 
is very important.
    So we have started on this journey. We have a good plan; we 
are off to a good start. We could use some additional resources 
and help modernizing our access legislation.
    The Chairman. Great.
    Mr. Swagel. Access to data is something I think about a 
lot. We get access in two ways. One is from executive-branch 
agencies, and then two is from the statistical agencies.
    You know, generally, the executive-branch agencies are 
pretty helpful. Just as an example that we are working on right 
now is on the toxic exposure legislation. There are bills in 
both the House and the Senate on this. And we have gotten a lot 
of information from the VA, the Veterans Administration, and it 
is incredibly helpful. It is complex data we are asking for, 
you know, sort of very detailed financial and health 
information. It has taken them a while, but they have basically 
come through. So that is the kind of success; it has just taken 
a while. But they have been helpful.
    The stats agencies--we get a lot of information from the 
Census and the IRS. And, of course, the challenge is the data 
security issue, right? We have to be good stewards of that and 
the security. And we are, and we work carefully with those too. 
And as the Congress wants more from us, that is something I 
would have to start thinking about, is, you know, if we are 
asked to do more distributional work, well, we might need more 
access to data as a result.
    And we are not there yet, so I am not asking for more. And, 
again, I would want to make sure that any data we get are just, 
sort of, as limited as possible. So distinguish us from, you 
know, say, JCT, our sister agency, that has much broader access 
to tax information. And, you know, that is their business, and 
I just want to stay limited. But it is something I am thinking 
about.
    Ms. Mazanec. Can I----
    The Chairman. Go ahead. Yeah, sure.
    Ms. Mazanec. Can I add----
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Ms. Mazanec [continuing]. Something? After listening to my 
colleagues, I would like to make another point.
    We also rely on data from executive-branch agencies to 
inform our work for you. It is critical that we have access to 
the data. Occasionally, executive-branch agencies are reluctant 
to share data with us. They ask us to submit a formal FOIA 
request, or they ask us why we need the data, who is it for, or 
they try to put restrictions on use of the data, where they 
don't want us to share it with third parties. All of that would 
make it more difficult for us to support you.
    My authority to get information from the executive-branch 
agencies is in the organic statute. It is derived from the 
committees, and the committees have to authorize or I have to 
act as an agent of the committee. I do not have subpoena power. 
So anything to strengthen the authority that I have or the 
ability for me to get the data would be appreciated.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Go ahead.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
    Well, first, you said you liked feedback at CRS. Let me 
give you my feedback. I have had an incredible time working 
with some of your cybersecurity experts. Probably spent, I 
don't know, 6 or 8 hours with them. And they are extremely 
knowledgeable and generous with their time. So I have had a 
great experience.
    Along those lines, what percent of Congressmembers or staff 
do you--offices--do you think reaches out to CRS on an annual 
or a 2-year basis?
    Ms. Mazanec. So, every year, virtually 100 percent of 
Members' offices and committees use CRS in some manner. I think 
the real challenge is making congressional users aware of the 
full spectrum of support that we offer to them and that it is 
not just our written products.
    And so we have intensified our outreach, especially at the 
beginning of a Congress or the beginning of a session, to try 
to make them aware of everything that we can do to support 
their work for the American people.
    Mr. Timmons. I am surprised at that answer, but I think 
that is fantastic. Thank you.
    Each of your agencies mentioned retention and recruitment 
as an issue. Obviously, during the pandemic, we saw the 
capabilities of videoteleconferencing. And do you anticipate 
offering telework positions?
    Obviously, you are somewhat limited with your resources, 
but I have to tell you, the dollar goes a lot further in South 
Carolina than it does here in Washington.
    So, you know, is that something you all are looking at to 
try to facilitate better staffing opportunities?
    Mr. Swagel. I can answer first.
    Yes, it is. And, you know, we anticipate, as we continue to 
come back into the office, you know, more fully, that we will 
have some positions that staff have the option to be fully 
remote. It is going to be, you know, a limited number, and we 
are going to look at it carefully and start carefully, but I do 
anticipate that.
    And then it could be for spans of work. It could be someone 
is going to be able to work for a couple weeks remotely, you 
know, maybe, if not full-time. So we do see doing that.
    Ms. Mazanec. So we were in a hybrid situation pre-pandemic. 
We had a telework option. Within a 24-hour period at the start 
of the pandemic, we transitioned to a virtual environment. And 
I think we have done fairly well.
    Telework is governed by a side agreement to our CBA. We are 
in the middle of negotiations. We are also within the Library, 
and the Library has a framework for telework.
    We certainly have learned a great deal about the experience 
during a pandemic. I suspect that, post-pandemic, we will have, 
again, a hybrid work environment with increased flexibilities.
    We will not--we will have telework within the capital 
region, but, at this point, we are not planning to offer 
telework at a distance.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. First, you know, we don't have a problem 
with recruitment and retention. I mean, our retention rate is 
94 percent. Past few years, it has gone down. I mean, we are 
only, like, you know, 5 percent attrition, we are expecting.
    We have been able to attract and retain a very diverse 
workforce in GAO. We have 58 percent women, 34 percent 
minorities. We have been ranked number one in the government 
for several years on commitment to diversity, equity, and 
inclusion issues.
    We allowed telework pre-pandemic in a very generous way. 
People could work up to, you know, 66 out of 80 hours in a 2-
week pay period remotely and telework. I expect that to 
continue. That is why we didn't have much problem moving to 
telework.
    Now, what we have learned, though, in the pandemic, as you 
are saying, Congressman Timmons, is that, when we opened up 
recruitment, particularly for interns, which is our main 
pipeline for hiring, we were able to get a more diverse group 
of interns by not having them be in our field offices or in GAO 
headquarters. So we are moving to have our internship program 
be open for more remote learning as well.
    And I have a group studying what the operating posture 
would look like when we come out of the pandemic, and then we 
will have to negotiate with the union. But these are very 
important issues, so I am open to considering these things. 
But, you know--so we will work through them.
    But on the intern thing, I think it is a great idea. And I 
have talked to a number of other Members who have the same 
views that you do.
    Mr. Timmons. Great.
    One other quick question. We made recommendations last 
Congress regarding the schedule to essentially be here more and 
travel less.
    I imagine it wouldn't affect your two agencies if Congress 
was here 50 percent more--for example, in 2019, we were here 65 
full working days and 66 travel days. You can make some changes 
to the schedule that would allow us to be here 90 days, maybe 
110 full days a year. I don't think it would affect you all.
    But there was talk that maybe you all have issues with the 
congressional calendar and capacity. Could you speak to that? 
Or is that----
    Mr. Swagel. Sure, sure. I can speak.
    You know, we work however the Congress works. You know, the 
challenges with the calendar and the schedule come, you know, 
just in terms of the budget process, right? The way the budget 
process is working is not exactly the way it was set down in 
the 1975 act. We will put it that way.
    So that poses a challenge. I mean, even things like, when 
is our next budget update? Well, knowing if the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act and whatever the next, you know, 
reconciliation bill, if those are enacted or not enacted, you 
know, that would affect the macro-economy, that would affect, 
you know, sort of, throughout the budget. And so we are sort of 
on hold with our next budget update, waiting. So that is the 
kind of scheduling challenge we have.
    Mr. Timmons. So it is not so much, if Congress were here 
more, it would create a capacity issue. It is more whether we 
do our job in a timely manner, and that is more the issue.
    Mr. Swagel. Right. I mean, I think--and we support the 
Congress however the Congress works----
    Mr. Timmons. Okay.
    Mr. Swagel [continuing]. But those are the challenges. And, 
when Congress is away, you know, we are pretty engaged with the 
staff, so, you know, that works fine.
    Mr. Timmons. Do you all have any issues if Congress was 
here 50 percent more full working days?
    Mr. Dodaro. No.
    Mr. Timmons. No capacity issues? Okay.
    Mr. Dodaro. No.
    Ms. Mazanec. No.
    Mr. Dodaro. The main thing I would comment on is, if there 
is anything that could be done to make sure that the 
appropriations are done on time.
    You know, one thing I never aspired to be in the government 
is an expert managing under continuing resolutions. And that 
has an effect on your ability to plan and manage. You know, I 
mean, it would affect people in the private sector or affect 
anybody.
    And so, you know, we have been able to adapt and deal with 
things, but, to me, that is the most important timing issue 
that I would encourage, you know, Congress to consider.
    Mr. Timmons. Sure.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Ms. Williams is on virtually.
    Ms. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to apologize to all of our witnesses and the 
fellow committee members this morning for being virtual and not 
in person. But, going back to Mr. Timmons and talking about 
scheduling, Congress needs a scheduler, because I have three 
committee meetings that are running concurrently this morning 
and trying to make it work.
    So I apologize when I have to drop off, but I also have a 
full House Financial Services Committee meeting and a T&I 
subcommittee hearing on aviation, which--my district has the 
world's busiest airport, and this is something that I also must 
chime in on. So, again, Congress needs a scheduler.
    But I am so glad to hear about the diverse hires in the GAO 
office and all that you have done to make sure that your 
offices are truly representative of our country and the 
diversity that makes up so many of our districts, because we 
know that our lived experiences that we bring to the table in 
our work makes our country so much better and so much more 
rich.
    And so I am just wondering of some ideas and strategies 
that we could share with CRS. And I am thrilled to hear that 
you have such a high number of women working at CRS, but would 
love to hear more around direct strategies to increase the 
diversity in the office.
    Ms. Mazanec. I suspect that is my question. So----
    Ms. Williams. And maybe the office of GAO can give some 
recommendations since they have done such a great job at 
diverse hires.
    Ms. Mazanec. So, right now, our staff is roughly 75 percent 
White and then 25 percent non-White. And, over the last--at 
least the last 6 years, diversity has been a top priority--
another top priority for us.
    I stood up a diversity and inclusion workgroup to make 
recommendations about how we can increase the percentage or the 
number of applicants to our jobs that come from diverse 
backgrounds.
    And we also have expanded our outreach efforts so that we 
are reaching out to entities that represent underrepresented 
populations. We participated in 42 job fairs last year, many of 
which were held by institutions, colleges, schools that have a 
diverse student population.
    We are also trying to guarantee that our hiring panels have 
diversity represented.
    And so, with all of that, my hope is that we will start to 
see more diverse applicants in the pool. Anecdotally, the last 
two hiring panels that I served on, I was very happy to see 
such a diverse applicant pool.
    And then, once we are able to hire individuals, we want to 
also be able to retain them. So we want our workplace to be 
inclusive. To that end, we have, in the past year, provided 
four trainings to staff on topics such as allyship and 
microaggressions, and we also added a fifth training session 
for managers on conflict resolution, alternate dispute 
resolution.
    So I would love to hear if there are other things that we 
could put in place in CRS to address the challenge of 
diversity.
    Ms. Williams. Thank you.
    Anyone want to give any tips on how you have been 
successful at increasing the diversity in your respective 
agencies?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, I have made it a key priority of my 
tenure. And I have a special assistant for diversity, equity, 
and inclusion that reports directly to me. We have focused on 
trying to drive it down through the agency. My job is to set 
the right policies and tone but to have it operate at each 
level.
    And I have allowed people to develop communities of 
practice to--for example, our African-American senior 
executives decided to meet on their own. I meet with them on a 
regular basis. They bring ideas, they bring new energy, they 
bring things that we have been able to implement. I have had 
that same experience with other groups.
    I have set up a Diversity Advisory Council at GAO. We have 
questions in our annual employee survey where we ask people 
their views on our policies, whether their supervisor is 
committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion. And we 
consistently have rated over 80 percent positive response rates 
on that.
    We have training programs. We have a diversity, equity, and 
inclusion strategic plan with performance measures and goals 
that we check.
    So, you know, we employ all, sort of, good management best 
practices to this, but it requires a sustained commitment, and 
you have to set the right tone and follow through.
    Ms. Williams. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Mr. Joyce, and then I have Mr. Phillips, and 
then we will move on to the next panel. If we can have short 
questions and short answers. I want to keep us on track.
    Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Thank you, Chairman Kilmer.
    You know, one of the things I have learned since I got here 
is everybody comes with great ideas on how to get things done. 
And, as an appropriator, Chairman Kilmer and myself, we see a 
lot of these programs, and then you try to fund them, and you 
realize when you are doing that that there is a duplication, 
triplication sometimes, across different agencies regarding 
that.
    And I was just wondering how, you know, GAO, if there is a 
way that you could help us sort of streamline these programs 
and how Members can tell and make these programs achieve their 
outcomes but become more cost-effective in doing so.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. Actually, I mean, we spend a tremendous 
amount of time doing that.
    You know, one of the things that we have been doing for the 
last 11 years is an annual report on overlap, duplication, and 
fragmentation in the Federal Government. We have made 1,200 
recommendations. About 70 percent have been fully or partially 
implemented. That has saved over half a trillion dollars in 
financial benefits. There are tens of billions of dollars 
additionally that could be achieved by following our other 
recommendations in this area.
    But this is an endemic problem, not only among agencies but 
within some individual agencies is a problem. And so we have 
all kind of recommendations on this. We would be happy to brief 
your staff or work with you on it. But that is high on our 
agenda.
    And a lot of our work makes things more efficient--our 
recommendations makes operation more efficient, even if there 
is an overlap or duplication or fragmentation in the agency. 
But it is important, also, that Congress not build in new 
fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in some of the new 
initiatives. Because what we find, the way this happens, as you 
say, everybody has a great idea, and sometimes what is in place 
isn't working effectively, so, rather than try to make it work 
effectively, we create a new program----
    Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Right.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. Here, you know? And this is true 
of--you know, we found, like, dozens of education programs 
outside the Education Department. And, you know, housing 
programs; science, technology, engineering, and math studies--I 
mean, there is just a proliferation of these activities.
    And, you know, on the legitimate side, there are a number 
of problems that require multiple agencies to be involved. And, 
there, you want to have good collaboration and coordination. So 
you can't have everything isolated; you know, you need 
multidisciplinary approaches. But you don't need unnecessary 
duplication.
    Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Thank you very much. And I will take you 
up on that next appropriation season.
    Mr. Dodaro. Sure.
    Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Dodaro. Happy to help, whether you are in town or not.
    The Chairman. All right.
    Mr. Phillips.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you all. I appreciate the value you add to both 
the Congress and the country.
    But would any of you say that Congress takes advantage of 
your respective services, educational and otherwise, in a way 
that you would like to see? Do any of you feel that we really 
get the most out of your respective basket of services? Any of 
you?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. Go ahead, Phil.
    Mr. Phillips. Yeah.
    Mr. Swagel. Okay, sure.
    I mean, I feel like we do. It varies by offices. You know, 
most of our work is for the chairs----
    Mr. Phillips. Of course.
    Mr. Swagel [continuing]. Members, and leadership, and they 
do.
    In some sense, the challenge for us is that we are working 
so much for them--you know, say, in healthcare, you know, the 
different committees in the two chambers on healthcare absorb 
the, you know, time so much that it is hard for us to do other 
things.
    Even when we can't do a cost estimate for, you know, a 
Member who is not a chair or ranker, we provide technical 
assistance. And that varies. In some sense, it is probably on 
me and on CBO to make sure that offices know that they can come 
to us even if they are not the committee chair, and we are 
probably not going to be able to do a cost estimate, but we can 
do other things. And that is something I can do.
    Mr. Phillips. Yeah.
    And I will ask you two the same question.
    And do you track engagements by--do you know how many 
offices have--and can you give us a sense of how many offices--
--
    Mr. Swagel. That is a good question. We do track.
    Mr. Phillips. Okay.
    Mr. Swagel. I don't have it, you know, off the top of my 
head.
    It varies by issue. On healthcare, there is so much across 
the board. On an issue like opioids, or opioid use disorder, we 
hear from many Members. In a sense, that is part of what we do, 
is try to understand the interest in Members and build up our 
technical capacity.
    I would just mention one last thing, which is surprise 
billing----
    Mr. Phillips. Yeah.
    Mr. Swagel [continuing]. Which we realized was an issue 
that was building, and so we built the technical capacity. And 
it was partly from our seeing what was going on in the world 
but also partly from hearing from Members that they wanted to 
know about it. And so we were ready.
    Mr. Phillips. I appreciate it.
    Either of you two, the same question. Do you think Congress 
fully utilizes your services, and do you track engagement, and 
what does that look like?
    Ms. Mazanec. So, as I said, virtually 100 percent of 
offices and committees use CRS in some manner. Not everyone 
uses our full breadth of products and services, and part of 
that is because they are not aware of it. So we have to be more 
aggressive on outreach.
    We do tailor our support to the needs of the individual 
Member or congressional staffer. And since there are very 
diverse needs, that is part of the challenge. Some people want, 
you know, just the high points on an issue. Other people want 
us to do a more deeper dive, an in-depth analysis.
    Mr. Phillips. Okay.
    Ms. Mazanec. And, obviously, any feedback we get from our 
congressional users about what we could do to better support 
them, we try to accommodate them. We try to create new products 
that are useful to them.
    Mr. Phillips. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. You know, we regularly provide services 
to 90 percent of the standing committees of the Congress and 
the members of those committees. We try to outreach to as many 
individual Member offices as we can with brown-bags.
    We also provide training, sort of a GAO 101 training, for 
new congressional staff. We provide training for congressional 
staff on appropriations law and GAO's role in appropriations 
law.
    But I have been trying for a decade to get more GAO 
involvement in the orientation to new Members. And if you could 
help me there. It is not for a lack of trying, all right? I 
have----
    Mr. Phillips. I was hoping we might get there.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yeah.
    Mr. Phillips. And that is exactly my point.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yeah.
    Mr. Phillips. You know, this is my second term, and, as I 
come to recognize the breadth of services that you can provide, 
not to mention the education for new Members, in particular 
when we are bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, is a tremendous 
opportunity.
    And I just encourage our chairs to consider that as you 
move forward. I would have loved a little bit more deep dive 
during our orientation. When Democrats and Republicans digest 
information and education together, I am convinced we process 
it in a much more objective fashion.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yeah.
    Mr. Phillips. And I would strongly encourage our body to 
consider how to incorporate some deep dives into the issues 
facing the country during our orientation program.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. And I would be more than happy to do 
that. I have been trying.
    Mr. Phillips. Well, I am going to champion it.
    Mr. Dodaro. I have been trying. And I think it does have 
the effect that you say.
    And, plus, our policy is we try to encourage as much 
bipartisan requests for our work as possible, and a lot of our 
work comes in requests from committees or----
    Mr. Phillips. Sure.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. Mandates from Congress, which, by 
definition, are bipartisan.
    So those things are very important. And I think it is 
needed now more than ever because of the increased turnover in 
the Congress, not only among Members, but staff are moving 
around quite a bit. You know, this is my 49th year at GAO----
    Mr. Phillips. Wow.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. So I have seen, you know--and it 
is different now than it historically has been, and so that is 
even more important.
    Mr. Phillips. Well, this is my 52nd year on Earth.
    But thank you, very sincerely. And, especially in an era 
where there seem to be two sets of facts, increasingly, even 
within this institution, the more that we can bring people 
together under one set of facts, I strongly encourage.
    And thank you all.
    Mr. Dodaro. I agree. Sure.
    The Chairman. Great.
    Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Can you hear me? Thank you.
    Sorry I am running behind. I actually wanted to get here--
great to see you all here, but--Dr. Mazanec, thank you for what 
you do at CRS.
    I am a little disappointed that we can't do an oversight 
hearing in House Administration to talk about some of the 
issues that I think that--well, I don't set the agenda there, 
so I am hoping that Chairperson Lofgren will and that we can 
talk a little more in depth.
    I am going to submit some questions for the record, because 
I know my colleagues want to get to the next panel, and I do 
too.
    Mr. Davis. But we have some issues with jurisdictional 
issues. You know, many of my colleagues have brought up some 
complaints with some of the products that are coming in, be it 
timeliness, be it a possible bias, some other issues, the 
quality of product, that I would really like to sit down with 
you personally and talk about and be able to get some of these 
questions answered--and accountability too. Whereas, we can 
then achieve the same goals that I think all of us around this 
table want to see CRS and every staff member in each office be 
able to achieve.
    So I won't take any more time, unless you wanted to make a 
comment?
    Ms. Mazanec. Well, I will be happy to follow up with you so 
that we can have an in-depth discussion on some of the issues 
you have just mentioned.
    Mr. Davis. Well, I had a really good set of questions, but 
because I couldn't get here on time, Chair Kilmer is doing the 
right thing and not allowing me to sit and talk for 20 minutes.
    So thank you for that.
    And you are welcome, to everybody else.
    But, Doctor, let's do that. Again, even if we could do a 
one-on-one at some point, I would really, truly appreciate it, 
as we move into this Congress and the next.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Mazanec. Okay.
    Mr. Davis. I yield back.
    The Chairman. I do want to actually just--and we really 
have to get to the next panel, so if I can ask for just really 
quick responses.
    One of the points that Mr. Davis mentioned, I think, is a 
thread that we could pull on. And some of you in your 
testimony--and I think, Dr. Mazanec, you mentioned that, you 
know, you worked with Gallup and you, you know, tried to survey 
how are we doing, basically.
    I guess one of the things I am interested in is: Do your 
agencies get or have the opportunity for really real-time 
feedback on--you know, so I got this report. You know, I mean, 
there are a lot of things that I consume where I can go on Yelp 
or I can, you know, provide immediate feedback. You know, when 
I go through the airport, I clear. Before I am done, I have an 
email saying, ``How was your experience?''
    Do your agencies do something like that where, when I get a 
CRS report or I get a GAO report, there is an immediate 
opportunity as an end user to say this was helpful, this wasn't 
helpful, here is how it could have been more helpful? Do you 
already do that?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yeah, we----
    The Chairman. GAO does?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yeah, we do at GAO. We don't get a high 
response rate back from the Congress, but we ask the question. 
You know, some people say, ``Well, look, we are happy. If we 
are not happy, we will let you know''----
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. You know? So I assume that. But we 
do ask----
    The Chairman. Yeah.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. Was it timely? Did it meet your 
needs?
    And then, you know, I try to meet with chairs and ranking 
members of all the committees and get direct feedback, too, 
that way. That is not the only way we do it, but we do it on 
a----
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. Product-by-product basis as well.
    Ms. Mazanec. So we do try to solicit feedback. 
Congressional attendees at our seminars are asked to fill out a 
form afterwards to provide us with feedback. We get a lot of 
feedback. It is not officially solicited. We can explore a more 
regular solicitation.
    Part of the challenge we have is the response rate. Even 
with the Gallup surveys that we have done every 2 years, we get 
10 percent of the people that we send the survey to to actually 
respond.
    I would love to get more feedback from Members. I do try to 
meet with Members, but you have busy schedules. I can't always 
get a meeting with you. I am happy to meet with your chief of 
staff or your LD to get feedback. Obviously, if you have an 
issue with a report that we have issued or a response to our 
request, I want to hear about it.
    The Chairman. I know we have to get to the next panel, 
but----
    Mr. Swagel. Yeah.
    The Chairman [continuing]. If you have just a quick swing?
    Mr. Swagel. I will be super-fast.
    We do it in two ways. One is directly. You know, if 
somebody doesn't like a cost estimate or has objections with 
it, they find us quickly. So that is one. We do surveys. We 
track things on our website, you know, where people are coming 
from. So we do a little bit.
    We also work with the Budget Committees. And, you know, 
both sides, all four corners of the Budget Committees are 
extremely helpful for us, you know, sort of, flagging people 
who are upset or building, you know, moving toward being upset 
with us.
    The Chairman. Terrific.
    I want to thank all three of our distinguished panel 
members for their testimony and for joining us to share their 
insights. Thank you.
    And, with that, let me invite up our second panel. And, 
while they are coming up, I am going to read their bios, just 
so we can stay on schedule.
    We are now joined by three experts who are here to share 
their ideas for modernizing the products and services the 
legislative support agencies provide to an evolving Congress.
    Witnesses are reminded that their written statements will 
be made part of the record.
    Our first witness is Zach Graves. Mr. Graves is the head of 
policy at Lincoln Network. His research and advocacy focus on 
the intersection of technology and governance issues, including 
work to strengthen science and technology expertise and 
capacity in Congress.
    He is a member of the GAO's Polaris Council, an advisory 
body of leading science and technology experts. In 2018-2019, 
he was a technology and democracy fellow at the Harvard Ash 
Center.
    Mr. Graves, if you are ready--are you ready?
    Mr. Graves. All set.
    The Chairman. All right. Cool. We are just rolling, because 
I went a little over time with that last panel.
    But you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENTS OF ZACH GRAVES, HEAD OF PUBLIC POLICY, LINCOLN 
NETWORK; WENDY GINSBERG, PH.D., STAFF DIRECTOR, HOUSE COMMITTEE 
ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM; AND PHILIP G. JOYCE, PH.D., PROFESSOR 
  AND SENIOR ASSOCIATE DEAN, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF 
                         PUBLIC POLICY

                    STATEMENT OF ZACH GRAVES

    Mr. Graves. All right. Thank you.
    Chair Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons, and members of the 
committee, thank you for having me here to testify.
    My name is Zach Graves. I am head of policy at the Lincoln 
Network. We are a right-of-center organization working to 
advance innovation, governance, and national security and work 
to bridge the gap between Silicon Valley and D.C.
    This year marks the 100th anniversary of the nonpartisan 
Government Accountability Office. Over its history, GAO has 
provided essential oversight, insight, and foresight to 
Congress, supporting its legislative and oversight functions.
    This work has a direct and tangible benefit to taxpayers. 
Over the past 20 years, GAO's work has resulted in more than 
$1.1 trillion in savings. GAO's return on investment has 
consistently exceeded over $100 for each dollar of its budget.
    Despite its impressive record, however, GAO's tools and 
resources have not kept up with demand. Even as Federal 
spending and the national debt have massively increased, GAO's 
staffing level is 37 percent smaller than it was three decades 
ago.
    Over its 100-year history, GAO's mission, authorities, 
workforce, and strategic focus have evolved significantly. The 
agency was established as the General Accounting Office in the 
Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, moving this function out of 
the Treasury. Coming out of the New Deal and heading into World 
War II, growing Federal programs placed significant new demands 
on GAO, and it expanded to nearly 15,000 staff.
    The next few decades saw GAO move away from its green-
eyeshade era of accounting-focused work towards program 
evaluation and a more professionalized workforce. By the late 
1960s, GAO was recruiting more staff trained in non-accounting 
fields, including science and technology in particular.
    With the backdrop of an unpopular war in Vietnam and the 
aftermath of Watergate, this period also saw Congress reassert 
itself. This included major reforms in the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970; increased staffing resources; the 
creation of the Congressional Budget Office, which testified 
earlier; and the Office of Technology Assessment, or OTA. These 
reforms helped rebalance Congress's information asymmetry with 
the executive branch and allowed it to reassert itself.
    Coming out of the Cold War and heading into the 1990s, the 
pendulum swung back away from Article I. Congress downsized GAO 
and enacted across-the-board cuts to the legislative branch, 
particularly in the 104th Congress. This included reductions 
for committees and support agencies and the elimination of OTA. 
The GAO emerged out of this period that was perhaps more lean 
and responsive but also significantly more risk-averse.
    Science and technology in GAO: Since OTA was defunded, 
there have been numerous efforts to reestablish its function. 
This led to the creation of a technology assessment pilot in 
GAO in fiscal year 2002. While it had some initial success and 
was praised by outside reviewers, it did languish in relative 
obscurity for nearly two decades.
    In January 2019, GAO elevated this program to become the 
STAA, or Science, Technology Assessment, and Analytics, team. 
With the support of the current Comptroller General, STAA has 
doubled its staff, refined its TA methodology, produced 
numerous spotlights, technology assessments, and other kinds of 
analysis. And its innovation lab has worked to develop 
innovative new approaches to program evaluation and oversight.
    A congressionally directed report by the National Academy 
of Public Administration endorsed STAA but echoed longstanding 
concerns about the suitability of GAO's culture and bureaucracy 
for S&T work and particularly for technology assessments, 
highlighting that there are some major challenges remaining to 
its governance.
    In my written testimony, I list actionable recommendations 
to improve STAA's governance, including adopting some of OTA's 
structural features, like an advisory version of its Governing 
Technology Assessment Board, mirroring the relationship that 
CRS has with the Library of Congress, and having an 
appropriations line item and congressional budget 
justification.
    Importantly, these are ultimately still under the 
Comptroller General's authority and not an independent office. 
Providing additional bureaucratic separation is also something 
that can be done as a spectrum and not an either/or.
    Nor is this an original idea. In 2004 and 2005, Rush Holt 
and Amo Houghton advanced a bipartisan proposal called the CSTA 
that would create an OTA-like office in GAO, and it went 
through several rounds of vetting by then-Comptroller General 
David Walker as well as S&T experts. And there are several 
iterations of this draft with commentary that I am happy to 
provide.
    I also list a number of low-hanging-fruit improvements to 
enhance STAA, including giving it an office in the Capitol, a 
separate website and internet portal, and to have it self-
initiate more reports under the CG's authority rather than to 
react to issues on request, which can take a year or more to 
complete and often are out of touch and not appropriately, you 
know, doing horizon-scanning and the important, sort of, 
foresight work that is key to science and technology issues.
    I also offer recommendations to strengthen GAO writ large, 
including estimating potential savings from unimplemented 
recommendations, which was something that was discussed at the 
earlier panel; addressing internal IT challenges; increasing 
funding for the agency; and adjusting its funding model to be a 
share of Federal discretionary spending so it is not 
constrained by the particular political environment of the 
legislative branch's 302(b) sub-allocation. I also propose a 
series of reauthorization hearings to address the full range of 
GAO reforms, many of which I was not able to get to in my 
testimony.
    Throughout its history, GAO has shown it can adapt and 
restructure to meet new challenges. It has gone through several 
iterations in the past. With new tools such as machine 
learning, cloud-based data analytics, and others, GAO has a 
monumental opportunity to modernize for the next century and 
advance a vision to transform Congress's ability to understand 
and oversee Federal programs in real-time.
    Yet I fear the low salience of these issues, insufficient 
resourcing, and institutional bias towards the status quo risks 
depriving GAO of significant opportunities to stay relevant and 
maximize future taxpayer savings. As we move into the future, 
we must consider that risk-aversion in this domain is, itself, 
a massive risk.
    I look forward to the important work of this committee in 
helping address these challenges, and I thank you for the 
opportunity to testify.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
    And I encourage folks to look at the written testimony too.
    I appreciated you had a number of recommendations you 
thought this committee should pursue. And I know we weren't 
able to get to it in your verbal remarks, but I really 
appreciate it.
    Our next witness is Dr. Wendy Ginsberg. Dr. Ginsberg is the 
staff director on the Government Operations Subcommittee of the 
House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Prior to joining the 
committee, she was a senior program manager at the Partnership 
for Public Service, and, from 2007 to 2017, she served as an 
analyst at the Congressional Research Service.
    Members are reminded that Dr. Ginsberg's testimony today 
represents her own personal thoughts and not those of this 
subcommittee or the chairman.
    Neither her testimony nor her responses to any questions 
will touch on any specific matter the Oversight Committee has 
investigated, the Oversight Committee's investigative 
practices, nor any specific matter that she worked on as an 
analyst at CRS. She will be limited to providing observations 
and recommendations to improve the services of CRS and the 
other agencies that support congressional staff.
    Dr. Ginsberg, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

               STATEMENT OF WENDY GINSBERG, PH.D.

    Ms. Ginsberg. Thank you for that, and thanks for that 
preamble. Thank you, Chairman Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons, and 
other members of the select committee, for inviting me here to 
testify on ways to improve Congress's service agencies.
    Thank you to each of the witnesses from our first panel.
    Honestly, we couldn't perform our constitutional duties 
without them and the hard work of the people in their agencies.
    I have been asked to testify today because of my unique 
perspective on the Congressional Research Service. I proudly 
served as a nonpartisan analyst for nearly a decade. Today, I 
am a user of CRS's services, as the staff director of the 
Committee on Oversight and Reform's Subcommittee on Government 
Operations.
    I proudly serve Chairman Gerald E. Connolly and this Nation 
by conducting oversight of the appropriations of the entirety 
of our Federal Government as well as State and local 
governments. With a jurisdiction so vast, I rely on CRS, the 
Government Accountability Office, and the Congressional Budget 
Office to help me perform the almost insurmountable oversight 
needed to ensure our government runs smoothly and effectively.
    My testimony today represents my own personal thoughts and, 
like Chairman Kilmer said, not the thoughts of the 
subcommittee, the chairman, the full committee, or the 
chairwoman.
    I will make three main points about how the Congressional 
Research Service could take straightforward steps to modernize 
and dramatically improve its services to Congress. These 
comments are laid out in greater detail in my written 
testimony.
    One, CRS must revamp its product line and how its products 
are distributed to Members, congressional staff, and the 
public. Two, CRS must transform its culture to one that is 
focused on customer service. And, three, CRS must refocus its 
efforts on accomplishing its core mission.
    Thirty-, 40-, or even 75-page reports will not be read by 
most congressional staff. I agree, there are a couple who will 
read them all, but most of them won't read them. These reports 
are daunting and, frankly, can confuse staff more than help 
them. CRS must generate products that combine legal and policy 
analysis and not make us go to several sites to figure out the 
policies that we need to know about a single subject.
    And did you know that CRS has podcasts? I know that Dr. 
Mazanec said that on the earlier panel, but you can't find them 
on the website, and there has only been one made this year--
one--in February.
    Most of the videos on the website are more than an hour 
long--too long to be of use to Congress and staff. The CRS 
search engine puts outdated reports at the top of its results 
page. And I can't even try to search for a product on the site 
from my iPhone. As a former CRS analyst, it pains me that the 
great CRS research done by my former colleagues is not more 
easily located by decisionmakers.
    Why is CRS not generating newsletters targeted to each 
committee and subcommittee with products that are likely of 
relevance to them?
    Why is CRS not asking for Member and staff feedback on 
their products and services? There is not a ``feedback'' button 
on the website.
    Moreover, CRS could allow its staff to serve details in 
personal offices and on committees, providing CRS experts the 
opportunity to understand which products work for us and how to 
more effectively provide authoritative information in a timely 
fashion.
    My second point: CRS must evolve its culture to one focused 
on customer service.
    CRS's mission is to serve Congress, yet when we call CRS 
analysts and attorneys, we are sometimes told that our research 
question is the wrong one or that it can't be answered. I have 
been told that my request is not a priority for CRS. I have had 
to contact analysts and attorneys several times to track down 
outstanding requests. On another request, I was told that my 
request was, quote, ``too `in the weeds' for consideration.'' 
CRS is designed for these weeds.
    There are a few simple ways CRS leadership could take 
critical steps toward better customer service.
    First, CRS analysts and attorneys should simply take the 
initiative to place an electronic calendar hold on staff 
calendars for consultation appointments. Even that is so 
helpful to me.
    Next, CRS should consider incorporating customer-service 
metrics into performance reviews. It shouldn't be the whole 
review; we shouldn't be reviewed by a panel of the many. But it 
should be a component of how you are assessed as a CRS analyst.
    Third, CRS must do better in helping its staff adapt to new 
online platforms used by the House and Senate. CRS needs to get 
technology right.
    Finally, analysts and attorneys must connect Members and 
staff directly with the expert or experts they need and not 
send us on a goose chase to collect and find the right people 
to help us answer our questions.
    These actions would help defeat a culture of ``this is not 
my issue'' that currently permeates CRS.
    My final point: CRS must refocus its efforts on 
accomplishing its core mission. CRS, at times, has allowed its 
staff to stray from its mission to serve Congress or allowed 
that mission to atrophy.
    CRS should be anticipating the needs of Congress. Yet, in 
many cases, reports on pertinent legislative and oversight 
issues are released days after the relevant hearing. CRS must 
observe and follow the rhythms of congressional needs and 
prioritize their research and analysis accordingly.
    Additionally, CRS must encourage its staff to engage in the 
academic and policy debates in public forums at academic 
conferences.
    CRS attorneys and analysts either prevented from or 
uninterested in evolving cannot provide Members and staff the 
highest quality of research, analysis, and information that is 
required by the agency's mission.
    I end my testimony by reiterating my high regard for all of 
the support agencies, particularly CRS. I want them to be the 
most effective they can be to help Congress serve this Nation. 
Without them, we repeat errors, we miss nuances, we would 
simply be too overwhelmed to function. We must evolve and 
improve together, leveraging technologies and refocusing 
resources to pack the most punch for this Nation.
    I look forward to the conversation today. Thank you for 
inviting me to testify.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Ginsberg.
    And our final witness on this panel is Philip Joyce. Dr. 
Joyce is senior associate dean and professor of public policy 
at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. He is 
the author of ``The Congressional Budget Office: Honest 
Numbers, Power, and Policymaking.''
    You actually did write the book on CBO.
    Dr. Joyce is a former editor of Public Budgeting and 
Finance, is a past president of the American Association of 
Budget and Program Analysis, and is past chair of the American 
Society for Public Administration's Center on Accountability 
and Performance.
    Dr. Joyce has over a decade of public-sector work 
experience, including 5 years as a principal analyst with the 
Congressional Budget Office.
    Dr. Joyce, thanks for being with us. You are now recognized 
for 5 minutes.

              STATEMENT OF PHILIP G. JOYCE, PH.D.

    Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much.
    Chair Kilmer, Vice Chair Timmons, members of the committee, 
thank you for inviting me to share my views on the role of the 
Congressional Budget Office in supporting the Congress.
    I want to express at the outset my admiration for what this 
committee is trying to accomplish. There is no more important 
issue, in my view, facing our political system than ensuring 
that the Congress remains a strong body capable of serving as 
an independent voice in our political system. Weak, 
understaffed, or outdated support agencies invariably would 
contribute to a weaker Congress and, therefore, transfer power 
to the executive branch.
    I am here to talk specifically about CBO, although I am an 
admirer of all the congressional support agencies. And I would 
note, regarding CBO, that the Congress has a lot to be proud of 
in having established and supported this agency.
    There have, in fact, been many countries who have looked at 
CBO's successes--Australia, Canada, Italy, Korea, and Mexico I 
think are the best examples--and established similar 
independent fiscal agencies. In that sense, congressional 
organization has served as a model for the modernization of 
legislative institutions in other countries.
    I have submitted my statement for the record, but I want to 
highlight three points, and then, if there are others, we can 
discuss them in Q&A.
    And I make these points mainly because I think it is 
important that this committee focus on how we can educate 
Members of Congress on why CBO exists, on how to use CBO, and 
what the limitations are of CBO analyses.
    First, it is important to note that history shows that CBO 
has done exactly what it was intended to do, which is to 
empower the Congress relative to the President and to serve as 
a check on the executive branch.
    When I was researching my book on CBO--and I want to say, 
Mr. Chairman, that it is the best book ever written on CBO 
because it is the only book ever written on CBO. It is also the 
worst book ever written on CBO.
    The Chairman. Oh, sorry.
    Mr. Joyce. There were multiple executive-branch officials 
who told me that they used the fact that there would be CBO 
analyses to prevent more dishonesty in Presidential proposals.
    Second, the most influential effects of having CBO have 
come through its cost estimates of legislation, as Director 
Swagel pointed out. To that end, I think any evaluation of its 
success needs to look at how those estimates are prepared, 
their accuracy, their timeliness, their consistency, and their 
transparency.
    I want to highlight a couple of these.
    CBO has paid a lot of attention over its history to making 
sure that it is using a consistent set of assumptions in 
costing out proposals so that one proposal is not disadvantaged 
relative to another simply because different assumptions are 
used.
    And while CBO, I think, has always tried to be relatively 
transparent in how it presents information to the Congress 
about its assumptions, it has responded, I think, to 
congressional interest in more transparency in a number of ways 
that Director Swagel pointed to in his testimony.
    I have been particularly impressed with the attention to 
data visualization in recent years, which have made CBO 
products much more accessible and understandable. You see much 
less now of, you know, having to read the 40- or 50-page dense 
CBO report, and it gets summarized, I think, much better in a 
way that can be actually accessed by more Members of Congress.
    I would point out one more thing on timeliness, which is, 
it is very important, I think, if the Congress is going to make 
effective use of CBO, for it to avoid considering legislation 
on the floor that does not have a CBO cost estimate. And I 
noticed in CBO's budget justification for last year that 25 
percent of its estimates were--or 25 percent of the bills that 
were considered on the floor did not have a CBO cost estimate. 
And I think that should be avoided.
    Third, there have been criticisms that CBO analyses take an 
overly narrow view by focusing largely on Federal budgetary 
costs and not on the benefits of legislation. This, of course, 
is what the Congressional Budget Act tells them to do, and I do 
think this criticism ignores much of the broader policy 
analysis work that CBO does.
    But, to the extent that anybody thinks that CBO should 
systematically focus on cost and benefits in its estimates of 
legislation, I think that would be problematic, and I think 
that would compromise its nonpartisan reputation, because you 
don't have to move very far from that in order to suggest that 
CBO is essentially saying the Congress ``should do this'' and 
the Congress ``should not do that.''
    In conclusion, far from the Congress needing to reform CBO 
in any kind of major way in pursuit of modernization, CBO--and 
I think the same could be said for GAO and CRS as well--is 
instead one of the most important factors that contributes to 
the modernization of Congress.
    In short, other countries want what the U.S. has. And, 
frankly, they are often flabbergasted to discover that the 
Congress supports a large and influential nonpartisan agency in 
the midst of such a hyperpartisan political environment.
    It is important for the Congress to recognize that a 
credible, nonpartisan CBO is vital to the ability of the 
Congress to set its own fiscal policy and to challenge the 
President--and I mean any President--on policy. If CBO ever 
became viewed as one more source of partisan noise, it would be 
of limited use to the Congress or the Nation.
    The capacity for nonpartisan analysis from all the support 
agencies, not just CBO, should be protected. Once lost, it 
would not easily be regained.
    Thank you, and I look forward to the conversation.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Joyce. And congratulations for 
having the top-selling book on Amazon related to the CBO.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you. Yeah.
    The Chairman. I now recognize myself and Vice Chair Timmons 
to begin a period of extended questioning of the witnesses. Any 
member who wishes to speak should just signal their request to 
either me or to Vice Chair Timmons.
    I have one broad question and one specific question.
    My broad question is, you know, these support agencies were 
all founded in the early to mid- 20th century. They are largely 
all still operating under the same authorizations, even as they 
have had to adapt to changing circumstances.
    Are there any authorities that they currently don't have 
that would help them better fulfill the mandate to support 
Congress? Anything we ought to be looking at in terms of 
additional authorities that ought to be granted to these 
agencies?
    Mr. Joyce. I am happy to start.
    So I do think Director Swagel sort of talked about this a 
little bit in his testimony, but I think, you know, data are 
available in much different ways now than they were when this 
agency was created.
    And I think, you know, in particular, you know, the ability 
to access data electronically--my understanding is that CBO, 
prior to the pandemic, actually periodically had to, sort of, 
drive out to Suitland in order to get its, you know, data from 
the Census, and it got temporary authority to actually access 
the data electronically.
    I think it would be helpful to look into, you know, 
continuing that kind of thing. So I think it is very important 
for them to be able, you know, to access the data that they 
need and to do it in a timely fashion and to not have to go 
through a lot of red tape in order to do that.
    Ms. Ginsberg. I would say, for CRS, I would agree with Dr. 
Mazanec that, at times, we kind of just used our charm and 
persuasion techniques to get information out of the agencies 
that we were hoping to get information from to help tell the 
story to Members of Congress and their staff.
    So it could be a consideration to think about some language 
that would more clearly state that CRS should be considered 
Congress pursuant to FOIA when asking for information.
    I don't know that you want to create something that is an 
adversarial relationship. There should be MOUs or particular 
ways to, again, use just charm and conversation to get things 
done, but it is something worth talking about.
    Mr. Graves. Yeah. I mean, I think there are a couple 
different important points here, one just with respect to 
history. And I don't get into this in my testimony in detail.
    The GAO's authorities have changed at several points over 
its history, sometimes growing, sometimes being more 
constrained. I think it would be worthwhile doing a deeper dive 
into some of that, which is part of why I recommended a series 
of, kind of, reauthorization hearings around the agency to 
really go deep on some of these issues, like their challenges 
getting data from executive agencies or the need to potentially 
put more teeth on recommendations that they make that are 
unimplemented.
    I also note that there are authorities that exist that are 
just not being used. There was some discussion of using IPA 
authority to bring in outside science and technology experts 
for STAA at several different points. As far as I know, I don't 
believe they have started utilizing that yet. So part of that 
is just, sort of, their internal culture and its willingness 
to, sort of, use what tools it has.
    The Chairman. The other thing I wanted to ask about, we had 
testimony earlier this year regarding how State legislatures do 
business and how committees and State legislatures do business.
    I came out of a State legislature; I know Vice Chair 
Timmons did as well. We had some of these capabilities, sort 
of, tied to committees in a State legislature, where there was 
nonpartisan staff related to oversight, kind of like GAO does, 
and related to research and even bill-writing.
    Do you see value in this committee looking at trying to 
cede some of these capabilities within congressional 
committees? Or is the current approach, where these are kind of 
independent agencies that kind of service those committees, is 
that--are we doing it right, or should we be thinking about a 
different model?
    Mr. Joyce. I think it is important for the support agencies 
to have some connection and for there to be an oversight 
responsibility that committees have for making sure that the 
information that is provided continues to be sort of useful and 
timely.
    I think if that is done effectively, I don't think that it 
would be necessary to, sort of, you know, nest nonpartisan 
analysis specifically within the committees. I think, for CBO 
in particular, I think the Budget Committees have actually been 
quite active in making sure, you know, that CBO is responsive.
    Now, CBO has maybe a benefit in the sense that the statute 
actually sort of lays out--you know, there is kind of a pecking 
order for committees that they work with. And those committees 
are, therefore, responsible for making sure that the 
information that is being provided is most useful.
    You know, I think an example of what you are talking about 
actually would be the Joint Committee on Taxation. The Joint 
Committee on Taxation has actually what is, you know, by all 
accounts, a nonpartisan staff but works for the Finance and the 
Ways and Means Committees. And I think, based on everything I 
know, that that works pretty well. But I don't know that I 
would move a lot further with it.
     Ms. Ginsberg. I would say that there have been nonpartisan 
staff who have worked with committees in the past that weren't 
necessarily affiliated with GAO or CRS or any of the service 
agencies.
     But I think a more effective way to make this happen is to 
just really ramp up details and encourage detailees to go in 
and out. That way, you have the separate wall of nonpartisan 
research, but you have somebody with the knowledge and 
experience of what it is like to be on the inside so they know 
how to--they have been the customer; they know what they need 
to get served.
     And CRS just doesn't do that. I know, when I was there, I 
fought to go on a detail, and it just couldn't happen. And it 
was----
     The Chairman. Now you are a full-time detail.
     Ms. Ginsberg. And I was like, ``Yes, it will happen.'' So, 
yeah. And now I am here. So that is my whole life story.
     Mr. Graves. Yeah. I mean, I would agree that--I mean, I 
think the loss of institutional knowledge, you know, as the 
political winds change on committees, is a major challenge. 
Committees are broadly--you know, they have less absorptive 
capacity and, you know, less, sort of, staff capacity than they 
once did. And so, you know, increasing detailees, particularly 
from within the legislative branch, I think, is a really good 
way to do that.
     I think GAO does a fantastic job at that. And particularly 
when it comes to science and technology issues, where Members 
of Congress and their staff typically don't come from those 
technical backgrounds, you know, having that informal, trusted, 
consultative relationship is a tremendous value, at least as 
valuable as producing the, sort of, long reports themselves.
     The Chairman. Thank you.
     Go ahead, Vice Chair Timmons.
     Mr. Timmons. Thank you.
     Dr. Ginsberg, thank you for your testimony. It is very 
helpful to get another perspective. I have had a good 
experience, but I have only used them on a very limited basis, 
and this has been very helpful.
     In addition to--I mean, I hear where you are coming from. 
Thirty, 40, 70 pages, that is long. Not a lot of people are 
going to read them. I mean, could we just--a lot of those have 
executive summaries, though.
     I mean, could we--we still need the longer product to dive 
deep. But I do agree that maybe, if it is over a certain number 
of pages, there should be a 3-pager or a 2-pager, something 
like that. That seems like a reasonable request.
     Ms. Ginsberg. I wholeheartedly agree with you. There are 
people who read the really long reports, but there are not a 
lot of them on the Hill, and they are going to be on the 
committees and the--yeah, they are usually going to be on the 
committees, with a deeper dive.
     CRS is getting better at creating suites of products. And, 
frankly, the fact that there are, sort of--at the beginning of 
each report, there is, like, an overview of the report. That is 
pretty new. That actually happened when I was at CRS. So 
probably sometime around 2013, 2014 was when they started doing 
the executive summaries. Before that, they just didn't do it.
     I think a lot of what we see at CRS, frankly, is because 
you get promoted based on the length and depth of your work. So 
there is an internal incentive to create longer products so 
that you go through the promotion process, where, I think, for 
the benefit of most staffers on the Hill, the shorter products 
would be a more effective way to feed us the information.
     And that is not to say--I don't want to equate shorter 
with not as knowledgeable. I think, in fact, shorter can be 
more knowledgeable and harder to write. I don't think it is any 
simpler. I think it is much more difficult to write in a pithy 
way.
     Mr. Timmons. And I have actually never used their search 
engine. I always use Google and just type ``CRS'' at the 
beginning of whatever I want. But I do agree that we could 
modernize it a little bit and maybe update it.
     Ms. Ginsberg. We do that inside of CRS too, but don't tell 
anyone.
     Mr. Timmons. Mr. Graves, two of your recommendations: 
Fully fund GAO--do you know the difference between their 
current funding and what fully funded would be?
     Mr. Graves. Well, there are a couple of versions of that. 
One would be just meeting their current budget request, which I 
think we are pretty close to it in both the House and--I think 
the Senate bill that just came out is slightly lower.
     But I would say, you know, we should think of this in 
terms of its ability to match the growth of Federal 
bureaucracy. So, if we think about, like, how big of a share of 
discretionary spending were they in the 1990s versus how big 
the administrative bureaucracy is now, it is, you know, 
dramatically weaker than it was, relatively.
     So I would consider a much more significant increase in 
GAO resourcing. And I think we would see increased taxpayer 
benefits that match that in a very significant way.
     Mr. Timmons. I have always been a huge proponent of fully 
funding Congress and all of its support agencies, because we 
spend trillions and trillions of dollars, and we need to figure 
out a better way of doing our job. Obviously, we are talking 
about budget appropriations, and--yeah, we can't underfund the 
most important part of the Federal Government, in my opinion.
     Last thing. Dr. Joyce, I just bought your book, so you 
sold one.
     The Chairman. I am going to take that as a question not in 
need of an answer. I think that is--you know, just say ``thank 
you,'' I guess. But we are really killing it on him.
     Mr. Joyce. When I get my royalty report, I will know that 
you were the one.
     The Chairman. You were the one. We are killing it on 
Amazon sales in this committee.
     Mr. Joyce.
     Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Thank you, Chairman Kilmer.
     Thank you all for being here today.
     In sort of an abbreviated form, if you wouldn't mind, what 
would be your top two recommendations that you would think that 
would help to--we could push forward to strengthen or modernize 
these support agencies?
     Whoever wants to take it first.
     Mr. Graves. Yeah, I think, you know, my first one is 
probably a little bit of a difficult one, which would be taking 
GAO resourcing outside of the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
Subcommittee funding, which has a peculiar set of internal 
political incentives that constrain its ability to grow at the 
rate of the Federal Government, which means our oversight 
capacity is constrained in its ability to grow to match the 
rest of the Federal Government.
     We have worked together to develop a bipartisan proposal 
on this that I mentioned in my testimony that would, you know, 
make it as a, sort of, share of other discretionary spending 
overall.
     And I think this, plus giving an initial bump to their 
resourcing, would be my top issue, particularly considering 
that they return over $100 in value for each dollar of their 
budget for taxpayers, and I think there are a lot of savings 
that are still on the table that they could help deliver.
     Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Great.
     Ms. Ginsberg. I think my number one is really easy. Like, 
a complete revamping of the CRS website where you can see and 
understand the products more effectively and know what they 
have and can get it very quickly. I think that the content that 
they do make is incredible content. I just wish we could find 
it.
     And then the second thing I would say is really 
reinforcing a customer-service focus from everyone at that 
agency so that they are getting our feedback regularly, there 
is a place for us to give that feedback.
     But a component of that customer-service focus is really 
hiring a staff that is diverse and to have a component of 
inclusion in that so that they can reflect the people that they 
are serving more effectively and be more customer-centric.
     Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Do you think that the----
     Ms. Ginsberg. Yeah.
     Mr. Joyce. If I can?
     Ms. Ginsberg. There is a followup.
     Mr. Joyce of Ohio [continuing]. That, you know, perhaps 
they should be advising Congress on what reports should be 
mandated?
     Ms. Ginsberg. They should be advising Congress, or 
Congress should be advising them? Wait----
     Mr. Joyce of Ohio. They advise us. Like, you know, they 
say they only have so much bandwidth. So, if there are agencies 
that need a report, which reports are truly necessary?
     Ms. Ginsberg. I think that if there is a resource issue, 
they should be making that clear to the appropriators that 
there is a resourcing issue there.
     But in terms of what Congress's needs are, it should be 
definitely Congress telling CRS what to prioritize. We should 
be telling them what to prioritize, and they should be 
anticipating the needs of Congress.
     They have a much longer history of what has happened in 
Congress. They should be able to see the cycles as they are 
coming their way. That is part of the glory of what it means to 
be from CRS, is to have this long-term view to be able to 
anticipate and remember that these things have happened and 
what they have looked like and how the context is different 
now.
     So the argument that they don't have the bandwidth there, 
I understand a lot of it, but a lot of it is just failing to 
appropriately prioritize and think through the needs of 
Congress.
     Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Got it. Thank you.
     Ms. Ginsberg. Yeah.
     Mr. Joyce of Ohio. The fine Dr. Joyce.
     Mr. Joyce. Yes, thank you, Mr. Joyce.
     So the first is just expanding on something I mentioned 
earlier, which was access to data and access to information.
     The thing that I did not mention earlier is, you know, the 
CBO statute basically says that the executive branch needs to 
respond if somebody from CBO calls and is looking for 
information from the executive branch, but it doesn't say who 
in the executive branch needs to respond.
     And I think there are a number of occasions where a CBO 
analyst will try to call an agency and they will get the, sort 
of, congressional affairs office. And they don't want to talk 
to the congressional affairs office; they want to talk to the 
people who actually understand the programs.
     And so getting down to that level--and whether that 
requires some kind of a statutory change or something else, 
but, you know, I think--and it is uneven. You know, some 
agencies are very happy to have the CBO analyst, you know, talk 
to somebody at the level of the program, but others, it is more 
difficult.
     I think the second is, you know, continued attention to 
how information is accessed. You know, I teach a bunch of 18- 
to 23-year-olds, and they access the entire world through their 
phones. So, you know, if you can't access the products of these 
agencies on your phone in a way, you know, where it is easily 
accessible and you are able to find the information you need, 
you know, very quickly, then we are losing a large percentage 
of the population.
     Mr. Joyce of Ohio. As someone who went to law school back 
in the days when you actually had to Shepardize cases by 
yourself in the law library, I appreciate that.
     Mr. Joyce. Right.
     Mr. Joyce of Ohio. Thank you.
     The Chairman. Mr. Davis.
     Mr. Davis. Dr. Joyce, are you related to Mr. Joyce?
     Mr. Joyce. Not that I know of.
     Mr. Davis. Interesting. Interesting.
     Mr. Joyce. But he is from Ohio and I am from northwestern 
Pennsylvania, so we are not that far away from each other.
     Mr. Davis. Oh. Are you related to our other colleague Dr. 
Joyce?
     Mr. Joyce. Not that I know.
     Mr. Davis. Dr. Joyce, Dr. Joyce.
     Mr. Joyce. Maybe back in Ireland at some point, you know, 
in the distant past.
     Mr. Davis. You know, this has been very interesting. I 
missed the last panel, but to hear the comments from each of 
you after, you know, hearing from those who run these 
departments, it is interesting. Because I think you all bring 
up very valid points. And we all have the same goal, which is 
to make the House work better.
     I was very interested in a comment you made, Dr. Ginsberg. 
You mentioned--and let me make sure I heard it correctly. You 
mentioned that people at CRS get promoted for the length of 
what they write?
     Ms. Ginsberg. I would say that, when I worked there, there 
was a definite incentive to write the piece de resistance of 
your subject matter and that the depth and length were a part 
of that calculus.
     There is a whole package that you put together for a 
promotion, but showing that you have a deep knowledge is a 
component of that. And one way to demonstrate you have a deep 
knowledge is to write a really long report.
     Mr. Davis. Really.
     Ms. Ginsberg. Uh-huh.
     Mr. Davis. Which is actually the antithesis of what we 
probably want in a congressional office, to want to get to the 
point.
     Look, I was a 16-year staffer. I looked at CRS reports as 
gospel. You know, they put it out, and this is exactly what--we 
thought it was one of the most well-researched pieces, 
articles, that we could get to be able to respond to our 
constituents.
     As you can tell from my brief question that I am going to 
follow up with Dr. Mazanec about, I don't sense that is the 
case as much anymore from my staff on House Administration and 
my team, and that is frustrating.
     What can we do to change the culture? If promotions depend 
upon longer reports, which is not conducive in today's day and 
age with social media and what have you, they are not putting 
out as many reports and fulfilling Congress's needs if they are 
worried about their own promotion and putting a booklet 
together that, I don't know about you, but, I mean, Joyce 
probably isn't going to read. I would read it, but, you know--
--
     Ms. Ginsberg. I definitely think there can be a 
disconnect, in many cases, between what works within the agency 
and what serves the Congress.
     I think there needs to be conversations with the union 
inside of CRS about what we can do to make sure that we are all 
sprinting toward a mission that is the service of Congress, 
which is the mission, and how do we get there, and how do we 
make sure you are getting measured on the right metrics, that 
your performance is achieving that particular mission.
     And those are hard conversations. I just think we should 
be having them and not ignoring them.
     Mr. Davis. So I really enjoyed your testimony, but give me 
the biggest surprise you have had, moving from CRS. And were 
you customer-facing there at CRS?
     Ms. Ginsberg. Yeah, I was one of the analysts who answered 
a lot of questions, particularly on Freedom of Information Act, 
Federal advisory committees. All the stuff nobody knows 
anything about, that was my portfolio.
     Mr. Davis. Oh.
     Ms. Ginsberg. Yeah.
     Mr. Davis. Very appropriate nowadays. Very much so.
     What was your biggest surprise, coming over here? I mean, 
you are a staff director. So what was your surprise of how you 
then viewed CRS once you left?
     Ms. Ginsberg. I would say my biggest surprise was that--in 
CRS, a lot of what you do is very insular work. You are almost 
like an academic, right? You are adjacent to an academic, and 
it is very solo. Whereas, on the Hill, everything is 
collaborative. Every email I send has, I think, maybe too many 
people on it, but a lot of people on it, so that we can all 
sort of be moving in the same direction together. And that is 
just not the culture at CRS. It is much more of a, you do it 
solo and prove who you are, more academic-facing.
     And I don't expect CRS to become E&Y. I don't think that 
is right either. But there has to be a balance that is struck 
where you are somewhere in between an academic institution and 
an institution that has this amazing pedestal helping Congress 
gets its work done. And I don't think it is hitting there yet. 
I think it is leaning toward academia, and it needs to be a bit 
more of a forward-facing, customer-service-focused entity.
     Mr. Davis. Do you think that is the personnel they have 
there that is the problem? Do you think we need more people 
with experience like yours to be over there to try and relay 
and be that bridge between Congress and the congressional 
staffs and the insular CRS staff you just mentioned?
     Ms. Ginsberg. I think everyone should be a waitress at 
some point in their life. That is just me, personally, but----
     Mr. Davis. I asked, ``Do you want fries with that?'' at my 
first job, and it was the best job that prepared me for this 
place.
     Ms. Ginsberg. Agree.
     I think that CRS could--again, it is an academic arena, 
and a lot of people come out of academia from there. And 
academia is not known for its customer service. So, if you are 
in a leadership position, you might want to help get some 
training for people on what it means to be customer-focused and 
customer-centric. And I never got that once when I was at CRS.
     Mr. Davis. Wow.
     Last question/comment. My questions I had for Dr. Mazanec 
actually centered around the lack of cooperation between CRS 
and the Library of Congress's inspector general. I had a quick 
conversation with her out in the hall. She said that that may 
not be the case, in her opinion.
     But you are on the Oversight Committee. We on House 
Administration are not exercising our proper oversight 
responsibility over CRS and over the Library of Congress in 
this case. I would love to work with your committee, your 
teams, to be able to get some of these questions answered.
     So take that back to my colleagues on Oversight. Because I 
think it would be very beneficial for us to maybe utilize some 
of our oversight responsibilities to get some of these 
suggestions directly to CRS.
     So, with that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
     The Chairman. Thank you.
     And I know you are here only in your capacity as having 
worked at CRS, so----
     Ms. Ginsberg. Thank you, Chairman.
     The Chairman. You got it.
     With that, let me--anybody else have any questions that we 
didn't get to?
     I want to thank Mr. Perlmutter. I know that both he and 
Ms. Williams had three hearings at the same time. But the 
ability to join us virtually, I am very grateful for that.
     I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today 
and thank our committee members for their participation.
     Thank you to our staff for pulling together another 
terrific hearing with some very informative witnesses.
     So, without objection, all members will have 5 legislative 
days within which to submit additional written questions for 
the witnesses to the chair, which will be forwarded to the 
witnesses for their response.
     I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as they 
are able.
     The Chairman. Without objection, all members will have 5 
legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials to 
the chair for inclusion in the record.
     While I'm giving thanks I should also give thanks to the 
Ed & Labor Committee for hosting us, so thank you to them as 
well and with that this hearing is adjourned.
     Adjoured at 10:51 a.m.

      

                               APPENDIX I

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

      

                              APPENDIX II

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                [all]