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






                                 ______


 
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO SUPPORT MODERNIZING THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH 
                  SERVICES AND THE USE OF FEDERAL DATA

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION

                                 of the

                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 20, 2024

                               __________

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


                           0 www.govinfo.gov
                           www.cha.house.gov
                           
                           
                        ______
               
             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 55-248          WASHINGTON : 2024

                        
                           
                           
                           
                           
                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman

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

                    Michael Platt,  Staff Director 
                 Jamie Fleet,  Minority Staff Director 

                                 ------                                

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON MODERNIZATION

                    STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma, Chair

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

               Derek Harley, Subcommittee Staff Director
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                           Opening Statements

Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Modernization Stephanie Bice, 
  Representative from the State of Oklahoma......................     1
    Prepared statement of the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on 
      Modernization Stephanie Bice...............................     3
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Modernization Derek Kilmer, 
  Representative from the State of Washington....................     4
    Prepared statement of the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee 
      on Modernization Derek Kilmer..............................     6
Chairman of the Committee on House Administration Bryan Steil, 
  Representative from the State of Wisconsin.....................     7
    Prepared statement of the Chairman of the Committee on House 
      Administration Bryan Steil.................................     8

                               Witnesses

Robert Randolph Newlen, Interim Director, Congressional Research 
  Service........................................................     9
    Prepared statement of Robert Randolph Newlen.................    12
Elise Bean, Director, Washington Office, Carl Levin Center for 
  Oversight & Democracy..........................................    29
    Prepared statement of Elise Bean.............................    31
Mathew Glassman, Senior Fellow, Government Affairs Institute, 
  Georgetown University..........................................    34
    Prepared statement of Mathew Glassman........................    36
Nicholas Hart, President and CEO, Data Foundation................    43
    Prepared statement of Nicholas Hart..........................    45

                        Questions for the Record

Robert Randolph Newlen answers to submitted questions............    66
Elise Bean answers to submitted questions........................    70
Mathew Glassman answers to submitted questions...................    72


LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO SUPPORT MODERNIZING THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH 
                  SERVICES AND THE USE OF FEDERAL DATA

                              ----------                              


                             March 20, 2024

                  House of Representatives,
                     Subcommittee on Modernization,
                         Committee on House Administration,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m., in 
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Stephanie Bice 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Bice, Steil, Carey, and Kilmer.
    Staff present: Annemarie Cake, Professional Staff and 
Deputy Clerk; Marian Currinder, Senior Professional Staff; 
Alexander Deise, Parliamentarian; Kristen Monterroso, Director 
of Operations and Legislative Clerk; Michael Platt, Staff 
Director; Jordan Wilson, Director of Member Services.

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

    Chairwoman Bice. The Subcommittee on Modernization will 
come to order.
    I note that a quorum is present. Without objection--thank 
you--the chair may declare a recess at any time.
    The hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days 
so Members may submit any materials they wish to be included 
therein.
    Thank you, Ranking Member Kilmer--and Subcommittee Members 
and the chairman I think will be here shortly--as well as our 
witness for taking time today to be with us.
    This is the Modernization Subcommittee's first legislative 
hearing. We will be learning more about two bills and one 
resolution that have been referred to the Subcommittee, and we 
will have the opportunity to dive into what problems these 
measures address and what solutions they propose.
    This should go without saying, but legislative hearings 
like this one provide an important forum for Members to gather 
information, ask questions, and form opinions or positions on 
the legislation before us.
    Legislative hearings are consistent with regular order, but 
we do not see a lot of them at the Subcommittee level these 
days, and the same is true of markups on the Subcommittee 
level. As the chair, I think the Subcommittee process is 
important, and that is especially true here as we consider 
bills that directly relate to our mission to improve and 
modernize the institution and implement the recommendations of 
the Select Committee on Modernization.
    Today we will hear about two measures related to the 
Congressional Research Service's ongoing efforts to modernize 
the way the agency works on behalf of Congress. We will also 
learn more about a resolution introduced by my colleague, 
Ranking Member Kilmer, and cosponsored by full Committee Member 
Ranking Member Morelle, that is based on a Select Committee 
recommendation to create a congressional commission on 
evidence-based policymaking.
    The Modernization Subcommittee held a hearing in April of 
last year to examine CRS' efforts to improve their processes 
and products in ways that reflect how today's Congress 
operates. It was clear then that more work was needed, but I am 
pleased to say that we have seen the agency take positive steps 
to improve culture and modernize operations.
    I fully recognize the work CRS analysts do to support 
Congress. That work is invaluable. I am encouraged and excited 
with the results recent changes have yielded, and I look 
forward to the continued progress and the modernization of CRS.
    Robert, I want to personally thank you for your leadership. 
On that note, I am pleased that we are joined today by Robert 
Newlen, CRS' interim director, who, in addition to speaking 
about the two CRS-related bills on the agenda today, will 
update the Subcommittee on some of the agency's ongoing efforts 
to improve and enhance services.
    Mr. Newlen will discuss the underlying problems that the 
two CRS bills address and explain how they will help strengthen 
the agency's mission to support Congress.
    I would like to note that for all Members of the 
Subcommittee, we jointly introduced these bills as we all saw 
value in what they set forth to accomplish.
    Access to Federal agency data is critical to CRS' mission 
to provide timely and accurate research and analysis to 
Congress. The agency's current statute, which has not been 
seriously modified in 50 years, needs to be updated to reflect 
new forums and uses of data.
    The Select Committee on Modernization recognized this 
problem and recommended enhancing support agency access to 
Federal data, and the bill we are discussing today does just 
that.
    The Select Committee also recommended examining legislative 
support agency authorities more broadly to determine if they 
need to be updated, and this bill is certainly consistent with 
that goal.
    I will say here that our intention continues to be a larger 
examination of CRS' organic statute, with an eye toward 
developing more modern authorities and Congressional directives 
that better support CRS' work and more accurately reflect the 
needs of Congress today.
    We look forward to working with you, Mr. Newlen, your 
successor, and your entire team in this very important 
endeavor.
    Modernizing how CRS produces and provides access to the 
Constitution Annotated is also consistent with the goal of 
updating how the agency serves Congress. CONAN, as this massive 
tome is known, has been available online since 2019.
    Would you like to, you know, take a gander at this? There 
we go.
    Mr. Kilmer. Bicep work.
    Chairwoman Bice. There you go, yes.
    Mr. Kilmer. It is an arm----
    Chairwoman Bice. Let us turn that around so you can see it.
    The digital version is regularly updated and has gotten 
millions of views since its inception, and meanwhile, producing 
this hard-bound version is costly. According to the most recent 
estimates available from CRS and the GPO, the 2012 hard-bound 
CONAN cost taxpayers approximately $1 million to produce. We 
are waiting on estimates for the 2022 version but expect they 
will be nearly the same.
    Getting rid of this behemoth print requirement enhances 
efficiency and is a very easy, cost-saving measure.
    The second panel today includes three witness experts who 
can share additional views on Congress' access to the use of 
Federal agency data. They will shed light on legislative and 
executive branch interactions and provide perspective on some 
of the challenges analysts face accessing data and how the work 
that CRS does on behalf of Members and staff is impacted when 
analysts cannot get data.
    Understanding the different ways that data can inform the 
policymaking and oversight process is another important part of 
the conversation and is consideration--in considering 
bipartisan--I am sorry--is considering partisan bias in data 
and how we ensure the data is accurate and reliable.
    At this time, I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. 
Kilmer, for the purpose of providing an opening statement.
    [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Bice follows:]

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

    This is the Modernization Subcommittee's first legislative 
hearing. We will be learning more about two bills and one 
resolution that have been referred to the Subcommittee, and we 
will have the opportunity to dive into what problems these 
measures address and what solutions they propose.
    This should go without saying, but legislative hearings 
like this one provide an important forum for Members to gather 
information, ask questions, and form opinions or positions on 
the legislation before us.
    Legislative hearings are consistent with regular order, but 
we do not see a lot of them at the Subcommittee level these 
days, and the same is true of markups on the Subcommittee 
level. As the chair, I think the Subcommittee process is 
important, and that is especially true here as we consider 
bills that directly relate to our mission to improve and 
modernize the institution and implement the recommendations of 
the Select Committee on Modernization.
    Today we will hear about two measures related to the 
Congressional Research Service's ongoing efforts to modernize 
the way the agency works on behalf of Congress. We will also 
learn more about a resolution introduced by my colleague, 
Ranking Member Kilmer, and cosponsored by full Committee Member 
Ranking Member Morelle, that is based on a Select Committee 
recommendation to create a congressional commission on 
evidence-based policymaking.
    The Modernization Subcommittee held a hearing in April of 
last year to examine CRS' efforts to improve their processes 
and products in ways that reflect how today's Congress 
operates. It was clear then that more work was needed, but I am 
pleased to say that we have seen the agency take positive steps 
to improve culture and modernize operations.
    I fully recognize the work CRS analysts do to support 
Congress. That work is invaluable. I am encouraged and excited 
with the results recent changes have yielded, and I look 
forward to the continued progress and the modernization of CRS.
    Robert, I want to personally thank you for your leadership. 
On that note, I am pleased that we are joined today by Robert 
Newlen, CRS' interim director, who, in addition to speaking 
about the two CRS-related bills on the agenda today, will 
update the Subcommittee on some of the agency's ongoing efforts 
to improve and enhance services.
    Mr. Newlen will discuss the underlying problems that the 
two CRS bills address and explain how they will help strengthen 
the agency's mission to support Congress.
    I would like to note that for all Members of the 
Subcommittee, we jointly introduced these bills as we all saw 
value in what they set forth to accomplish.
    Access to Federal agency data is critical to CRS' mission 
to provide timely and accurate research and analysis to 
Congress. The agency's current statute, which has not been 
seriously modified in 50 years, needs to be updated to reflect 
new forums and uses of data.
    The Select Committee on Modernization recognized this 
problem and recommended enhancing support agency access to 
Federal data, and the bill we are discussing today does just 
that.
    The Select Committee also recommended examining legislative 
support agency authorities more broadly to determine if they 
need to be updated, and this bill is certainly consistent with 
that goal.
    I will say here that our intention continues to be a larger 
examination of CRS' organic statute, with an eye toward 
developing more modern authorities and Congressional directives 
that better support CRS' work and more accurately reflect the 
needs of Congress today.
    We look forward to working with you, Mr. Newlen, your 
successor, and your entire team in this very important 
endeavor.
    Modernizing how CRS produces and provides access to the 
Constitution Annotated is also consistent with the goal of 
updating how the agency serves Congress. CONAN, as this massive 
tome is known, has been available online since 2019.
    Would you like to, you know, take a gander at this? There 
we go.
    Mr. Kilmer. Bicep work.
    Chairwoman Bice. There you go, yes.
    Mr. Kilmer. It is an arm----
    Chairwoman Bice. Let us turn that around so you can see it.
    The digital version is regularly updated and has gotten 
millions of views since its inception, and meanwhile, producing 
this hard-bound version is costly. According to the most recent 
estimates available from CRS and the GPO, the 2012 hard-bound 
CONAN cost taxpayers approximately $1 million to produce. We 
are waiting on estimates for the 2022 version but expect they 
will be nearly the same.
    Getting rid of this behemoth print requirement enhances 
efficiency and is a very easy, cost-saving measure.
    The second panel today includes three witness experts who 
can share additional views on Congress' access to the use of 
Federal agency data. They will shed light on legislative and 
executive branch interactions and provide perspective on some 
of the challenges analysts face accessing data and how the work 
that CRS does on behalf of Members and staff is impacted when 
analysts cannot get data.
    Understanding the different ways that data can inform the 
policymaking and oversight process is another important part of 
the conversation and is consideration--in considering 
bipartisan--I am sorry--is considering partisan bias in data 
and how we ensure the data is accurate and reliable.

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

    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks to our colleague 
and the witnesses who are here at our inaugural legislative 
hearing on the Subcommittee, so way to go.
    I think I am excited about the three bills that we are 
taking up today. I think taken collectively, they bring us 
closer to the Subcommittee's mission of making Congress work 
better for the American people. Each one of these bills harkens 
back to a problem that we identified on the ModCom.
    The Modernizing the congressional Research Service's Access 
to Data Act is--speaks to recommendation 33, which states that 
congressional support agencies should report on challenges and 
potential solutions for accessing Federal data.
    Director Newlen, thank you for doing just that, which paved 
the way forward for this bill.
    CRS statute, developed in the 1970's, states that Federal 
agencies need to comply with data requests from Congress to 
serve Congressional Committees, and it mentions that CRS is 
responsible for otherwise assisting individual Member offices 
with information requests. However, given the lack of explicit 
statutory reference to personal offices, you have indicated 
that you at times have struggled to access necessary 
information from Federal agencies to execute your mission of 
serving Committees and personal offices alike.
    Your customer service mission to Congress is very 
important. As I have mentioned before the Subcommittee 
previously, my team and I regularly use CRS. The amendments and 
bills and letter ideas we put forth are better because of CRS' 
involvement and support to us.
    Thank you for not putting out a restraining order against 
my team.
    It matters that you have access to the Federal data you 
need to do your jobs, to update reports on timely and pressing 
issues proactively, and in response to specific requests, that 
you have access that is on par with that provided to other 
legislative branch support agencies, like the CBO, for example.
    I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 7592 to this end, and look 
forward to hearing your testimony on that and that of the 
second panel.
    Speaking of further Select Committee recs that remain open 
and we will touch on today, recommendation 140 states that 
Congressional Committees, including this one, should examine 
support agency authorities and determine if they need to be 
updated.
    Thank you again, Director Newlen, for bringing the CONAN 
issue to our attention in the spirit. You know, this is about 
saving money. This is about making sure that there is continued 
access for information.
    The American people can receive better information online, 
and we can save valuable CRS staff capacity and time and 
taxpayer dollars. Again, proud to cosponsor that bill as well.
    Then, finally, want to mention the congressional evidence-
based policymaking resolution. Part of what makes this 
Subcommittee work, and what sets us apart, is our commitment to 
looking at problems, collecting a common set of data and facts 
about them, and then respectfully negotiating the potential 
solutions, and then charting a path forward. Call me an 
optimist, but I think that this institutions and Members of 
both parties from every ideological persuasion could benefit 
from a similar approach.
    Simply put, though, we need sound evidence and nonpartisan 
facts about the pressing problems facing the American people 
that would allow us to better design policies to measure their 
impact, to conduct oversight, and ultimately to improve 
outcomes for the American people.
    The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress 
proposed the establishment of a bipartisan, bicameral 
Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking to facilitate this, 
which would be accomplished by this bill.
    This commission approach is supported by precedent as well. 
Former Speaker Paul Ryan and the senior Senator from my home 
State, Patty Murray, previously led an effort to establish such 
a commission specific to the executive branch, which was an 
effort I was proud to support. That commission effort cleared 
the House under suspension of the rules and the Senate on 
unanimous consent. It was signed into law in 2016. It was 
signed into law by President Obama. The recommendations that 
stem from the Commission were turned into overwhelmingly 
bipartisan changes from the Foundations for Evidence-Based 
Policymaking Act, which was signed into law in 2019 by former 
President Trump.
    The problems we face as a Nation are hard, but the idea 
that we will deliver more for our constituents and for our 
country with a common set of facts does not have to be hard.
    One of our witnesses today, Nick Hart, with the Data 
Foundation, was involved in those past executive branch efforts 
and can shed some light on how the legislative branch can get 
this right.
    Thanks again to my colleagues, thank you to Subcommittee 
Chair Bice, our Subcommittee colleagues, and to each of our 
witnesses for taking time to be here today. Look forward to 
your thoughts and suggestions regarding these bills, and just 
appreciate your partnership on this important work of trying to 
make Congress work better for the people we represent. With 
that, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Kilmer follows:]

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

    I think I am excited about the three bills that we are 
taking up today. I think taken collectively, they bring us 
closer to the Subcommittee's mission of making Congress work 
better for the American people. Each one of these bills harkens 
back to a problem that we identified on the ModCom.
    The Modernizing the congressional Research Service's Access 
to Data Act is--speaks to recommendation 33, which states that 
congressional support agencies should report on challenges and 
potential solutions for accessing Federal data.
    Director Newlen, thank you for doing just that, which paved 
the way forward for this bill.
    CRS statute, developed in the 1970's, states that Federal 
agencies need to comply with data requests from Congress to 
serve Congressional Committees, and it mentions that CRS is 
responsible for otherwise assisting individual Member offices 
with information requests. However, given the lack of explicit 
statutory reference to personal offices, you have indicated 
that you at times have struggled to access necessary 
information from Federal agencies to execute your mission of 
serving Committees and personal offices alike.
    Your customer service mission to Congress is very 
important. As I have mentioned before the Subcommittee 
previously, my team and I regularly use CRS. The amendments and 
bills and letter ideas we put forth are better because of CRS' 
involvement and support to us.
    Thank you for not putting out a restraining order against 
my team.
    It matters that you have access to the Federal data you 
need to do your jobs, to update reports on timely and pressing 
issues proactively, and in response to specific requests, that 
you have access that is on par with that provided to other 
legislative branch support agencies, like the CBO, for example.
    I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 7592 to this end, and look 
forward to hearing your testimony on that and that of the 
second panel.
    Speaking of further Select Committee recs that remain open 
and we will touch on today, recommendation 140 states that 
Congressional Committees, including this one, should examine 
support agency authorities and determine if they need to be 
updated.
    Thank you again, Director Newlen, for bringing the CONAN 
issue to our attention in the spirit. You know, this is about 
saving money. This is about making sure that there is continued 
access for information.
    The American people can receive better information online, 
and we can save valuable CRS staff capacity and time and 
taxpayer dollars. Again, proud to cosponsor that bill as well.
    Then, finally, want to mention the congressional evidence-
based policymaking resolution. Part of what makes this 
Subcommittee work, and what sets us apart, is our commitment to 
looking at problems, collecting a common set of data and facts 
about them, and then respectfully negotiating the potential 
solutions, and then charting a path forward. Call me an 
optimist, but I think that this institutions and Members of 
both parties from every ideological persuasion could benefit 
from a similar approach.
    Simply put, though, we need sound evidence and nonpartisan 
facts about the pressing problems facing the American people 
that would allow us to better design policies to measure their 
impact, to conduct oversight, and ultimately to improve 
outcomes for the American people.
    The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress 
proposed the establishment of a bipartisan, bicameral 
Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking to facilitate this, 
which would be accomplished by this bill.
    This commission approach is supported by precedent as well. 
Former Speaker Paul Ryan and the senior Senator from my home 
State, Patty Murray, previously led an effort to establish such 
a commission specific to the executive branch, which was an 
effort I was proud to support. That commission effort cleared 
the House under suspension of the rules and the Senate on 
unanimous consent. It was signed into law in 2016. It was 
signed into law by President Obama. The recommendations that 
stem from the Commission were turned into overwhelmingly 
bipartisan changes from the Foundations for Evidence-Based 
Policymaking Act, which was signed into law in 2019 by former 
President Trump.
    The problems we face as a Nation are hard, but the idea 
that we will deliver more for our constituents and for our 
country with a common set of facts does not have to be hard.
    One of our witnesses today, Nick Hart, with the Data 
Foundation, was involved in those past executive branch efforts 
and can shed some light on how the legislative branch can get 
this right.
    Thanks again to my colleagues, thank you to Subcommittee 
Chair Bice, our Subcommittee colleagues, and to each of our 
witnesses for taking time to be here today. Look forward to 
your thoughts and suggestions regarding these bills, and just 
appreciate your partnership on this important work of trying to 
make Congress work better for the people we represent. With 
that, I yield back.

    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer.
    At this time, I would like to recognize the full Committee 
Chairman, Mr. Steil, for the purpose of providing opening 
remarks.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN STEIL, CHAIRMAN OF THE 
 COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
                           WISCONSIN

    Chairman Steil. Thank you, Chair Bice, and thank you to the 
work that you and Ranking Member Kilmer are doing on the 
Subcommittee on Modernization. You can tell there is energy on 
it because we have a full room, including your daughter, 
Ainsley, who is here with us today, and so shout-out there.
    Today's Subcommittee's first legislative hearing, where we 
will be focusing on two bills related to the Congressional 
Research Service and a resolution focused on the possibility of 
a new congressional commission on evidence-based policymaking 
is, as you said, Mrs. Bice, it is important that the 
legislative process, even at the Subcommittee level, be carried 
out to achieve our mission, and that mission is to modernize 
the institution. A Congress that is modern is a Congress that 
can be more efficient.
    Two of the bills we are looking at today will help 
modernize CRS and support the work of Congress, making our 
institution more effective. We will look into a possible 
evidence-based congressional commission to help ensure that 
Congress can successfully use agency data in its policymaking 
and oversight, and I look forward to seeing where these 
conversations take us today.
    Again, thank you to you, Subcommittee Chair Bice, Ranking 
Member Kilmer, for your work today, and our witnesses as well. 
I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Steil follows:]

   PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 
                   ADMINISTRATION BRYAN STEIL

    Chairman Steil. Thank you, Chair Bice, and thank you to the 
work that you and Ranking Member Kilmer are doing on the 
Subcommittee on Modernization. You can tell there is energy on 
it because we have a full room, including your daughter, 
Ainsley, who is here with us today, and so shout-out there.
    Today's Subcommittee's first legislative hearing, where we 
will be focusing on two bills related to the Congressional 
Research Service and a resolution focused on the possibility of 
a new congressional commission on evidence-based policymaking 
is, as you said, Mrs. Bice, it is important that the 
legislative process, even at the Subcommittee level, be carried 
out to achieve our mission, and that mission is to modernize 
the institution. A Congress that is modern is a Congress that 
can be more efficient.
    Two of the bills we are looking at today will help 
modernize CRS and support the work of Congress, making our 
institution more effective. We will look into a possible 
evidence-based congressional commission to help ensure that 
Congress can successfully use agency data in its policymaking 
and oversight, and I look forward to seeing where these 
conversations take us today.

    Again, thank you to you, Subcommittee Chair Bice, Ranking 
Member Kilmer, for your work today, and our witnesses as well.
    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Chairman Steil.
    We now welcome Mr. Robert Newlen, the interim director of 
the congressional Research Service. Mr. Newlen has a 42-year 
career at the Library of Congress, holding leadership positions 
in CRS, the Law Library, and as deputy librarian of Congress.
    Mr. Newlen has also held a variety of positions in the 
American Library Association, which include serving as a member 
of the executive board and senior trustee of the ALA endowment. 
He was the recipient of the ALA Medal of Excellence in 2016 
for, quote, creative leadership of high order, particularly in 
library management.
    He most recently served as the executive director and 
director of strategic initiatives of the Dwight D. Opperman 
Foundation in Phoenix.
    We appreciate your service, Mr. Newlen, and we appreciate 
you being here with us today. We are grateful for all of the 
work you have done and continue to do at CRS.
    A couple of housekeeping items. Please remember to press 
the button on the microphone in front of you so that the light 
is green. When you begin to speak, the timer in front of you 
will turn green. As previously agreed to by the Subcommittee 
Members, you will have 7 minutes for your opening statement. 
After 6 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red 
lights comes on, the 7 minutes has expired, and we kindly ask 
that you would please conclude your remarks.
    At this time, Mr. Newlen, I recognize you for 7 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT RANDOLPH NEWLEN, INTERIM DIRECTOR, 
                 CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

    Mr. Newlen. I am not seeing a green light.
    Chairwoman Bice. You are good.
    Mr. Newlen. I am good? Thank you. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Bice, Ranking Member Kilmer, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before 
you today, especially at your inaugural hearing, about CRS' 
need for legislative fixes that will support its modernization 
efforts and ensure access to Federal data and other information 
needed to effectively serve Congress.
    I have three goals today. First, I will outline some of the 
challenges CRS faces in securing from--securing information 
from Federal agencies. Second, I will make the case for the 
savings and efficiencies to be gained by transitioning to a 
digital-only Constitution Annotated. Finally, I will highlight 
CRS' progress with modernization over the past year and the 
initiatives the Service has undertaken to ensure that it 
continues to provide exceptional service to the 21st century 
Congress.
    It has been my honor to serve as the interim director of 
CRS. I have just completed 9 months, and it has been both 
rewarding and challenging. There is much more to be done, but I 
am confident that CRS is moving in the right direction, and it 
will be in a good place when the new director begins several 
months from now.
    My goal has been to identify areas of CRS' operation where 
we can reduce costs, add value, and maximize the return on the 
taxpayers' investment without diminishing service to Congress. 
I have also closely reviewed the recommendations of the 
Subcommittee which have guided my activities as director, and 
technology has been one of our highest priorities.
    I feel confident that the legislative initiatives discussed 
today support these goals. I believe strongly in institutional 
stewardship, and you might think of me as a loving critic of 
CRS.
    I am also mindful, Chairwoman Bice, of our conversation 
early in my tenure when we discussed the topic of return on 
investment for the resources invested in CRS, and that has been 
a guiding mantra for me. Thank you.
    CRS' mission is to provide Congress with timely, objective, 
nonpartisan research, analysis, and information. Access to the 
data and other information held by Federal agencies is critical 
to CRS' ability to effectively carry out this important 
responsibility.
    Generally, CRS has been successful in securing the 
information that it needs. However, there have been instances 
when the Service encountered resistance from Federal agencies. 
Agencies have responded with directions to CRS to file Freedom 
of Information Act requests, require disclosure of 
congressional office requesting the information, and requested 
confidentiality assurances.
    In other instances, agencies have ignored or simply refused 
the request. This sort of agency resistance can delay CRS' 
response to congressional clients and impede the Service's 
ability to inform and advise Congress utilizing the most 
authoritative information available.
    CRS' governing statute provides limited authority to enable 
the Service to address these challenges. CRS is authorized to 
make information requests to Federal agencies and requires 
those agencies to provide the requested information only when 
the request is, quote, authorized by a Committee, unquote, and 
then only when CRS is acting as an agent of the Committee.
    The limitation to CRS' work for Committees leaves the 
Service with no formal authority to acquire information it 
needs to support individual Member offices or to conduct 
anticipatory research and analysis.
    CRS' current information access authority originates from a 
time when Congress operated primarily under a Committee-centric 
structure. As legislative activity has become more dispersed, 
CRS' workload has expanded to include more requests from 
individual Member offices. In Fiscal Year 2023, for example, 
CRS responded to over 57,000 requests from individual Member 
and other congressional offices.
    Broader authority is required to ensure the Service's 
access to the information needed to effectively serve all 
congressional users. The authority CRS is seeking would be 
comparable to that currently provided to our sister agencies, 
CBO and GAO.
    CRS is also requesting elimination of the statutory 
requirement to publish the Constitution Annotated in hard-bound 
copy. I brought my own copy. You will have----
    Chairwoman Bice. These are the only two copies that exist 
currently? I do not----
    Mr. Newlen. Currently, the Librarian of Congress is 
directed by statute to print a decennial revised edition of 
CONAN after every tenth term of the Supreme Court and 
cumulative pocket part supplements every 2 years in between the 
decennial edition. The cost of printing these copies are 
significant to both CRS and the Government Publishing Office. 
Production costs for the 2012 version of CONAN, as you 
mentioned earlier, Chairwoman Bice, totaled nearly $1 million, 
primarily in GPO.
    As you know, CRS, in collaboration with the Law Library of 
Congress and the Library's Office of the Chief Information 
Officer, launched a new website for CONAN in 2019. The site 
features a search capability and hundreds of pages of 
constitutional analysis and content prepared by CRS' legal 
staff. The website has been overwhelmingly successful since its 
launch, and it has received over 50 million views.
    Given the success of the CONAN site, CRS has requested 
amendment of CONAN's authorizing statute to require its 
preparation in digital form only. Transition to a digital-only 
Constitution Annotated would provide significant savings in 
time, labor, and taxpayer dollars, and permit CRS to better 
deploy its resources toward the production of content for 
future enhancements of the website.
    Modernization initiatives--since I have just a short amount 
of time, I am going to go through those. We have been very 
actively pursuing interactive graphics, infographics, and story 
map prototypes. We are exploring many projects with artificial 
intelligence applications. I will be happy to tell you more 
about those. We are working to strengthen our data and 
analytics capabilities. We also feel very privileged to 
participate in the new Agency Connection Center in the 
Longworth Building. This is going to be a wonderful form of 
outreach, and we are very grateful for having you include that.
    In conclusion, I want to express my appreciation to the 
Librarian of Congress, Dr. Carla Hayden, for the opportunity to 
once again serve alongside CRS' talented staff. A constant in 
CRS is the staff passion and dedication to serving the 
Congress.
    On behalf of my--excuse me, am I hoarse--on behalf of my 
CRS colleagues, I want to thank the Subcommittee for its 
continued support, and I welcome your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Newlen follows:]

          PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT RANDOLPH NEWLEN
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Newlen.
    We will now begin questioning, and that will start with me, 
followed by Ranking Member Kilmer, and then we will alternate 
between Members. Any Member wishing to be recognized can signal 
their request to the chair.
    At this time, I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Newlen, CRS has sought expanded access to agency data 
at least since the 112th Congress, as we can best tell, when 
legislation was last introduced to try to address this issue. 
Your testimony addresses what improved data access will do for 
CRS and for Congress.
    Can you give a little bit of color to what CRS will not do 
with expanded access to this authority?
    Mr. Newlen. Thank you for that question. We are very 
mindful of several things, first, security of the data and 
transfer of the data within the agency.
    We have been working with our chief information officers 
here today to ensure that the data meets all the security 
standards of the Library of Congress which are extremely 
stringent. As always, we will maintain that data in a 
confidential manner.
    Chairwoman Bice. Can you address the potential concerns 
about expanded access leading to, quote/unquote, fishing 
expeditions that could be more politically charged requests 
from Congress?
    Mr. Newlen. Certainly.
    Can you repeat the question, please?
    Chairwoman Bice. Sure. I want to make sure that his 
microphone is working properly. Are you able to--great. OK. 
Thank you.
    Would you be willing--or would you be able to address the 
potential concerns about expanded access to data leading to, 
quote/unquote, fishing expeditions or more politically charged 
requests from Congress?
    Mr. Newlen. Yes. Thank you. When Members of Congress or 
Committees make requests, we do not ask them how they are going 
to use the data. We may ask them if it would help us in the 
research process, but--is the light not coming on?
    Okay. Apologies.
    Chairwoman Bice. There we go. There we go.
    Mr. Newlen. Yes. The----
    Chairwoman Bice. You said you were going to allow them to 
request the data without asking them what the data would be 
used for.
    Mr. Newlen. If they--if we think it is important to know, 
then we will ask, for the research process, but generally that 
is not necessary. As with everything we do, it is always 
confidential, and we do not share the information with anyone 
outside of the Service or the Member or Committee office.
    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you.
    At this time I will recognize Ranking Member Kilmer for 
questions.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair.
    You know, this issue around data access and, you know, how 
to make sure CRS is getting what it wants. You know, Dr. 
Glassman mentioned in his written testimony that the new 
authority would be more effective if it was paired with an 
information campaign such that the agencies understand their 
obligation to provide CRS with such data.
    Any thoughts on how CRS might actually do that and how 
Congress can help you do that?
    Mr. Newlen. Yes. Thank you. The first thing we would do if 
we had this authority is use it with pending requests that we 
have with several agencies right now where we are having a lot 
of problem moving forward. They set up all kinds of roadblocks.
    I can give you one example of one agency. I will not say 
the name of the agency. I will be happy to share it with you in 
private, but I do not want to jeopardize our talks, but they 
told us at one point that they considered CRS analysts as the 
same thing as press. We have had substantial conversations with 
them to change that. It has really--it has really been very 
difficult.
    Mr. Kilmer. Yes, I wanted to--I think we can only just look 
at this, and it kind of makes the case for the bill. You know, 
I think oftentimes, you know, when something gets put on a 
site, it is only as valuable as its ease of search and the 
ability to navigate, and, you know, if it is visually 
interesting, and if it is accurate.
    If this bill passes and CONAN moves to a digital-only 
format, you know, any guidance on what--on how CRS will 
approach that to ensure that the digital version is, you know, 
state-of-the-art in its presentation and its usability?
    Mr. Newlen. Yes, absolutely. The big advantage of the 
digital version is, is that it is always up to date. This, the 
moment it came out, it was outdated. There have been Supreme 
Court decisions since this was printed that are not here.
    Speaking as a librarian by training, most librarians would 
never put this book on their shelf because they would be 
concerned----
    Mr. Kilmer. There is no room for it.
    Mr. Newlen. That is a big concern too--because they would 
be concerned that a patron might look at this and think this 
was the authoritative source, which it is not.
    The advantage of the online version is, is that we can link 
directly to Supreme Court cases. We have embedded links.
    The other thing is that we update this very quickly. If 
there is a court decision that impacts the Constitution, our 
lawyers, headed by Sanchi Jayaram, who is with us today, head 
of the American Law Division, updates this immediately so that 
we have real-time information on the data base.
    We have devoted considerable assets to ensuring that the 
virtual version of CONAN is up to date and in good shape. We 
always welcome feedback from anyone. It is easy to do on the 
site, and we are very responsive to those concerns.
    Mr. Kilmer. The final thing I want to ask about, you know, 
this conversation around this behemoth, as the chairwoman 
called it, is actually a good sort of segue into another thing 
that we have been working on, which is the In Case Act, because 
it both touches on making sure that there is information that 
is up to date and accurate, and, two, it is an efficiency 
measure, you know, the In Case Act would require Federal 
agencies to provide better agency contacts to CRS, and CRS, in 
turn, could share that information with House offices, you 
know, so that policy staff, so district casework staff could be 
able to find the people that they need.
    That was built upon the existing CRS report that details 
some agency legislative affairs contacts which we found 
sometimes either lacks the needed information or has outdated 
information, and that means our staff and Committee staff and 
Member office staff are spending time trying to track down 
information individually, agency by agency, or even contacting 
someone who no longer works at the agency by mistake, you know, 
which can cause delays in getting technical assistance, which 
can delay a constituent's casework claims and more, so--and it 
would help us implement one of the open recommendations of the 
Modernization Committee.
    One, just an invitation, we would love to find a way to 
work together on this with you, and I would love to hear if 
there is other thoughts that you have about ways to improve 
efficiencies that you are pursuing at CRS.
    Mr. Newlen. Well, thank you. That report is--the 
congressional Liaison Report is our most popular report. It 
gets more hits than anything else. I think that you are right 
on target, Mr. Kilmer, because there is a huge interest in 
that, and we would welcome the opportunity to explore how we 
might do that.
    We have done some preliminary thinking about it in terms of 
the resources that would be necessary and what--how--what the 
governance structure would be of it. We welcome the opportunity 
to sit down with you and your staff and see how we can improve 
on that----
    Mr. Kilmer. Great.
    Mr. Newlen [continuing]. access to that kind of 
information.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
    Thanks, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    At this time I recognize the Chair of the full Committee, 
Mr. Steil.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you, Chair Bice.
    I have two questions I want to dive into. One, I would love 
you just to comment briefly about how the requests that come 
from Members and staff to CRS have changed over the past 20 to 
30 years.
    Mr. Newlen. Certainly. Well, with the advances in 
technology, the first thing that I would observe is, is that we 
no longer have those kind of simple reference questions: 
population, addresses, that kind of thing. People are finding 
that themselves with Google and other tools. What we are 
experiencing is that the questions are harder, and it takes 
sometimes longer to answer the kinds of really detailed 
reference questions that Members have.
    One thing that has been a constant is the continued 
interest in analysis and providing options to the Congress 
concerning legislation. That is something that has been kind of 
a constant throughout the history of CRS and something that we 
devote a lot of resources to, to ensuring that we have the 
right analysts in place, which is not always easy.
    At the present moment, we have a number of positions that 
are outstanding in our resources, science, and industry 
section, and we look forward to filling those in the near 
future.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you. Let me jump into the second 
point. We talked a lot about getting the data and data access 
to you. The second side of that I think is, as Ranking Member 
Kilmer was referencing, is, how do we utilize the data, how do 
we present it?
    Can you walk through just a little bit about how CRS is 
positioned to take advantage of the data if it arrives? I am 
thinking about data dashboards, presentation aspects, training, 
visualization, other aspects that you have spent time on or 
other tools that you may need in that regard.
    Mr. Newlen. Absolutely. Well, one of the studies that gave 
us really, really good direction was a RAND study done several 
years ago. It suggested that we start looking at newer analytic 
methods, which we are doing, and also looking at cloud-based 
solutions, which of course are very expensive right now. That 
was one of the recommendations.
    The other one was to apply newer data-science methods, and 
we have begun that process. We have--we have some of the, I 
would say, good staff that know how to manage that data, but we 
also have a request outstanding at the moment in an effort--for 
about 3 million to continue that effort so that we have the 
ability to manage big data.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you. Thank you very much. I 
appreciate the work you are doing over at CRS. It is a 
spectacular resource, and I appreciate the work you, Chair 
Bice, and Ranking Member Kilmer are doing as we look to 
continue to enhance the work and modernize it.
    I will yield back.
    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    At this time I will recognize Mr. Carey for 5 minutes for 
questions.
    Mr. Carey. Well, thank you for being here today. I would 
like to focus a little bit on AI, if that is alright.
    Mr. Newlen. Yes.
    Mr. Carey. CRS' modernization initiatives as it relates to 
AI, can you tell us more about the working group and 
particularly the work in exploring how AI might be used to 
expedite bill summary process?
    Mr. Newlen. Yes, absolutely. We are very excited about 
artificial intelligence, but like everyone, we are taking it--
we are moving cautiously to ensure that any information that we 
get from AI is--meets all of our standards of nonpartisanship, 
authoritativeness. We have a number of things in place right 
now.
    The working group looks for opportunities in CRS processes 
for short-, medium-, and long-term projects that we might use. 
We also coordinate very closely with the Library's Office of 
CIO, with their AI working group.
    Right now, we have dipped our toe in the water, and one of 
the things that we are very excited about is a process that we 
are looking at right now to develop five models that would help 
us with bill summaries. We have a huge backlog of bill 
summaries and analysis for Congress.gov.
    We think there is potential for AI to help us with those 
summaries, so we are exploring these five models as we speak. 
We have a whole set of criteria that have to be met, and our 
hope is, is that we can implement this soon so that our staff 
can spend more time on the analysis, which is the, you know, 
the really hard work, and less time on the summaries. At the 
same time, we have to be absolutely assured that that 
information is a very high quality.
    You may be familiar with the effort that Politico did 
recently with AI, and we actually took some of the examples 
just to kind of see if they were accurate, and they did not 
pass the test. This is a good caution for us to ensure that we 
always have the best data available.
    Mr. Carey. I mean, it is definitely something that, you 
know, I think it is finding its way into Members' offices and 
often with the staff, but--so another question. How is CRS 
making Members and their staff aware of its new visually based 
products?
    Mr. Newlen. We are doing several things. At the present 
time, we are doing new work on our CRS website for Members and 
staff, and we have been doing some development.
    I decided that we needed to take kind of a harder look at 
this, do some more consultation, and one of the things that we 
want to feature prominently are infographics, interactive 
graphics, and story book maps. That is going to be one of the 
primary ways.
    We also have a number of outreach efforts that we do 
through our divisions to client bases. They send out weekly 
information about new reports that CRS is doing in areas that 
they are interested in, and we feature those topics--or feature 
those kinds of products with infographics.
    One thing that would be helpful to us is--we would like 
your help as well--if there is any kind of forum where we can--
where CRS can be to talk about our services, to talk about the 
kind of innovative products that we are offering Congress, we 
would be very, very grateful.
    Mr. Carey. I would add to that, you know, I came in in a 
special election. Now, I am former staff. I was staff, and 
then--you know, I hate to say when I was a staff, but a long 
time ago--but, you know, the thing that I have--the services 
that you provide are remarkable.
    You know, we have a number of Members that have left, and 
we have got a bunch of new Members that are going to be coming 
in as, you know, special elections. However we can work with 
your offices, because, you know, the thing about when you come 
in as a special election, all your staff is--you do not have 
any staff, you know. As you start getting those team members 
that come in and join your team, it would be great to work with 
your office to make sure they are well aware of the services 
and the things that you provide, so----
    Mr. Newlen. Absolutely. We would be very happy to work with 
your office to give you a really in-depth orientation as we 
would give any new Member.
    Mr. Carey. Well, I am more concerned about the ones that 
are coming in, in the future, because I know we have talked 
about this--I know the chairwoman and I have--about 
orientation, and when you are in the special election, you do 
not have that. You know, it is just like, here is your hat and 
what is your hurry, right?
    As we bring these new Members in, I would like very much to 
make sure they coordinate with you, so----
    Mr. Newlen. Well, this is something at the front of our 
priorities right now, and that is the new Member seminar, that 
we work with the Committee as soon as the new Members are 
inducted, we take them to Williamsburg, Virginia, and have 3 
days of policy seminars, discussions about legislative process 
and procedure, budget process.
    It provides an opportunity for Members to get to know CRS 
staff and their capacity, and there is no one else present for 
distractions--no staff, no press--it is a very, very good 
program.
    Mr. Carey. I would be remiss if I did not ask this 
question, but what other areas that you guys are doing--I know 
you have done a lot with AI, you have done a lot with 
visually--but in terms of cost-savings as it relates to your 
organization, improved efficiency, what are some of the things 
that you are doing with CRS?
    Mr. Newlen. Well, thank you for asking that question. I did 
not answer Mr. Kilmer's question very thoroughly, so I am glad 
that you have posed it.
    When I came, when I started at CRS, I had 13 focus groups 
within the span of 5 weeks, where I met with staff in an 
informal situation to--and this is the question I posed to 
them: What is it that I can do in the short time that I am here 
to help you better serve the Congress? They came through with a 
lot of--a lot of different ideas.
    For those that did not want to participate in a forum, I 
encouraged them to send emails, and I got 400. I took all of 
that information and started looking at what are low-hanging 
fruits in terms of efficiencies that we can get. I will give 
you a couple examples.
    The staff were using a Zoom account, which, you know, our 
bread and butter is consultations with Members and staff, 
whether it is in person or virtually. They, unfortunately, had 
the lowest priority Zoom account. At 40 minutes, it would 
cutoff. They have to go back--well, you can imagine the 
embarrassment if you are doing this with a Member of Congress.
    Within a week, thanks to our--the Library's technology 
office, everybody in the Service has a Zoom, that needs one, 
has a Zoom Pro account.
    The other thing that I discovered was--actually, two other 
things. Because we have so many deadlines, and one of our, you 
know, hallmarks is responsiveness, there was a lot of concern 
about IT support in our divisions and offices and frustration 
with getting things resolved very quickly. Everything we do is 
deadline-driven. You know, if your printer is not working, your 
software is not working, we use all kinds of different software 
throughout the Service depending on the policy need.
    We get a pilot where we embedded technicians in the Service 
unit and the offices, and I can say that it has been 100 
percent successful. It has reduced the time, in terms of 
efficiencies, and the frustration that our analysts, attorneys, 
and librarians have in getting their problems resolved.
    The other thing which has been wonderful, was a big 
complaint, was cell coverage. I will give you one example that 
I think is very graphic. I was walking by an office of one of 
our Government and finance analysts who routinely does 
briefings for Members, and I saw that she had her cell phone 
hanging in the--like on the hinge of her door.
    I said, Val, what is going on here? She said, well, that is 
the only place in the office that it will ring. I said, you 
cannot be serious. She said, yes, when I answer it, I stand 
there, and then I tell the person I have to go out so that I 
can call you back.
    Well, that was ridiculous. Again, working with Judith 
Conklin and John Rutledge in our Office of CIO, they have done 
all kinds of things to upgrade that, Wi-Fi extenders, which 
has, again, improved efficiency and also improved morale.
    Mr. Carey. Well, and just to go back to your thing. If for 
some reason you are on a Zoom and you cutoff after 40 minutes, 
I am a firm believer that the mind can only handle what the 
seat can bear, so that 40-minutes timeframe is probably not a 
bad thing, so----
    With that, I really appreciate your testimony. I had an 
opportunity to read through it, and thank you for being here 
today.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Carey.
    A couple of just quick comments. You mentioned the 
Williamsburg visit, getting the Members together and having a 
conversation about some of those things. I think, 
unfortunately, as a Member of the 117th congressional class, we 
unfortunately did not have that opportunity, which I think 
would have been fantastic.
    I would also say, I think it would be helpful to have some 
of those things with staff, because you all, especially your 
analysts, are interacting with staff so much more than even the 
Members directly, and I think that we can hopefully try to find 
some ways to work with your team to find the opportunities to 
put you all together in person.
    The second thing is, you mentioned AI, and I think that 
looking at whether or not we have the opportunity to utilize AI 
to create those bill summaries is really, I think, important. I 
also agree with you, that caution has to be had, though, 
because if we were participating or listened to the hearing 
yesterday, which was really about AI and the legislative 
process, there was a lot of conversation around inaccurate 
information being presented.
    I think that I look at it as sort of a garbage in, garbage 
out, right? Whatever you put into that AI platform, if it is 
not, you know, sort of vetted and thorough, then it is going to 
come out incorrect, and the human oversight of that, not only 
on the front end, but also as the product is produced, is going 
to be really important.
    I appreciate you sort of recognizing those pitfalls that 
have the potential to be problematic for you all.
    One last final question before we wrap up this quick 
segment, and that is, you know, you talked a little bit about 
some of the agencies that have been less than forthcoming with 
providing data to you.
    Have you had any pushback from other entities that do not 
want you to have this data for some reason? Have they been 
really forthcoming to say, we do not want to give this to you, 
and what was their reason for that if they did?
    Mr. Newlen. Probably less that they--they have not been 
upfront about saying they do not want to give it to us, but the 
reality is, they do not want to give it to us. They use 
different ways of, you know, throwing up roadblocks, requesting 
MOUs. They want to know which office that we are, you know, 
working for. You know, often we are doing anticipatory work, so 
there is no office.
    Often a Member, to answer a request, we need data from an 
agency, and we have had some negotiations that have been going 
on for several years. That is why I am so delighted that the 
Subcommittee has taken this up because this could be a huge--a 
huge improvement for us.
    Again, it is something I heard from our analytic staff 
about the frustration that they have, and it impacts our 
service to you.
    Chairwoman Bice. Sure, yes. Mr. Newlen, thank you so much 
for being with us this morning. We appreciate your time and 
your testimony, and look forward to continuing to move these 
initiatives forward.
    At this time we will pause briefly to set for the second 
panel of witnesses. Thank you for your time.
    Mr. Newlen. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Bice. I will now introduce our second panel of 
witnesses. Our first witness is Ms. Elise Bean, the director of 
the Washington office of the Carl Levin Center for Oversight 
and Democracy at Wayne State University Law School.
    Ms. Bean worked as an investigator for Senator Carl Levin 
for 30 years, including 15 years at the U.S. Senate Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations as staff director and chief 
counsel. After leaving the Senate, she helped establish the 
Levin Center, and now works to help legislators and staff 
conduct oversight investigations.
    Next, we welcome Dr. Matthew Glassman, a senior fellow at 
the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University. 
Prior to joining GAI, Matt spent 10 years on Capitol Hill at 
the congressional Research Service, including 2 years as a 
detailee to the legislative branch Subcommittee on the House 
Committee on Appropriations.
    Our final witness is Dr. Nicholas Hart, president and CEO 
of Data Foundation. Previously, Dr. Hart served as the director 
of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Evidence Project, building on 
his work as policy and research director for the U.S. 
Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking.
    Thank you to our second panel of witnesses for being with 
us this afternoon. Please remember to press the button on the 
microphone in front of you so the light comes on, and when you 
begin speaking, you will have 5 minutes. After 4, the light 
will turn yellow, and when the red light comes on, your 5 
minutes have expired, and we would kindly ask that you please 
wrap up your comments.
    At this time, I am delighted to recognize Ms. Bean for 5 
minutes.

STATEMENTS OF MS. ELISE BEAN, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON OFFICE, CARL 
 LEVIN CENTER FOR OVERSIGHT & DEMOCRACY; DR. MATTHEW GLASSMAN, 
    SENIOR FELLOW, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS INSTITUTE, GEORGETOWN 
  UNIVERSITY; AND DR. NICHOLAS HART, PRESIDENT AND CEO, DATA 
                           FOUNDATION

                  STATEMENT OF MS. ELISE BEAN

    Ms. Bean. Subcommittee Chair Bice, Ranking Member Kilmer, 
and the Subcommittee Members, thank you for this opportunity to 
support the Subcommittee's efforts to modernize and strengthen 
the congressional Research Service, especially because CRS 
strongly supports congressional oversight.
    As you mentioned, I represent the Carl Levin Center for 
Oversight and Democracy, which is part of Wayne State 
University Law School in Detroit.
    Senator Levin used to say, ``Good Government requires good 
oversight.'' He also appreciated the fact that the Supreme 
Court has long recognized Congress' need for information to 
carry out its constitutional duties. Nearly 100 years ago in an 
8-0 opinion upholding a congressional subpoena seeking 
information related to the Attorney General, the Supreme Court 
wrote, quote, ``The power of inquiry, with process to enforce 
it, is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the 
legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate 
wisely or effectively in the absence of information,'' end 
quote. The Supreme Court recently explicitly reaffirmed those 
principles in 2020 in the Mazars case.
    Investigating facts, what happened and why, and analyzing 
complex problems are at the heart of congressional oversight. 
They are critical to Congress' work to enact effective 
legislation, allocate Federal funds, inform the public about 
what its Government is doing, and act as a check on the 
executive branch. Sixty years ago the Supreme Court held that, 
quote, ``it is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to 
cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain facts 
needed for intelligent legislative action,'' end quote. The 
duty to cooperate with congressional information requests, 
including through CRS, applies to Federal agencies no less than 
others and is fundamental to the checks and balances envisioned 
by the Constitution.
    CRS has long played a key role in helping Congress gather 
facts and conduct effective oversight. CRS employs hundreds of 
experts whose sole responsibility is to answer questions and 
provide research requested by Congress. CRS has also built a 
reputation as a source of nonpartisan, reliable information 
trusted by both sides of the aisle. It produces a wealth of 
data in service to Congress. Its latest annual report states 
that in fiscal 2022, CRS responded to over 73,000 congressional 
requests for information.
    Senator Levin's staff made frequent use of CRS. To offer 
one example, some years ago, Senator Levin wanted to 
investigate how you set gasoline prices. At the time, his staff 
knew very little about the subject, so we called in CRS' 
experts who provided multiple briefings to educate both sides 
of the aisle at the same time on key facts: how the gasoline 
market worked, what factors affected price, where do you get 
data on gasoline prices over time, and much more. It was 
invaluable assistance given our limited staff, our limited 
resources, and limited time. CRS was a force multiplier.
    That is just one example. The CRS annual report includes a 
list 65 pages long of reports and other written products issued 
during a single year on a vast array of topics for Congress. 
Examples include U.S. Immigration Courts and the Pending Cases 
Backlog; The Dark Web: An Overview; a primer on China and Hong 
Kong; Cost-Benefit Analysis in Federal Agency Rulemaking.
    To produce those types of reports, CRS needs access to data 
held by Federal agencies. For over 50 years to obtain agency 
information, CRS has relied on the Federal statute, 2 U.S.C., 
section 166, which requires Federal agencies to comply with CRS 
information requests when those requests are authorized by a 
Committee.
    It is time for Congress to modernize that law. One of the 
bills under consideration today would do just that. For 
example, the bill would extend CRS' authority to obtain agency 
information, not only when CRS is authorized by a Committee, 
but also when authorized by an individual Member of Congress or 
when CRS itself anticipates Congress will need the information. 
The bill also states explicitly that agencies must produce 
information in, quote, ``a timely manner,'' end quote.
    The improved statutory language would not, of course, cure 
all of the problems that CRS faces with agencies. This 
Subcommittee and other House and Senate Committees will still 
need to lend CRS a helping hand by overseeing agency compliance 
with the law. At the same time, enacting a stronger statute 
would send a clear message to the Federal agencies that they 
are expected to comply with CRS requests.
    CRS is one of the few institutions dedicated to supporting 
the work of Congress, including congressional oversight. It is 
also one of the few institutions trusted by both sides of the 
aisle. In return, Congress should support CRS. Equipping CRS 
with better legal authority to obtain the information to which 
Congress is entitled under the Constitution will benefit every 
Member of the House and Senate.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Bean follows:]

                PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELISE BEAN
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Ms. Bean.
    At this time, I recognize Dr. Glassman for 5 minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF MATTHEW GLASSMAN

    Mr. Glassman. Chairwoman Bice, Ranking Member Kilmer, 
Congressman Carey, thank you for the opportunity to testify 
today.
    As you mentioned, I am a senior fellow at the Government 
Affairs Institute at Georgetown University. I am also an alum 
of the congressional Research Service where my portfolio 
consisted of institutional issues in Congress, including 
congressional operations, budget and appropriations process, 
and separation of powers.
    I am a legislative branch patriot and committed to the goal 
of a modern, capable, and powerful legislature. I strongly 
support the proposed legislation to expand CRS' access to data 
from the executive branch.
    I want to make four points today: First, access to data is 
vital for CRS. CRS' mission is to provide Members and staff 
nonpartisan, objective, authoritative, and timely research and 
analysis. To do this, CRS analysts use data from a wide variety 
of Government, academic, and private sector sources. There is 
simply no way to do high quality research and policy analysis 
without data.
    During my time at CRS, I do not think there was a single 
day where I did not make use of the vast data collections 
available to me at CRS or in the Library of Congress.
    More than once, I held my breath while looking for what I 
needed within CRS, knowing that if I did not find it there, I 
was going to have to head to sources outside the library where 
the wait would be longer and the results unknown.
    Second, during my time at CRS, I often experienced 
frustrating difficulties obtaining data from the executive 
branch. In rare cases, I was simply told by a Federal agency I 
could not have the data. More often, my point of contact was 
not sure whether they should share the data with me.
    In many cases, they were not even familiar with CRS. Where 
are you calling from? Is that a Government agency? was a very 
common response. Many of these contacts, quite reasonably told 
me they would have to check with their supervisors.
    My data request, presumably a pretty low priority on their 
busy agenda, was often forgotten until I called back 3 days 
later, only to have the entire process start over again.
    For data that I would be requesting on an ongoing basis, my 
usual strategy was collegial. I would try to make a friend at 
the agency. In this sense, I often felt like I imagined 
journalists feel writing stories. I always felt like I was 
asking someone to do me a favor.
    To be clear, in most cases where I sought data from the 
executive branch, I eventually was able to get it, but the time 
it could take, the hassle of the process, and the possibility 
of ultimately not getting the data often led to a worse CRS 
response for Congress.
    Third, the proposed legislation we have here today will 
improve the situation, especially if it is well-implemented.
    I fully support H.R. 7593. Requiring executive branch 
agencies to share information for all requests, not just 
Committee requests, will give CRS analysts and management a 
firm leg to stand on when requesting this data from the 
agencies.
    For high-profile data requests that management gets 
involved in negotiating, the new authority will be extremely 
helpful on its own, and it will be great for a CRS analyst to 
be able to politely point to statutory language in emails and 
phone calls requesting data.
    That said, I do not believe the statutory authority alone 
will fully solve the problem. As noted earlier, the stumbling 
block for me was often timeliness due to agency unfamiliarity 
with or uncertainty about their obligations.
    Consequently, for many analyst-to-agency simple data 
requests, the new authority would be most effective if it is 
paired with an information campaign. Perhaps starting with the 
leg affairs shops at the agencies, such that the agencies 
understand their updated obligations to provide CRS with data.
    Finally, the need for these data access authorities should 
be seen as a first step toward broader statutory reform for 
CRS. The CRS organic statute was last substantially revised in 
1970. The reforms under consideration today suggest the entire 
statute could use review.
    Congress has changed significantly in the last 50 years. 
Two quick examples: First, in 1970, policymaking was strongly 
centered in the Committee system controlled by powerful old 
bull chairs and built on top of a strict seniority system. In 
that atmosphere, it was natural to organize a support agency 
like CRS around the Committees.
    Times have changed. The relative power of the Committees 
has weakened, and policymaking roles have expanded far outside 
the Committee system.
    CRS requests for analysis now routinely come from all 
corners of the Hill: Member offices, leadership, CMOs, even 
informal working groups.
    Second, technology. The 1970 Act could not have foreseen 
the explosion of digital information and communications 
available to Members and staff, all on computers carried in 
their pockets. This has made some of CRS' statutory mission 
seem plain anachronistic, such as providing Committees at the 
beginning of Congress with lists of policy areas they may want 
to study, while also in some ways, making CRS more distant from 
the Hill as emails and pdf reports have replaced face-to-face 
briefings and physical information delivery.
    Updating the CRS statute to adjust to these realities will 
better focus the mission of the service and allow it to better 
serve the Members.
    Thanks for having me here today, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Glassman follows:]

             PREPARED STATEMENT OF MATTHEW GLASSMAN
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Dr. Glassman.
    Finally, Dr. Hart, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an 
opening statement.

                   STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS HART

    Mr. Hart. Thank you.
    As someone who has spent most of their career in the 
executive branch, I am happy to say I know what CRS is.
    Thank you for the invitation to join today's hearing. As 
you noted, I lead the Data Foundation, which is a nonpartisan 
national nonprofit that works to improve Government, business, 
and society through open data and evidence-informed policy.
    I am really pleased to be here to share perspectives about 
the use of data and evidence to support Congress. I get to zoom 
out of it.
    Because Congress needs data, it is actively using evidence 
and really always has. As the world, country, and Congress 
change, Congress really needs to review, as an institution, 
whether it is actually receiving the right kinds of data and 
evidence to support effective oversight and decisionmaking.
    Importantly, our value systems are actually part of how 
each of you, as Members, represent the values in our Democratic 
Republic, and that is actually vital to decisionmaking and our 
success as a country. That is a very important input that we 
should not miss.
    Evidence must have a seat at the table. It must be a key 
seat. Congress, as an institution, needs to have procedures and 
processes to access what Members and staff actually need to 
fulfill effective legislative and oversight functions. In a 
sense, we are aspiring to align the best available evidence in 
decisionmaking for the legislative process.
    Ensuring Congress has the data and evidence it needs at the 
right time and in the right format for decisions requires 
planning and coordination, and even a sense of humility about 
what we want and need to know.
    Evidence helps determine, as Mr. Kilmer was alluding to, 
whether, how, when, where, and for whom policies work and also 
helps describe the conditions and solutions that we want.
    We have seen lots of bipartisan examples over the years. I 
alluded to some in my written statement, including things like 
the bipartisan negotiations that achieves solvency for the 
social security disability trust fund back in 2015, along with 
major reforms for the program.
    We are talking right now about the child tax credit 
expansions and improved evaluations for tax expenditures. A 
major point of discussion that we desperately need, and we know 
from the CTC that it has impacts on reducing child poverty.
    Using evidence should be easy for decisionmakers and not 
challenged by institutional processes and barriers to access.
    This is why I strongly endorse the congressional Evidence-
Based Policymaking Commission resolution--a mouthful. A broader 
cohort of the data and evidence community will also agree with 
us.
    Establishing this Commission is a low-cost, rapid mechanism 
for addressing the question of how Congress can establish 
capacity, process and procedure to better use data and 
evidence. There are so many resources today that already exist 
to do this, and the question is, how can we better achieve this 
goal through congressional support agencies and executive 
branch agencies?
    A prior evidence commission back in 2017, established by 
then-Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator Patty Murray, focused on 
ways to drastically improve executive branch capabilities 
through data infrastructure and evidence capacity. They 
achieved unanimous recommendations.
    Because of the Ryan-Murray Commission and those unanimous 
recommendations, Congress passed the Evidence Act, the 
foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act. It includes 
Congressman Kilmer's Open Government Data Act, and Congress 
later passed the National Secure Data Service Authority.
    The Ryan-Murray Commission directly led to an improved 
understanding of what evidence is, established new leadership 
roles, like the chief data officers and evaluation officers to 
coordinate with senior leaders, new data strategies and data 
governance in agencies, new data sharing projects and 
evaluation, advanced data governance with privacy improvements, 
and planning for evidence through learning agendas resulting in 
OMB defining evaluations, a core function of Government. There 
is even an expectation of open data by default in the executive 
branch.
    This is a lot, and all of that happened over the last 5 
years, but did not necessarily align with the congressional 
support function and the timing of decisions in Congress. That 
means there is a lot to think about for this institution and in 
Congress.
    Congress still needs to think about its capacity and what 
infrastructure it needs, noting the 50 years--50-year-old 
design and gaps that currently exist.
    Should Congress have a CEO, like it mandated for executive 
branch agencies, how do we think about CRS data access noting 
that the executive branch is building out a standard access 
portal for data access? How do we think about engagement and 
transparency?
    There are so many other issues that a congressionally 
focused commission can think about. The Commission offers an 
opportunity to support Member and congressional staff in the 
endeavor to produce and encourage good policy outcomes for the 
American people.
    Congress needs a coherent, depoliticized discussion about 
the process and accountability of evidence, specifically, what 
it wants to function better as an institution and using 
knowledge starting with the question.
    I encourage Members to advance this congressional Evidence 
Commission to support this discussion and planning for ways to 
strengthen Congress in the years ahead.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hart follows:]

              PREPARED STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS HART
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Dr. Hart.
    Ranking Member Kilmer is, as we often are, floating between 
Committees right now, so he will return shortly.
    We will start with questions, myself first, and then we 
will try to move around.
    First of all, thank you all again for being here this 
morning/afternoon. We appreciate your time.
    I want to start--you mentioned something toward the end of 
your testimony that I think ties in perfectly with the question 
I have here, and I will open it up to everyone on the witness 
panel, and that is, Dr. Hart, your testimony calls for 
depoliticized discussion of how Congress can use evidence to 
better function as an institution using the knowledge being 
gained.
    Certainly, that is a very admirable goal, but how do you 
get around the fact that data can be used to promote sort of 
partisan aims? How can we be certain that the data being 
presented is not biased, especially when both sides point to 
data in these policy debates?
    Mr. Hart. A major component of this is thinking about how 
we transparently share the information evidence that we are 
using, and this is actually one of the pillars of Evidence 
Commission, the Ryan-Murray Commission when we talked about 
evidence-based policymaking.
    Transparency was one of the five pillars, and in the 
executive branch, this is something that we have encouraged, 
promoted as we are talking about sharing more information from 
the American public. It is one of the reasons that we promote 
openness of data.
    It is not to say that we will never have different views 
about what data mean and what data analysis means, but the more 
that we are able to share and have open and honest dialogs 
about the information that is in front of us, the more we can 
have a productive discussion about what problems are really 
there and how to solve them.
    This is one of the reasons that the Open Government Data 
Act is such a powerful piece of legislation that should be 
something that Congress is interested in providing oversight of 
and we should be moving forward with.
    It is a topic in front of us.
    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you.
    Ms. Bean, you mentioned in your testimony the 65 reports 
that are done annually by CRS that provide an, I think, 
incredible amount of information to us, and it is one of the 
things I think is maybe most overlooked, as Members and staff, 
that these reports are done and are out there for our viewing 
pleasure, but also to gain insight for.
    My question to you really revolves around why do support 
agencies have their data access authorities detailed in 
statute?
    Ms. Bean. Well, I think there are two reasons: First, we 
are a Nation of laws, and so it is very helpful for an agency 
to have a very clear, strong law that it can point to that 
enables it to get the information that Congress needs. I think 
that is sort of one reason it is important to have that kind of 
statutory foundation.
    Another reason is that Congress, you know, needs 
information for virtually all of the things that it does, 
whether it is enacting legislation, spending taxpayer dollars, 
overseeing the executive branch. It needs that information.
    We want to provide that strong foundation for its support 
agencies to act as those force multipliers to help the staffs 
that have limited resources and limited time get the 
information they need.
    Chairwoman Bice. Excellent.
    Dr. Glassman, understanding that you were actually at CRS a 
while ago, my question to you is, may be a little more 
technical, and that is: Do confidentiality agreements between 
analysts and their congressional clients prevent analysts from 
sharing those raw datasets that they may be given by the 
executive branch?
    Mr. Glassman. You mean, confidentiality between an analyst 
like myself and a congressional requester, such as you?
    Chairwoman Bice. Correct.
    Mr. Glassman. You know, confidentiality at CRS is airtight 
between CRS, the agency, and the office of the Member or the 
staff requesting. I always thought about it as that was the 
baseline. I would never tell anyone outside the office I was 
working for or CRS what was going on.
    I would certainly talk to other analysts and ask them to 
help me on something. Unless the requester specifically said do 
not talk to anyone else in my office, I would think it would be 
sort of fair game to talk to someone in their office.
    In terms of data coming from the executive branch, when I 
had it, I never used it in terms of handing over raw datasets. 
In fact, often, when I was dealing with the executive branch, 
that.
    Would be the one condition they would want on the data, I 
would say. Well, we will give it to you, but you are just using 
this to write a report with analysis, right? I would say, yes, 
and then I would do that. Then I would have the data, and I 
would continue to use it for that purpose.
    I would never transfer sort of large-scale data to 
Congress. I think I would probably be very weary of doing that 
without sort of getting my supervisor involved or discussing it 
further with the agency, the requester.
    Now, I often wrote things, analysis pieces that were 
confidential to Members who I then went back later and said, 
Hey, I have another client who might be interested in similar 
things. Is it OK if I share that with them?
    That happened routinely, and I almost never had anyone say 
no to that. I would think that that would be how I would handle 
these sort of data things.
    You know, I think it is understandable if you are taking 
massive raw datasets from the executive branch agencies. I 
think they would be concerned about this, and I think I would 
be, too.
    Chairwoman Bice. I think for many looking at this issue, 
they want to make sure that that information may not be shared 
specifically or directly with, you know, either Members or 
staff, but still the information that is provided there within 
is given to you all and then you all can sort of translate 
that, put it into those papers, and provide us the data that we 
are asking for.
    Yes, perfect. Thank you for that.
    Since Mr. Kilmer has not returned yet, I am going to move 
over to Mr. Carey for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Carey. I appreciate that, Chairwoman.
    You know, one of the things that--it is interesting being 
former staff. Ms. Bean, you worked for Senator Levin for a 
number of years.
    Ms. Bean. Thirty years.
    Mr. Carey. Thirty years?
    Ms. Bean. Yes.
    Mr. Carey. See, you know, that is where AI should do a 
better job when they ask the questions because they said 
decades of experience. I would not have gone there, but.
    As somebody who watched his career, I mean, everybody knows 
about his service on the Armed Services Committee and all the 
things that he did, but truly was a champion for pensions and 
healthcare for retirees, a rare gift these days. Glad you are 
continuing his legacy.
    With your decades of experience and oversight and managing, 
can you lay out for us, in straightforward terms, what Congress 
is legally entitled to obtain from the executive branch? I know 
you worked on this with agencies and departments.
    Ms. Bean. Well, the Supreme Court has been very clear that 
as long as Congress has a legislative purpose, Congress has 
broad authority to obtain information. The Supreme Court first 
affirmed Congress' authority to conduct oversight of the 
executive branch nearly 100 years ago in McGrain vs. Daugherty, 
and it reaffirmed that authority in 2020 in the Mazars case.
    Here are some direct quotes from the Supreme Court in 
Mazars: Quote, ``congressional power to obtain information is 
broad and indispensable,'' end quote.
    Quote, ``It is the proper duty of a representative body to 
look diligently into every affair of Government,'' end quote.
    Quote, ``Unless Congress have and use every means of 
acquainting itself with the acts and disposition of the 
administrative agents of the Government, the country must be 
helpless to learn how it is being served,'' end quote.
    The Supreme Court could not have been more clear about 
Congress' right to obtain information for a legislative purpose 
from the executive branch, and that includes when Congress is 
enacting legislation, overseeing the executive branch, and it 
includes information requests from its support agencies since 
the only reason they are asking is to assist Congress.
    Mr. Carey. Let me go into that. Given the reality of the 
executive legislative relations, do you think that changing 
CRS' statute would make a difference?
    Ms. Bean. I do. I mentioned before that we are a Nation of 
laws, and one of the first things executive branch agencies 
like to know is, Well, what is your legislative authority? What 
is your statutory authority.
    Having that strong, clear, statute would make a difference. 
A strong Congress needs a strong CRS operating under strong 
statutory authority.
    Mr. Carey. I cannot remember whether it was you, Dr. 
Glassman, or Dr. Hart. In reading your bios, I know we have a 
real--we have a very educated body that we are asking questions 
to.
    What is it that we can do as Members of Congress that can 
help CRS be--help the agencies understand the role of CRS? 
Because that is--you know, you get young staff that comes in, 
and whether it is, you know, here in the Capitol or whether it 
is in an agency, and they just do not really understand the 
role.
    What could we be doing? I am going to go to you, Dr. 
Glassman. What could we do better as a Congress to make sure 
the agencies know your role?
    Mr. Glassman. Sure. I mean, I think, you know, one of the 
biggest frustrations I would have, that I would often have with 
staffers when we were both working on something together, was 
that the agencies did not see CRS as an extension of, say, 
Committee staff, right.
    Making sure the agencies knew that when CRS was requesting 
something, it was no different than if a Committee staffer was 
requesting something. At least bringing it up on that plane 
would be extremely helpful.
    In part, because, you know, there were a fair amount of 
times I would have a request where I would be working with a 
Committee staffer, and the reason I was requesting the data is 
because they wanted to remain anonymous, and they did not want 
the agency to know that this Committee was looking at this or 
that they were looking at this.
    I would go to the agency, and they would sort of just, you 
know, not answer my thing. I would go back to the staffer and 
be, like, Can you call? They would, you know, throw their hands 
up in the air because that was exactly what they did not want 
to do.
    Making sure the agencies know that CRS should be treated as 
the equivalent of Committee staff when they are dealing with 
leg affairs shops, or when they are dealing with program 
managers would be great.
    I can imagine writing lines in Committee reports and 
appropriations bills just reminding them of that, right, when 
they get their funding. Yes, that would be the most beneficial 
thing I think.
    Chairwoman Bice. Perfect.
    Mr. Carey. I will go to Dr. Hart. I mean, the same type of 
question. What do you think that we could be doing a better job 
of as Member of Congress to make sure the agencies understand 
the role of CRS?
    Mr. Hart. I think there is a lot, actually, that sort of 
fits in this conversation about the access of CRS to executive 
branch data, including some very important privacy discourse.
    CRS does not necessarily need unfettered access to 
executive branch information. For example, the Census Bureau 
collects a lot of information from the American public that we 
place very important privacy protections on. We are not 
necessarily talking about CRS getting access to the 
confidential records of the Census Bureau.
    We are having a conversation about aggregate information, I 
think, is largely what CRS is looking for and ensuring that 
aggregated administrative records. I think there is an 
important starting point that CRS is going to need to 
understand about what it actually needs.
    Then there is a second level of this about the executive 
branch has an expectation of transparency in communicating when 
it is using data. CRS does not have that same expectation. You 
are just talking a little bit about a veil of secrecy in a 
sense between the communications that CRS has with Members.
    However, when we talk about evidence production in the 
executive branch, we are often encouraging transparency. I 
think we are going to have to reconcile that.
    Congress actually told the executive branch agencies to 
have more transparency as it is producing evidence. That to me 
seems like a bit of a conflict.
    I think if CRS is going to have this legislation move 
forward, that communication--maybe this is part of the 
information campaign that you are describing--will have to 
figure that out.
    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you.
    Mr. Carey. Well, listen, I thank the witnesses, and I thank 
the Chairwoman for being indulgent with her time.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Bice. Thank you, Mr. Carey.
    At this time, I recognize Ranking Member Kilmer.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair.
    First, I want to speak in support of the Committee 
deconfliction tool, which my clone did not arrive at work 
today.
    Chairwoman Bice. Second.
    Mr. Kilmer. First, I wanted to ask Dr. Hart, you know, for 
folks who maybe are less familiar with the history of the U.S. 
Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking and the work it did, 
I was just hoping you would share a little bit about the nuts 
and bolts of how the Commission was staffed, how its agenda was 
set, what it did on a day-to-day basis.
    You know, assuming the work was driven by trying to arrive 
at a set of recommendations, were there predetermined 
categories or areas of jurisdiction that the Commission used as 
guideposts? Were there competing priorities? How were those 
resolved?
    Mr. Hart. Yes. The Evidence Commission from Ryan and Murray 
had about 18 months to do its work. It was a very fast timeline 
and was charged with, essentially, studying the whole of 
Government, the whole of the executive branch.
    Its initial charge was to answer a question about whether 
there should be a clearinghouse for data in the executive 
branch. That was a pretty wicked question, in essence. The 
answer was very quickly no, by the way.
    It had a staff of 10, so it was not a large staff. It 
largely came from executive branch agencies and 15 politically 
appointed Members, five of which were appointed for their 
expertise in privacy, which was very important in the final 
recommendation formulation.
    SIn addition to the focus on that data clearinghouse 
question, it had priorities that were very specifically around 
data access, the theme of much of the conversation around CRS, 
privacy protections, and the capacity of the executive branch 
to actually do this work.
    All of the recommendations from that Ryan-Murray 
Commission, essentially, focused on those priorities. The way 
that the Commission converged on those priorities I think was 
something that is actually very relevant to the congressional 
Evidence Commission. Some of it came from the Members, the 
sponsors.
    In the very first meeting of the Commission, the staff of 
those Members presented and had some conversation with the 
Members, but all of the individual Members went around the 
table and said what one of their priorities was.
    I still remember the co-chair, Ron Haskins, a former Ways 
and Means staffer said if I get nothing else from this 
Commission, I want there to be chief evaluation officers in 
Government. By God, that was one of the recommendations of the 
Commission.
    One of the reasons that we have an evaluation function in 
Government today that is across Government is largely a credit 
to Ron Haskins.
    I would say it was a very noncontroversial commission 
behind the scenes. The Members really collaborated, much a 
testament to good leadership from the chair, Katherine Abraham, 
and the co-chair, Ron Haskins, but also to a very savvy 
executive director, Shelley Martinez, who knew a lot about the 
functioning of Government. She came from the Federal 
statistical system over in the leadership office at OMB.
    Good leadership, savvy first meetings, some good planning, 
but it was a very efficient and fast mechanism to get to 
recommendations.
    Mr. Kilmer. You know, one of the issues that the 
Modernization Committee looked at was just congressional 
capacity. One of the things I sort of grapple with is if 
Congress, if the institution were to have better access to data 
and evidence, does the institution have the capacity to 
actually use it and to incorporate it?
    Are Members in their offices sufficiently trained in how to 
actually use evidence for the purposes of public policymaking?
    I would love to get your take on that, and if you do not 
think we have the capacity, what do we do to develop that 
capacity within the institution?
    Ms. Bean. I will just say that I do think Congress has the 
capacity to use it, but I think it depends on how it is set up. 
For example, if you had an evidence-based policy commission, 
perhaps they could work on developing what I would call 
oversight dashboard for each Committee. Each Committee would 
decide what is the information that they want that would help 
them to do effective oversight.
    For example, you might say for this agency--several 
agencies that we oversee, improper payments. What is the 
information out there on that? What are key lawsuits? Maybe 
what are the high risks identified by GAO.
    There are all kinds of ways to avoid being biased 
information by using entities like GAO or IG or something like 
that, and a way to focus. You are not going to get everything 
about an agency, but what are the things that we would want 
that would help us do evidence-based policymaking.
    I think that is a way. You are going to have to set 
priorities. You are going to have to focus. Yes, I think 
Committees would love to have an oversight dashboard that gave 
them certain kinds of information in a very easy way to access 
and digest.
    Mr. Kilmer. Anyone else want to swing at that pitch, or 
should I yield back?
    Mr. Glassman. I mean, I think that everyone is concerned 
about sort of congressional capacity generally here. We have 
had two broad periods of expansion of commercial capacity in 
the 1940's and then again in 1970. Each followed a major 
expansion of the executive branch.
    We have had a third major expansion of the executive branch 
after 9-11 in the last 20 years, we have had no sort of 
corresponding increase from Congress.
    You can see this from a CRS perspective. The number of 
requests have exploded. The population is getting bigger. There 
are more and more constituents communicating with Congress. The 
number of staffers in those House offices remains at 18. I 
think there is no doubt this is a challenge.
    In regard to data, from my perspective at CRS, I do not 
really envision a world where CRS had unfettered access to 
executive branch data, which I do not necessarily think should 
be the case, where a CRS analyst would be sort of, like, 
digging through personally identified information or grabbing 
terabytes of data from the Census Bureau in doing that.
    In my experience, getting data from the executive branch 
was almost always an on-demand sort of thing from Congress. 
There were anticipatory reports I wrote where I needed some 
data from the executive branch, but that was not where sort of 
the bottlenecks were. The bottlenecks were when I was 
responding to specific requests from specific requesters for 
timely things.
    I am not wholly concerned about sort of a flood of data 
coming in if CRS were given sort of expanded data authorities 
in that sense and having the capacity to deal with that.
    That said, the broader issue of having a capable 
legislative branch that can handle sort of the modern 
responsibilities of this incredibly complex policymaking 
requires increased capacity, not only of its workforce but of 
the training and tools to use the data that is now out there.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks.
    I will mention the Modernization Committee does have a 
recommendation to increase the staff cap, too.
    Chairwoman Bice. Parking. Parking is an issue for that, 
certainly.
    I would also just throw out there, Ranking Member Kilmer 
and I have also been working on a provision that would allow 
for itemized--what am I trying to say here--anonymized casework 
data, so that we can actually see almost real time what is 
happening from a casework standpoint.
    I use the example of the issues of passports. Certainly, 
after COVID, people wanted to travel again, and all of our 
offices were absolutely bludgeoned with people's request for 
new passports because many--and oftentimes their passports had 
expired, and they were rushing to try to get new passports.
    Had we known that that was coming, we would have been able 
to maybe prepare accordingly or differently. That sort of 
provision I think could be helpful in trying to address some of 
the concerns.
    Mr. Kilmer, any additional questions?
    Mr. Kilmer. I yield back. Thanks.
    Chairwoman Bice. Alright, fantastic.
    Well, again, I want to thank our second panel of witnesses 
for being with us today.
    The Members of the Subcommittee may have additional 
questions for you, and we ask that you would please respond to 
those questions in writing should they be sent your way.
    If there is no further business to be had, I thank the 
Members for their participation.
    Without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                    QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]