When the House returns to work today, it will be a slightly leaner, slightly less technologically cutting-edge body than it was a year ago.

Last January, the House voted 410-13 to slash its operating budget by 5% (or $35 million). A Sunlight Foundation analysis of House disbursement data shows some immediate effects: a loss almost 1,000 salaried staff positions and major cutbacks in computers and office supplies.

House offices will have to do it all over again this year. The 2012 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act cuts funding for the House by another 6.4%. Since compensation accounts for more than half of all House expenditures, expect cuts in both staff and salaries.

These cuts are part of a longer-term decline in congressional staffing and personnel spending. Already, congressional salaries and benefits lag behind their private sector competitors, meaning that offices often have a hard time retaining and attracting top talent. Instead, they must rely increasingly on special interests to help them to do their work. As Congress continues to curtail its own capacity, there is good reason to expect even greater reliance on the 12,242 registered lobbyists in Washington.

To see how the budget cuts have affected House offices so far, we compared House disbursement data for the third quarters of 2009, 2010 and 2011. Here are some key changes since 2009:

• Overall, House offices have cut the number of salaried staff positions by 7.4%, shedding 948 between 2009 and 2011. (This includes both legislative and non-legislative positions.)
• Overall spending on total personnel compensation is down 1.7%. (In the private sector, total compensation has increased by 4.1% during this same period.)
• Offices have cut spending most steeply on office supplies (down 30.7%), equipment (down 46.4%, particularly computers, which are down 62.5%) and franked mail (down 25.8%).
• One area of growth, however, is in public relations. House offices added 32 new “Communications Director” positions between 2009 and 2011.

In 2011, offices did the relatively easy stuff: skimping on office supplies and new computers, and letting some staff go. That leaves the harder stuff: more serious cutting of salaries and staff.

According to a Congressional Management Foundation survey, “the consensus is that the cumulative two-year cut of 11.4% will require the large majority of offices to make painful cuts that will be felt by virtually all staff."

This will have consequences. With each cut to salary and staff, and each reduction in office resource budgets, it becomes that much more challenging for the House to do its job. As staff struggle with declining resources and scramble to work harder to compensate for lost positions, they become that much more dependent on outside lobbyists to help them.

Table 1. Changes in aggregate House expenditures (arranged by 2009 expenditure size)

Expense Category	2009-to-2011 change	2009 (3rd quarter)	2010 (3rd quarter)	2011 (3rd quarter)
PERSONNEL COMPENSATION	-1.7%	$175,130,327	$178,841,894	$172,070,988
PERSONNEL BENEFITS	+5.8	$64,285,035	$66,060,868	$68,020,505
OTHER SERVICES	-3.4%	$22,620,349	$25,185,966	$21,847,980
EQUIPMENT	-46.4%	$21,007,024	$16,974,756	$11,257,324
RENT, COMMUNICATION, UTILITIES	-4.5%	$19,727,104	$21,767,994	$18,846,353
SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS	-30.3%	$7,931,749	$7,350,006	$5,526,529
TRAVEL	-11.3%	$7,588,514	$8,250,876	$6,732,969
FRANKED MAIL	-25.8%	$6,014,439	$11,960,012	$4,463,841
PRINTING AND REPRODUCTION	-7.5%	$5,336,864	$12,134,250	$4,937,813
TRANSPORTATION OF THINGS	+11.6%	$64,978	$62,646	$72,487
ALL COSTS	-4.8%	$329,708,391	$348,591,278	$313,778,802

STAFF REDUCTIONS IN FORCE

Breaking down the salaries by title, we can see where on the totem pole offices are cutting. Among the 20 unique position titles that account for the most combined expenses, “staff assistants” suffered most significant reduction, a loss of more than 200 positions, from 1,245 to 1,038 (down 16.6%). The number of “professional staff member” positions also declined at almost the same rate, from 205 to 176 between 2009 and 2011, down 14.1%. “Part Time Employees” are also down substantially, from 506 to 427 (down 15.6%).

On the side of growth, the fastest growing position in the House is “Communications Director.” Despite the cuts, the House actually added 32 new communications directors between third quarter of 2009 and third quarter of 2011, going from 232 to 264 positions (an increase of 13.8%). It is, however, worth noting that the number of press secretaries decreased at the same time by 12 (down 6.6%, from 183 to 171 positions), so some of the new communications directors may be press secretaries who got a new title.

Other big increases were in the position of “Scheduler” (up 12.6%, from 143 to 161 positions), “District Director” (up 8.2%, from 291 to 315 positions) and “Legislative Director” (up 7.4%, from 309 to 332 positions). Interestingly, the number of “Constituent Services Representatives” is up 6.8% (from 205 to 219) while the number of “Caseworkers” is down 5.5% (from 307 to 290).

Table 2. Changes in staffing force, by position (for 20 most expensive positions by total expenditures, arranged from biggest decline to biggest gain)

Position	2009-to-2011 change	2009 (3rd quarter)	2010 (3rd quarter)	2011 (3rd quarter)
ALL POSITIONS	-7.4%	12,779	12,735	11,831
Staff Assistant	-16.6%	1245	1148	1038
Part-time Employee	-15.6%	506	520	427
Professional Staff Member	-14.1%	205	213	176
Legislative Assistant	-7.1%	793	783	737
Press Secretary	-6.6%	183	181	171
Caseworker	-5.5%	307	310	290
Legislative Correspondent	-4.7%	380	374	362
Counsel	-2.6%	117	119	114
District Representative	0.0%	197	208	197
Field Representative	+0.4%	266	272	267
Executive Assistant	+0.6%	154	156	155
Chief of Staff	+0.7%	420	396	423
Deputy Chief of Staff	+2.0%	98	95	100
Shared Employee	+6.1%	588	621	624
Constituent Services Representative	+6.8%	205	207	219
Senior Legislative Assistant	+7.1%	140	144	150
Legislative Director	+7.4%	309	337	332
District Director	+8.2%	291	293	315
Scheduler	+12.6%	143	137	161
Communications Director	+13.8%	232	247	264

STAFF PAY

For those who managed to keep their jobs on the Hill, the average salary actually increased by 3.7% since 2009.

Chiefs of staff are doing quite well. Their average compensation rose 5.8%, from $120,276 to $127,280 a year (estimated from third quarter compensation), topped only by individuals in the somewhat ambiguous role of “special assistant,” who have seen their compensation rise by 8.5% during this period (from $42,464 a year to $46,084 a year).

Major positions where the average salary declined more than five percent are “Counsel” (down 5.8%), “Deputy District Director” (down 5.7%), and “Legislative Correspondent” (down 5.4%).

Where salaries declined, it may likely be as a result of new, less experienced staffers who will work for less replacing older, more experienced staffers who commanded more money.

Table 3. Changes in salary, by position (for 20 most expensive positions by total expenditures, arranged from biggest decline to biggest gain)

Position	2009-to-2011 change	2009 (3rd quarter)	2010 (3rd quarter)	2011 (3rd quarter)
ALL POSITIONS	+3.7%	$13,507	$13,860	$14,002
Counsel	-5.8%	$23,283	$24,068	$21,928
Legislative Correspondent	-5.4%	$7,870	$7,914	$7,442
Senior Legislative Assistant	-4.1%	$14,083	$13,452	$13,504
Professional Staff Member	-3.9%	$21,455	$21,531	$20,611
District Representative	-2.9%	$11,099	$10,908	$10,781
Legislative Assistant	-1.5%	$10,889	$11,004	$10,722
Constituent Services Representative	-1.5%	$9,714	$10,128	$9,569
Field Representative	-1.4%	$10,035	$10,396	$9,895
Scheduler	-1.2%	$10,320	$10,800	$10,194
District Director	-0.1%	$21,087	$21,751	$21,058
Staff Assistant	+0.1%	$8,574	$8,878	$8,580
Legislative Director	+0.6%	$18,066	$18,196	$18,177
Press Secretary	+0.6%	$13,219	$13,084	$13,304
Communications Director	+1.4%	$15,962	$16,746	$16,192
Caseworker	+1.4%	$10,225	$10,630	$10,364
Executive Assistant	+1.7%	$13,279	$13,472	$13,502
Deputy Chief of Staff	+2.0%	$22,270	$23,744	$22,715
Part-time Employee	+2.3%	$5,135	$5,330	$5,251
Shared Employee	+3.1%	$3,829	$4,260	$3,946
Chief of Staff	+5.8%	$30,069	$31,061	$31,82

It is worth noting, however, that personnel benefits were up 5.8% between 2009 and 2011, from $64 million to $68 million. Most of the growth there, however, is in health insurance costs (up 12%) and retirement costs (up 4%). These are costs that congressional offices typically have less control over.

SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT

The biggest cuts came from spending on equipment (down 46.4%), supplies (down 30.3%) and franked mail (down 25.8%). The decrease in spending on franked mail is probably not cause for concern. Members are using more and more e-mail and social networking to reach out to constituents anyway.

More than half of the equipment budget goes to computers, and  this is where offices have really skimped. The computer budget is down 62.5% from 2009, from $14.1 million to $5.3 million. At a time when so much work is conducted electronically, increasingly out-of-date equipment will put staff at an ever-increasing disadvantage.

In the category of “supplies and materials,” the top three expenses are office supplies, medical supplies and publications and reference materials. Office supply budgets are down 20% (from $6.5 million to $5.3 million), publication and reference material budgets are down 25% (from $2.2 million to $1.7 million). Medical supplies are down slightly (from $2.8 million to $2.7 million).

Table 4. Changes in expenditures on equipment and supplies and materials, major categories

Expense Category	2009-to-2011 change	2009 (3rd quarter)	2010 (3rd quarter)	2011 (3rd quarter)
Computers	-62.5%	$14,112,169	$8,341,676	$5,297,438
Office Supplies	-19.9%	$6,526,360	$8,500,553	$5,229,226
Medical Supplies	-2.5%	$2,796,013	$2,823,205	$2,726,987
Publications and Reference Materials	-25.3%	$2,245,468	$2,049,677	$1,676,573

While these may be reasonable areas to cut, these reductions are not necessarily sustainable. At some point, House staffers are going to need new computers and some office supplies. Yet with more cuts still ahead, it’s unclear where the money will come from.

Most offices could weather a lean year on supplies and equipment. But as anybody who has worked on the Hill knows, offices are far from luxurious. In a world in which more and more activity is conducted electronically, to fall behind technologically puts congressional staff behind the curve. Furthermore, with another round of cuts coming, it’s going to be hard for the House to catch up.

Now House offices have to cut another 6.4%. That will likely mean fewer staff, less support, probably lower salaries and more outmoded technology. Congress will likely be forced to rely more on interns, and almost certainly more on lobbyists.

A NOTE ON THE DATA

Our data come from the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. That means we are dependent on what the House reports. The biggest challenge in aggregating the data is that different House offices classify expenses in different ways. This is most obvious with job titles. Even when we standardized the title names by collapsing all synonymous abbreviations, we still wound up with 2,600 unique position titles over the three years. Though we are confident that our data captures the larger patterns, we must in good faith disclose that the underlying data are messy. At best, the data reveal general trends, and higher levels of confidence in it can only come when the House of Representatives makes a better effort with respect to how it normalizes and releases the data to the public. To dig through the data yourself, visit our House Expenditure Reports Database.

 

Yesterday it was reported that a former Member of Congress, Ernest Istook, was seen on the House floor asking his colleagues to oppose the Boehner debt ceiling legislation. It seems that Istook, though clearly “lobbying” by anyone’s sense of the word, did not violate a House Rule that prohibits former members who are lobbyists from access to the floor.

The reason Istook can use his clout, his friendships with current House members, and the resources of the Heritage Foundation—where he is currently employed—to sidle up to lawmakers and ask for their support, is because he is not a registered lobbyist. A current gaping loophole in the law provides that anyone who spends less than 20 percent of his time lobbying does not need to register and report his activities. In the case if former members, the loophole also allows them to continue to access their colleagues on the floor of the House, the House gym and other exclusive venues limited to current and former lawmakers.

On a day when average citizens couldn’t reach their members of Congress because phone lines were overwhelmed and web sites crashed, it is particularly galling that former members, the ultimate Washington insiders, have such direct and immediate access.

Sunlight supports legislation, HR 2339, the Lobbying Disclosure Enhancement Act, that would end stealth lobbying by closing the 20 percent loophole. In addition, the bill would require that all lobbyists report the names of the individual members with whom they are meeting so that we know who our elected officials are talking to, and about what.

The House Appropriations Committee will markup the Financial Services Appropriation Bill, which sets funding levels for the Electronic Government Fund, this Thursday at 9:30 in 2359 Rayburn. This follows on last week's subcommittee vote to partially restore e-gov funding to around $13m for FY 2012 from $8m in FY 2011, which is far less than the $34m appropriated in FY 2010 and 2009. Unlike that hearing, this one is expected to be webcast.

Assuming the legislation passes the House Appropriations Committee, which it is likely to do, it will go to the House floor for a vote, and then to the Senate. It's likely that the Senate will not adopt the legislation in its current form.

Earlier today I wished for a redlined version of the House Rules so we could see how the proposed 112th Congress rules stack up against the 111th Congress' rules. In what was a fairly unpleasant process, I've scraped the PDF for the 111th Congress, reformatted it, and entered by hand all of the proposed revisions. (No guarantees of perfection here; but it should be pretty accurate.)

For all those who've been pining away for the 111th rules in Word format, here you go. And here's the redline. And the PDF is below. Enjoy!

Redline of How the House Rules May Change in the 112th Congress

House Republicans have published their proposed rules package for the 112th Congress here. It includes the bill that would instantiate the new rules [PDF] and a section-by-section analysis. It's worth noting that the rules package largely adopts the 111th House's rules, but with a 33-page list of alterations that make some important changes.  It would be helpful to have a redline version of the 111th House Rules to show how they would be changed.

House Republicans are expected to consider the proposed rules at a meeting on January 4th, where the proposal could change further if the conference adopts amendments. On January 5th, the whole House will vote on whether to adopt these rules or an alternative.

The House Rules for the 111th Congress are available here, but in an unwieldy PDF format. Sunlight's recommendations for updating the House rules are here.

Incoming Speaker Boehner recently vowed to tighten the House of Representative’s collective belt through a 5 percent budget reduction. Congressional staff are the most likely target. An in-depth look at Congressional staff employment trends raises questions about whether Congress has the support necessary to do its job. After reviewing a quarter century of staff salary and retention data, we found:

• A pay gap between Washington-based House personal office staff earnings and people doing equivalent work in the DC metropolitan area.
• A decrease in the total number of hill staff over the last two decades.
• Fewer staff engaged in policy-making roles.
• Average salaries for most Washington-based House personal staff have not increased in two decades, and may have decreased for many.

Who is picking up the slack? One clue could lie in the nearly 12,500 federally registered lobbyists, and countless others, who provide information and exert influence in the halls of Congress; by contrast there’s around 7-8,000 House personal office, leadership, and committee staff. Put a different way, $2.6 billion was spent on lobbying in Washington in 2010, versus $1.37 billion for the House of Representatives in FY 2010. Have we privatized Congress?

Pay Gap

Our analysis found a pay gap between Washington-based House personal office staff and their DC-area counterparts. That gap may encourage staff to seek greener pastures while depriving Congress of experience and expertise. The gap is widest at the top. For example, a chief of staff on average would earn 40% more in the private sector than on Capitol Hill. See the chart below.

This comparison may still underestimate the market value of Capitol Hill staff. They are in a unique position compared with other people performing similar roles. With a competitive and thriving market for former hill talent, market forces and difficult working conditions have likely pushed many talented people into the arms of the private sector. Indeed, the average age of a DC-based House personal office staffer is 31. Ex-staffers who become lobbyists can increase their earnings by many multiples, a value derived from their Congressional employment. There are countless illustrations of the revolving door at work.

Unfortunately, our comparison between Congressional and private sector pay is incomplete. We are unable to evaluate House committee staff salaries. We didn’t look at the Senate in detail. The personal office salaries are aggregate averages drawn from a 2009 survey [PDF] performed by ICT International for the Chief Administrative Officer of the House; we only have access to the report, not the underlying data. The job titles in the House are only roughly comparable to the occupational employment and wage estimates for the District of Columbia drawn from the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics [FTP]. (There's no clear fitting private sector analog to Legislative Assistant in the Bureau of Labor Statistics database.) We have no good way of comparing employment benefits. And the profile for hill staff both in age and education likely varies significantly from the DC metropolitan area.

Even so, the pay gap is clear.

Fewer Overall Staff

We also found that there are fewer House staff and fewer legislative support agency personnel now than at any time in the recent past, with data going back to 1979. (The data is drawn from the publication Vital Statistics for Congress 2008, which covers 1979 to 2005, and was supplemented by several CRS reports.)

Altogether, House personal office, committee, and leadership staff numbers are at 87% of their 1979 levels. Much of the reduction took place in 1994-1995, when the Republican party regained control of the House. Over the last three decades, committee staff took the biggest hit, dropping from 2,027 staff in 1979 to 1,272 in 2005. See the chart below.

Major legislative support agencies show an even more dramatic downward trend, staffed at 65% of their 1979 levels. The Government Accountability Office suffered the greatest decline to 60% of its 1979 level, a reduction of 2,112 staff. CRS is at 80% of its 1979 staffing levels.

Some of the work being performed by government employees likely has been taken over by lobbyists and think tanks, at least in part. Unfortunately, reliable data is not available for the number of lobbyists prior to 1996, and we haven’t uncovered data on think tank staff. Even with this privatization of public work, assuming that’s what’s happening, it’s likely that much congressional activity -- conducting oversight, evaluating proposals brought to the hill -- cannot be outsourced.

To be sure, some could argue that changes in technology have made some staff redundant. Perhaps that is true, but the nature of legislative support work and the history of staff reductions strongly suggest other causes.

Fewer Hill Staff in Policymaking Roles

Our analysis strongly suggests that fewer staff perform policy-related work now than in years past. As a general rule, legislative and policymaking work is performed in Washington, while constituent services are provided in the district offices. Recent years have seen a shift towards employing more staff in the district at the expense of the DC office.

For example, in 1976, nearly three-quarters of House personal office staff were based in Washington; that decreased to one-half in 2005. In other words, the total number of staffers in Washington has decreased by 1,500 to 3,354 from 1976 to 2005. (Again, this information is drawn from the publication Vital Statistics on Congress 2008.)

This 30-year tectonic shift likely diminished the House’s policymaking capabilities.

Personal Office Staff Pay Unchanged Over Two Decades

We also found that most House personal office staff salary averages are unchanged over the last 20 years, adjusted for inflation, and may have even diminished over time. Consequently, staff may find that longevity brings them diminishing benefits and may prompt them to bring their skills elsewhere.

With the exception of the Chief of Staff, Legislative Director, and Scheduler, the average personal office staffer’s salary has not changed since 1990. On average, a staffer in 2009 likely earns within a few thousand dollars of their 1990s equivalent. By contrast, a Chief of Staff’s earnings have increased by $30,000 on average; a Legislative Director’s earnings increased by $17,000; and a Scheduler earns $9,000 more.

It is possible that we underestimated the value of 1990s Hill staff earning power because we relied on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator to transform all money into 2010 dollars.  The Inflation Calculator uses national data, but Washington DC of the 1980s and 1990s is a very different place than it is today. It is now the wealthiest and most educated region in the nation, according to the Washington Post’s analysis of 2010 census data. DC in the top 25 for most the most expensive homeownership markets and top 10 for most expensive home rental markets. Additional analysis may find that many Hill staff salaries have actually decreased in real terms.

Our findings are drawn from the best available information, but we cannot fully assess their accuracy. Our data is drawn from Congressional Management Foundation and ICT International surveys. We did not have access to the underlying data, but only averages and aggregate totals. The methodology and reliability of each report may vary; as may the classification of who has a particular job title. Unfortunately, the surveys do not include information on committee staff pay, or on employment benefits. Legistorm, although complete, only goes back to 2001.

Our efforts to collect House and Senate employment surveys was complicated by the House’s refusal to provide these reports upon request, their unavailability generally (including at the Library of Congress), and an incredibly small print run and restricted distribution. The Congressional Management Foundation, which ran the survey until 2004, was as helpful as they could be without breaching contractual relationships. Ultimately, we relied on fantastic librarians like James Jacobs of Stanford University, several friends on the Hill, and former intern Jessica Pearce to obtain copies of existing reports.

The Big Picture

The foremost concern is whether Congress has the capability to effectively and impartially carry out its responsibilities. Does the decreasing number of policy staff combined with financially attractive outside employment negatively affect Congress’ legislative and oversight capabilities? Would addressing these issues have a positive effect on Congress’ ability to function? Congress looked seriously and comprehensively at related issues in 1978 in its Commission on Administrative Review (H. Doc. 95-178), chaired by David Obey. It is time for another look.

Second, for those who care about the legislative branch, Congress must do a better job of making available information about itself. It was nearly impossible to obtain copies of staff salary surveys. Not until this past year were House Expenditure Reports, which include staff pay, made available online, and they’re in a terrible format that is difficult to evaluate. The Senate won’t begin publishing comparable data online until the 3rd quarter of 2011. The publication Vital Statistics on Congress 2008 is incredibly useful, but was compiled by private researchers. Again, Congress should make this information available online in formats that lend themselves to easy analysis.

Third, there is too little information about lobbyist pay, lobbying, and the effect of the revolving door. More research is needed; we also need better tracking of these activities.

Fourth, this analysis is separate from the ongoing debate over executive branch salaries.

Finally, we identify a number of useful questions, but our analysis is necessarily limited. Addressing the incentives that affect how staffers gain expertise and evaluate policy choices -- even if incompletely -- is worth additional attention. To that end, we are making available all of the data we used, except when we are not permitted to do so for copyright reasons. (See staff salary data [XLS] and House vital statistics [XLS].) Please let us know what you think.

Disclosure: I formerly worked as a hill staffer and for a legislative support agency.

As we approach Election Day, the number of ads continue to increase, but based on recent data from the Wesleyan Media Project they are no more negative than in previous years.

According to their estimates, there is a 75% increase in spending when compared to the same period in the 2008 election and spending in House races has nearly doubled. Even gubernatorial races are producing twice the volume of advertisements compared to similar periods in 2006 elections, with independent groups more than tripling their involvement. Wesleyan's analysis even delves into the tone of ads and suggests that candidates are taking advantage of subtle changes in format to distance themselves from attack ads by doing off-screen voiceovers and appearing on-screen during promotional or contrasting ads.

We’re hearing a lot of speculation about 2010 being the most negative election to date, and in one respect the complaints are right: there are more negative ads on the air this year in House and Senate races than 2008, but that’s not the whole story,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University and co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “There are higher numbers of positive ads too. In other words, although the overall number of ads has increased, we’re actually seeing similar rates of negativity. That said, the sheer number of messages flooding the airwaves and the type of attacks being used are making this campaign feel more negative.”

The Wesleyan Media Project is providing real-time tracking and analysis of all political television advertising.

[The Sunlight Foundation has provided partial funding for the Wesleyan Media Project]

Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH) recently introduced legislation that would make it a lot easier for the public to access thousands of congressionally mandated reports. These reports are created when Congress requires agencies to give an accounting of their actions or plans for addressing a particular issue. Once received by Congress, the reports become House or Senate documents, and often provide valuable insight into what the federal government is (or should be) doing.

House documents, according to the Clerk of the House, originate from congressional committees and including annual reports of executive departments, investigative reports made to congress, presidential messages, and other similar publications. (House or Senate documents should not to be confused with House or Senate reports, which are prepared by congressional committees on proposed legislation and issues under investigation.) Rep. Dreihaus’ bill applies to congressionally mandated reports only.

Not all congressionally mandated reports are available online. Electronic access would put more eyes on each document, thereby enhancing their usefulness as oversight documents. My colleague John Wonderlich earlier wrote about how these reports can inform committee oversight plans. Rep. Dreihaus’ spokesman Tim Mulvey explains that “The reason Congress passes laws mandating these reports is so the American people can understand how their government works, and where it may not be working so well.” Driehaus, who sits on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, believes this bill could play a vital role in educating the public on what the government does.

At the beginning of each Congress, the Clerk of the House generates (pursuant to House Rule II) a report entitled “Reports to be Made to Congress,” which lists all congressionally mandated reports. It cites the law or resolution in which the requirement may be contained and placing under the name of each officer the list of reports required to be made by such officer.

While the report itself is available through GPO (here’s the 235-page report submitted in the 111th Congress: [PDF]) all of the reports it identifies are not. The GPO makes an effort to make these documents available online, but they don't get everything. In addition, even when the documents are online, they are often difficult to find. For a closer look, check out the GPO’s index of congressional documents and search engine.

The Access to Congressional Mandated Reports Act, or H.R. 6026, would resolve several problems. The bill requires the director of the Office of Management and Budget to create a central website that will let the public access congressionally mandated reports. The legislation would mandate improved search functionality so that people can find the documents, allow people to be notified when a particular document becomes available, and require public access to the report within 30 days. In addition, OMB would be required to issue regulations to the agencies on how they should submit reports, which must be in electronic format.

Rep. Dreihaus has the right idea. Reps. Towns and Clay agree, as they’ve co-sponsored the legislation. Congressionally mandated reports (with few exceptions) should be available online, and I would add that congressionally documents should be published online as a general rule. Creating deadlines for the reports to be available, requiring electronic formats, and improving access to the public are all excellent ideas.

I do have a few minor quibbles. OMB has experience issuing regulations to make this kind of effort succeed, but it would be unconventional for their regulations to apply to independent agencies or the legislative or judicial branches. Similarly, it is more common for the Clerk or the Library of Congress or some other entity under congressional control to house congressional documents, instead of OMB, which is an arm of the President. Nevertheless, this legislation is a smart move in the right direction toward making government more open, transparent, and accountable.

Eric Naing contributed significantly to the writing and researching of this article.

In a big step forward for public access online, the US House launched live streaming video today, on the new HouseLive.gov. Here is Speaker Pelosi's announcement.

This is fantastic, welcome news, and will make understanding and watching what happens on the House floor far, far easier. The site features slick technology for streaming and searching through video, and even offers advanced customizable searches and RSS feeds.

Our 2007 Open House Project Report made similar recommendations, suggesting that:

It is our recommendation that all Congressional videos, floor proceedings and committee hearings be made available to the public over the Internet.

HouseLive.gov is a fantastic improvement, and one I'm looking forward to getting used to.