For more background on the document, see this post, and for updates, I’m keeping notes on this page, from which future updates will likely be pulled.

-John  (start review)

foreword:
compiled by the Task Force on the Documentation of Congress of the Society of American Archivists Congressional Archivists Roundtable, coming from 1989’s “Understanding Congress: A Bicentennial Research Conference”.  “the fragmented nature of congressional primary source documentation” is partly responsible for the lack of scholarly writing on the legislative branch.  Report is a “study of the archival sources that document the operations of Congress.”

Preface:
“Because the documentation of Congress, in particular, most directly reveals the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives, it is especially crucial to preserve evidence and information about the legislative process and make it accessible to the public.”  (gives great detail on problems with public access: “fragmented and geographically scattered; collections are often voluminous, of complex arrangement, inadequately indexed, and in poor physical condition; contents of many collections are uneven, with unexplained gaps in information; and repositories that receive these collections frequently lack the resources to provide state-of-the-art arrangement, description, and archival preservation.”  Project undertaken by the Task Force on Congressional Documentation of the Society of American Archivists’ Congressional Archivists Roundtable (that’s correctly transcribed).  “many of its suggestions will take years to be carried out; others can be effected immediately.”  “Among the most pressing needs are actions to improve the documentation of legislation, representation, congressional leadership, political activities, and programs of congressional support agencies.  Other recommendations are aimed at better documenting Congress’ relations and interaction with media, the executive and the judicial branches, lobbyists, and think tanks.  Finally, steps are suggested to improve documentation of the administration of Congress’ to fill gaps in the historical record through structured, coordinated oral history interview programs; and to improve the preservation of congressional sources.

Intro:
Report organized into congressional “functions”, “documentation”, and “recommendations”.  (apparently there’s a 1978 report from the National Study Commission on the Records and Documents of Federal Officials, which “recommended that office files and personal papers of members of Congress be legally designated as federal records with guaranteed public access after fifteen years” (this wasn’t implemented, but that report would be useful to find).  This report led to a 2 day conference, where they decided to publish a handbook on member records management.  1985 then saw a 2 day conference on documenting Congress, put on by the “Dirksen Congressional Center and the national Historical Publications and Records Commission” (another great report to find)  This conference led to the creation of the Congressional Archivists Roundtable of the Society of American Archivists (which, in turn, led to the current day 2008 Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress (link).  (The Congressional Archivists Roundtable appears to be defunct, perhaps being defunded in the mid 90’s?)  “the “importance” [of congressional material] had not led to a determined effort to systematically appraise and preserve a documentary record of Congress.” (page vi)  Problems archivists face: “the information explosion, the computer and telecommunications revolutions, insufficient resources for archival work as government and repository budgets tighten, and the lack of clearly defined long-term strategies and action plans to accomplish overall documentary objectives.”  The response to this is a strategy, which matches the organization of this document (functions, documentation, and recommendations).    The report then lists participants.

Page ix lists contents, listing the major topics to be examined: Institutional Setting, the Legislative Process, Representation, Political Activities, External Relations, Administration and Support, Research Use of Congressional Collections, Appendices, and Notes.

Summary Report and Recommendations
Repeats problem.  “Historical records do not simply materialize.”  They’re trying to balance the needs of three authorities: members and officials of Congress “individually responsible for the on-site management of the information that is collected and maintained in their offices”, NARA’s CLA, and the “literally hundreds of archival repositories across the country [that] preserve and provide access to the personal papers that are deposited in them by the members”.  This listing seems to me to be a result of their institutional setting, my take on the jurisdictions at work in congressional information access can be found here.

Major Findings:
1. “Congressional committees are relatively, although not uniformly, well documented, [but] there is great variation in the documentary quality of individual members’ collections”  This conclusion strikes me as a result of writing in the mid 1990s, when paying meaningful attention to legislative affairs through the Internet was rather impossible.  There was little difference then between “well documented” and “publicly available (online)”, where now that difference is quite clear.  What is “well documented”, like committee hearing transcripts, or the upcoming schedules for committee hearings, in the archival sense, can also be useless for those hoping to actually watch Congress in action, even in time for upcoming elections, which is a much lower bar than the near-real time awareness lobbyists need in order to be legislatively relevant.  Thus the report’s focus on member records, which were managed in a much less standard manner then.

2. The need for a “coordinated retention plan that meets the long-term needs of Congress” as applied to congressional support agencies.  The GAO was doing well, the (now defunct) Office of Technology Assessment and Government Printing Office had partial programs, and the CRS and CBO had none.  Again, no real mention of OTA and GAO providing public documentation while CRS does not.  Our expectations of finding things online has led to a new set of expectations.  (well, that and the expectation of equal access to publicly funded documents, since CRS reports are sold through private companies.)

3. Executive Branch and Judicial Branches are doing a rather good job, but are relevant here nevertheless.

4. Other sources they feel have been thitherto overlooked: nat’l, congressional, and individual campaign committees, political party organizations; and congressional member organizations and caucuses.  (still true, 16 years later)

5. Member documentary repositories are hard to use, recommend better practices here.

6. Member materials will be better processed if offices hire and train archivists, and keep up with documents processing.

The Report then launches into specific recommendations, lining up with the table of contents, but in summary form.

More background discussion can be found here.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO): CBO intro PDF from their website, see also Congressional Budget Act of 1974

General Accountability Office (GAO):

Library of Congress (LOC):

Government Printing Office (GPO)

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

Chief Administrative Officer (of the House) (CAO)

Speaker of the House (link)

Secretary of the Senate (link)

Senate Rules Committee (link)

Senate Sergeant at Arms (link)

Committee on House Administration (CHA)

Joint Committee on Printing (JCP)

Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGA)

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (link)

Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress (link)

Senate Historical Office (link)

Legislative Resource Center (LRC )

Executive Branch

General Services Administration (GSA), (executive branch)

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Judicial Branch

Federal Judicial Center (FJC)

Here’s the current relevant text, from govtrack, of HR 2764, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008.”

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Government Accountability Office, including not more than $12,500 to be expended on the certification of the Comptroller General of the United States in connection with official representation and reception expenses; temporary or intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, but at rates for individuals not more than the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of such title; hire of one passenger motor vehicle; advance payments in foreign countries in accordance with section 3324 of title 31, United States Code; benefits comparable to those payable under sections 901(5), (6), and (8) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4081(5), (6), and (8)); and under regulations prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States, rental of living quarters in foreign countries, $501,000,000: Provided, That not more than $5,413,000 of payments received under section 782 of title 31, United States Code, shall be available for use in fiscal year 2008: Provided further, That not more than $2,097,000 of reimbursements received under section 9105 of title 31, United States Code, shall be available for use in fiscal year 2008: Provided further, That of the total amount provided, up to $2,500,000 is for technology assessment studies: Provided further, That this appropriation and appropriations for administrative expenses of any other department or agency which is a member of the National Intergovernmental Audit Forum or a Regional Intergovernmental Audit Forum shall be available to finance an appropriate share of either Forum’s costs as determined by the respective Forum, including necessary travel expenses of non-Federal participants: Provided further, That payments hereunder to the Forum may be credited as reimbursements to any appropriation from which costs involved are initially financed.

The OTA was recently reinstated, although in a different form, when Congress passed (and President Bush signed) the most recent legislative branch appropriations bill. I work for the Sunlight Foundation, and we helped push for this measure to be adopted. (see http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2007/06/04/ota-endorsement/ or http://www.theopenhouseproject.com/2007/06/07/ota-renewed-gets-25-million/ )

Instead of reinvoking funding for the still-authorized OTA department, the new approps bill adds funding to the GAO’s budget, letting them venture explicitly into the realm of technological assessment. This is probably a good thing, given GAO’s excellent reputation, and that their work is public, as are their evaluative criteria.

Having a congressional support agency with an explicit mandate to provide research on technological issues will go a long way toward giving congressional decisions on technology the background they need to be sound, and re-funding an OTA, whether as a stand-alone agency or as part of the GAO is the right way to go about it.

A separate issue entirely, however, is whether Congress has adequately organized their administrative appendages to address their own technological coordination issues. Having dedicated researchers available will help lead to better policy, but without clear jurisdiction, proper implementation and foresight get passed over, as agencies and departments struggle to prioritize and act within their budgets. Complex incentives surround the question of whether or not to take on a problem that is outside your department’s statutorily authorized responsibilities. A central non-political body coordinating these responsibilities across Congress would streamline the process of implementing and planning new technological transitions, a very complicated task for such a complex institution.

What I didn’t get into, however, is the main thrust of Lessig’s post, that is, should the US have a CTO position?

I don’t know the answer to that question, but I’m inclined to suggest that centralizing and institutionalizing technological expertise leads to better policy and decisions. The issue I have with this suggestion, however, is one of jurisdiction. How does the complex of fought-over jurisdictions, executive orders, tradition, and expectations come to cough up a new cabinet level position? The history American choices addressing emergent needs by creating new administrative appendages is probably full of illustrative examples, which might suggest the best way to centralize technological expertise in American executive administration.

Is this best filled by an informal advisory role, a cabinet level position, an Office of Management and Budget office, a separate technological affairs office, a temporary task force? Consciously considering the choices beforehand makes it less likely that we choose whatever is most expedient when the issue is raised in earnest.