27

There are three fundamental questions inherent in the issue of public access to Congress' legislative information system: 1) Should the public have access to the same public legislative data? 2) Should the public have access to the same technical system? and 3) Should the public have access to this information through more than one congressionally supported agency or office?

1. Access to the same core legislative data?

The answer must be yes. A fundamental tenet of democracy is the importance of an informed electorate, and the Congress has passed a number of laws to ensure that the public has access to government information. With the recent advances of technology that affect how government information is prepared and distributed, however, it is important to note the implications of this principle for the proposed new legislative information system.

A. Implicit in this principle is the need to ensure that the legislative information available to the public is as accurate and as timely as the information available to the Congress through this system. Technically this goal is achievable. The obvious qualification inherent in this statement is that if the information is not in the system it is not accessible either to the Congress or to the public. Committee chairs, for example, can choose not to make some information regarding committee actions available to the system. Despite the improved access that the public now has to legislative information through GPO ACCESS and LOC THOMAS, the most persistent criticism by some members of the public has concerned what is NOT YET available in these systems rather than what is. The implementation of the recommendations in this plan should address many of these concerns, but it may never be possible to address all of them.

B. Restricted and licensed information would be excluded from public access unless the contract specified otherwise. As noted earlier, many Members and staff find it valuable to subscribe to commercial sources of information in order to carry out their work. This plan suggests a number of ways in which that licensed information could be linked to the proposed congressional legislative information system so that it could be more easily accessible to offices which subscribed to it. Such information could be made available to members of the public who chose to purchase it as well, but it is not reasonable to assume that it could be made available for free.

Similarly, restricted material, such as CRS Reports, which CRS is prohibited from disseminating to the public, or other internal, confidential materials would be excluded from public access.

2. Access to the same technical system?

If the answer to question 1 above is yes (i.e., the public should have access to the same core legislative data on a basis that ensures the same accuracy and timeliness), then the answer to this question is also yes. The simplest way to

28

ensure the same access to legislative information is to provide access to the same system. The alternative of providing the same data on a different system raises some basic difficulties.

For example, what if the separate public system did not have the same capabilities? The congressional system, for instance, will allow the user to link directly from information in the status field (committee reported measure to the House) to related information (the text of the committee report). If the public system did not have such a feature, there would be legitimate criticism that the public was not getting access to the same information. In today's technology, system data and system capabilities are inextricably linked.

If the public system has to have the same features, then who would build it and who would pay for it? Once the issue of funding a separate system is raised, the option of allowing access to the same system becomes preferable.

This is not to suggest that there would be no additional costs to giving the public access to the same system. There would have to be continuing upgrades to servers and communications systems to ensure adequate response time. It might even be necessary to limit the number of public access ports so that congressional users could have reliable access when needed for the conduct of business. Or, it might be necessary to have a separate but mirrored servers to support the Congress and the public. However, with the continuing improvements in the power of distributing processing and in security systems, the cost of providing access to the same system, even on separate servers, would be lower than the cost of building an entirely separate system.

3. More than one congressionally supported provider of access to the public?

In the most specific instance, the question is whether the GPO ACCESS system and the THOMAS system should both continue to provide public access to legislative information. The broader question is whether Congress should allow multiple access points for the public now or in the future.10 In this context it is important to note the following: the implementation of this plan would eliminate duplication of effort within the Legislative Branch in the creation, collection, preparation, and distribution of legislative information. The basic issue then becomes whether there should be multiple points for the public to access this information. With respect to this issue, the Library offers the following analysis.

1. Both the Library's THOMAS system and the GPO ACCESS system are needed for each of these agencies to be able to accomplish their missions. GPO is charged with making government information available, of which legislative information is a small, albeit important, component. The public would reasonably expect to find or be able to get to legislative information through

10 This question relates only to congressionally supported systems, not to commercial or other private companies that may choose to provide services to the public.

29

GPO ACCESS. Similarly, the Library, in serving both the Congress and the nation, must make its collections, which include legislative information, as accessible as possible. This goal is at the heart of the Library's national digital library effort. Even if the GPO and the Library had not already been directed by Congress to build the ACCESS and THOMAS systems, they would have to build them today.

2. The integration of the two systems as proposed in this plan would reduce duplication of effort. Equally important, integration will create a better system by drawing on the best elements of both systems, and on the special expertise of each institution. GPO and the Library each have decades of experience in their respective fields. The accumulated knowledge of the Library and the GPO are complementary for the task at hand. Neither can do as good a job alone as they can do together.

3. ACCESS and THOMAS have both been well received and are heavily used by the public. They both have wide name recognition with the public. There is some confusion about overlap, but if data integration can be achieved, minor modification of the THOMAS and ACCESS interfaces could help eliminate this confusion without either system having to lose its purpose, its public identity, or its appeal.

4. In the future, other congressional organizations may wish to provide access to the data in the legislative information system without duplicating it. (For example, Members who develop their own World Wide Web HomePages). Under this plan, that objective could be accomplished without duplication of effort and with a guarantee that the information retrieved would be the same regardless of the window used to access it.

In its previous study on duplication, the Library outlined other options for eliminating one or more of the gateways to public legislative information. Since that time, however, the growth in the public use of both GPO ACCESS and THOMAS, and the potential improvements that would result from integrating the systems as outlined in this plan suggest instead that the option of multiple access points to a coordinated, non-duplicative system would be preferable.

In summary, the Library recommends that GPO and the Library integrate their systems as described in the section entitled DATA COORDINATION AND PREPARATION. Additionally, the Library recommends that:

1. GPO and LOC modify their current HomePages to inform users that the systems are integrated and they will get the same data regardless of where they enter the system.

2. LOC and GPO inform other service providers, and especially the library community, which provides the access points for many public users, about the integration of the systems.

3. The Working Group should consider whether to design a set of coordinated interface(s) to which both THOMAS and GPO ACCESS can

30

point so as to improve access to legislative information -- perhaps with the network address of www.congress.gov.

SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

The architecture of the system will in most ways be decided or dictated by the users' requirements, available resources, and best practices and standards. Where multiple architectural systems solutions are available, it will be of critical importance to ensure adequate representation from each agency, to facilitate detailed technical discussion, and, most important, to arbitrate disputes and make authoritative and final decisions. The Committee on House Oversight has recently completed an information systems plan which provides a useful statement about the technical environment and direction of the House, which will be a key guideline, along with HIR standards and procedures, for integration of the legislative information system in the House. The Senate Rules and Administration committee has recently begun a similar effort at technical planning, which, along with Senate Computer Center standards and procedures, will guide implementation in the Senate.

An essential accomplishment of the Working Group must be the development of a system architecture which will continue to evolve toward common technology during the rest of the decade. At the outset each agency will bring its own technology specific architecture and its near-term technology plans to the Working Group. This plan requires an open systems architecture so that the diverse technologies already in use or being procured can be coupled in such a manner that they communicate with each other while still allowing each agency to capitalize on its own current technology and staff skills.

It is critical that this level of openness be provided at the beginning so each agency can assume an appropriate role in the development of a future shared system architecture. Thus, the details of the system architecture components noted below will be determined from the Working Group sessions. In time, as new technology is phased in and legacy systems are replaced, the system architecture choices will become more unified and will fulfill the goal of reaching a common system architecture across agencies.

Desktop Standards

While it will take some time for all congressional offices to acquire the technology needed to support a modern legislative information system, this is an excellent time for Hill-wide coordination. All organizations are moving toward common standards and open architectures for both the desktop as well as for large systems. Ongoing coordination and communication among organizations would help ensure that this important trend continues. Equally important will be the willingness of Member offices and committees to agree to recommended standards. A range of options is important in the congressional environment, but a wide range of variations and a large number of waivers impedes the ability of the entire Congress to operate as cost-effectively as possible.

31

Telecommunications

As with data standards, the Working Group will involve the appropriate technologists from each of the Legislative Branch agencies to establish clear guidelines and documentation of telecommunications standards to be met in design and implementation of the system(s). A major goal of the Working Group will be to leverage investments already made in telecommunications infrastructure within the legislative branch agencies in recent years. While technically complex, issues pertaining to telecommunications standards are fairly well understood on Capitol Hill, and it is believed likely that the agencies will be able to build on the cooperative work that is already under way to facilitate implementation of the system.

The networking capability already in place, which connects different types of networks used in each agency, has proven to be a coherent logical network because of the telecommunications standards being followed by all agencies. This system will be enhanced in future years as the volume of data traffic increases and as newer technologies become available. Estimates of the volume of data traffic and its frequency, decisions on redundancy for backup configuration support among the agencies, and physical infrastructure requirements will be determined when laying out the plan for interconnectivity of the agencies.

Servers

It is expected that modern client-server architecture and sophisticated storage management systems will provide the base technology for development of the system. Each of the legislative agencies is now involved, to varying degrees, in development of systems of this kind. How we configure these servers (i.e. a central server site, distributed servers, mirrored servers in multiple locations, or some other solution or combination) will depend on the requirements, both for services and security.

Modern server and storage management equipment and techniques, capable of meeting the requirements to be defined, are under study and consideration. Major issues will include data retention requirements, access requirements, environmental requirements, availability, reliability, and cost.

Equally important considerations will be the current staff skills and the legacy systems each agency is porting to the client server environment. Since physical location of information in such a networked environment becomes less important than access to it, agencies may host each others need for storage and serve as 'hot' backup sites in emergencies.

Specifications for servers will include a global system view where the networks across agencies are viewed as a whole and all servers are seen as potentially accessible. The technology capabilities will help to shift the system architecture focus from individual agency views to a shared global one, and will emphasize the value gained from a more common system architecture.