Annual report of the Policy Coordination Group for Technology Development

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Annual report of the Policy Coordination Group for Technology Development
Physical Description:
30 pages : 24 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
United States -- Congress. -- Policy Coordination Group for Technology Development
United States -- Congress. -- Senate. -- Committee on Rules and Administration
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on House Administration
Publisher:
U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Place of Publication:
Washington

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Technological innovations -- Periodicals -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre:
federal government publication   ( marcgt )

Notes

Dates or Sequential Designation:
1978-
General Note:
Reuse of record except for individual research requires license from LexisNexis Academic & Library Solutions.
General Note:
CIS Microfiche Accession Numbers: CIS 78 S682-10
General Note:
Reuse of record except for individual research requires license from Congressional Information Service, Inc.
General Note:
1978.
General Note:
"Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules and Administration, United States Senate, and the Committee on House Administration, United States House of Representatives."
General Note:
At head of title: 95th Congress, 2d session. Joint committee print.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 022346455
oclc - 04864745X
Classification:
lcc - KF49
System ID:
AA00024023:00001

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
        Page ii
    Letter of transmittal
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Foreword
        Page v
        Page vi
    Table of Contents
        Page vii
        Page viii
    I. Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    II. Task force reports
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    III. Related documentation
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
    Back Cover
        Page 30
Full Text

(ti //


95th Congress 1 JOINT COMMITTEE PRINT
2d Session I








FIRST ANNUAL REPORT

OF THE

POLICY COORDINATION GROUP FOR
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT


CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES











AUGUST 1, 1978






Printed for the Use of the Committee on Rules and Administration United States Senate and the
Committee on House Administration
United States House of Representatives


U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
31-469 WASHJNCTON : 197S













COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION

U.S. SENATE

CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island, Chairmnan HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan
HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., Tennessee
DICK CLARK, Iowa
WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky WILLIAM MCWHORTER COCHRANE, Staff Director CHESTER H. SMITH, Chief Counsel MARTIN B. GOLD, Minority Staff Director- Counsel JOHN K. SWEARINGEN, Director, Technical Services JACK L. SAPP, Professional Staff Member



COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FRANK THOMPSON, JR., New Jersey, Chairman JOHN H. DENT, Pennsylvania WILLIAM L. DICKINSON, Alabama
LUCIEN N. NEDZI, Michigan SAMUEL L. DEVINE, Ohio
JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana JAMES C. CLEVELAND, New Hampshire
AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California CHARLES E. WIGGINS, California
FRANK ANNUNZIO, Illinois J. HERBERT BURKE, Florida
JOSEPH M. GAYDOS, Pennsylvania BILL FRENZEL, Minnesota
ED JONES, Tennessee DAVE STOCKMAN, Michigan
ROBERT H. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia ROBERT E. BADHAM, California
,LIONEL VAN DEE RLIN, California JOSEPH G. MINISH, New Jersey MENDEL J. DAVIS, South Carolina CHARLES ROSE, North Carolina JOHN L. BURTON, California EDWARD W. PATTISON, New York LEON E. PANETTA, California JOSEPH S. AMMERMAN, Pennsylvania WILLIAM G. PHILLIPS, Staff Director ROBERT E. Moss, General Counsel BOYD L. ALEXANDER, Director, House Information Systems


POLICY COORDINATION GROUP FoR. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

JOHN K. SWEARINGEN, Director, Technical Services, U.S. Senate, Chairman
BOYD L. ALEXANDER, Director, House Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives
ROBERT L. CHARTRAND, Senior Specialist in Information Sciences, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress
(xI)












LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL



THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, Washington, D.C., M11ay 1, 1978.
Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL,
Chairman, Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
HON. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
GENTLEMEN: I am pleased to report that excellent progress has been made during the past year by personnel from our staffs who have been working together to oversee the development of technologysupported information systems for the Congress. This senior staff mechanism, called the Policy Coordination Group (PC G), has ably performed its multiple roles of coordinating, monitoring, and encouraging the development of new procedures and techniques related to the use of information technology-computers, microforms, telecommunications, audio and video services-which can better support the Members and committees of Congress.
The attached firstt annual report" sets forth, for your review and comment, the highlights of the Policy Coordination Group activities, which are described within the context of the various "task forces" efforts. The report was prepared by Robert L. Chartrand, our Senior Specialist in Information Sciences, who has served for the past 12 months as PC G chairman, and Jean Paul Emard, Analyst in Information Sciences with the Science Policy Research Division (CRS), who has performed all requisite Secretariat functions. The entire report was reviewed in detail by Boyd L. Alexander (House Information Systems) and John K. Swearingen (Senate Committee on Rules and Administration), the other two PCG principals.
As the pressures of legislative responsibilities continue to increase, the value of this coordinating endeavor in f acilitating careful planning and nonduplicative services grows apace.
Your support and encouragement are deeply appreciated, and we welcome any of your comments regarding our efforts.
Sincerely,
GILBERT GIDE, Director.


















Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013













http://archive.org/details/annpol952unit










FOREWORD


The application of computers to the ever-increasing workload of the Congress continues. Costs increase as each newly found benefit engenders other uses. In order to insure that value continues to be received and unnecessary duplicate or counterproductive efforts are avoided among the Senate, House, and Library of Congress computer activities, Senator Cannon, Congressman Thompson, and Mr. Gude established the Policy Coordination Group. Over the years, numerous joint efforts had been undertaken on a voluntary ad hoe basis by technical staff who worked on similar problems. Now, senior staff of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the Committee on House Administration, and the Congressional Research Service are charged with the responsibility of seeing that efforts in subjects of joint interest are coordinated in a cost-effective manner.
The benefit to the Congress which is being derived from the ad hoe joint effort in developing the Legislative Information and Status System (LEGIS) is an example of the success that we expect will accrue from the efforts of the Policy Coordination Group. We are pleased with the accomplishments reported herein and the enthusiasm of the task force personnel that is reflected in those reports.
CLAIBORNE PELL,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
FRANKTHOMPSON, Jr.,
Chairman,
Committee on House Administration.
(V)














CONTENTS

Page
Letter of transmittal- III
Foreword- V
I. Introduction---------- 1
II. Task f orce reports- 3
Legislative Information and Status System (LE GIS) 3
Charter 3
Objectives -------------------------------------------- 3
Major activities for the reporting period ------------------ 4
Projected areas of concentration------------------------ 4
Task force 5
Audio and video 5
Charter 5
5
Major activities for the reporting period 5
Projected areas of concentration- 6
Task force 7
Microform 7
Charter statement ------------------------------------- 7
Objectives-- 7
Major activities for the reporting period 8
Projected areas of concentration------------------------- 9
Task force 9
Computer hardware and software requirements--------------- 9
Charter 9
10
Maj or activities for the reporting period 10
Projected areas of concentration------------------------ 11
Task force 12
Orientation and 12
Charter 12
13
Major activities for the reporting period 13
Projected areas of concentration------------------------ 13
Task force 14
Word processing 14
Charter statement ------------------------------------- 14
Objectives---- 15
Major activities for the reporting period ----------------- 15
Projected areas of concentration------------------------ 15
Task force 16
III. Related 17
Correspondence:
Gilbert Gude to Senator Howard W. Cannon (dated April
271 1977) ------------------------------------------- 17
Gilbert Gude to Congressman Frank Thompson, Jr. (dated
April 27, 1977) -------------------------------------- 19
Senator Howard W. Cannon to Gilbert Gude (dated May 4,
20
Congressman Frank Thompson, Jr., to Gilbert Gude (dated
May 6, 21
Gilbert Gude to Senator Howard W. Cannon (dated June
21) 1977) ------------------------------------------- 22
Gilbert Gude to Congressman Frank Thompson, Jr. (dated
June 21, 22
Roles and Responsibilities of the Policy Coordination Group.
(Attachment to letters from Gilbert Gude to Senator Howard W. Cannon and Congressman Frank Thompson, Jr., (dated
June 21, 23









1. INTRODUCTION

The Policy Coordination Group for Technology Development was established in May 1977 andl is composed of one priiplm bean one alternate each from the Committee on Rules and Administration of the U.S. Senate, the Committee on House Administration of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. In its first year the Policy Coordination Group took steps establish working aaiit o h
fulfillment of its responsibility to "coordinate the development of technology-supported information systems during the present and succeeding Congresses." The Policy Coordination Group established task forces for high priority areas to facilitate communication and coordination. Task forces are composed of staff members of the Senate andl the House of Representatives and of congressional support agencies who are regularly involved in the dIevelopment or use of 1iformation systems. The task forces which have been established are set forth in the organization chart included in this section.
Task forces provide a forum for communication and for identifying common problems and areas where technical and data standards would be desirable. In some instances technical working groups have been established. For example, in the Task Force on Computer Hardware and Software Requirements one technical working group is concentrating on the capabilities of congressional computer' centers to provide backup support to each other, and another is examining computer communications technology.
The task forces have functioned through:
1. Preparing special reports such as "A Primer on Information
Transfer: Methods, Media, and Modes" and "Legislative Use of
Micrographics: Present and Potential-;"
2. Arranging briefings, tour's, and demonstrations to promote a
better understanding of recent technological developments, innovative applications, and use of facilities, such as a demonstration of the Planning Research Corporation' s "telefiche" capability, a tour of NASA communications control facilities, and tours of four
legislative computer centers;
3. Developing standard data formats for information transfer,
such as status and content information on pending bills and resolutions. (Standards are developed in working sessions with staff from the legislative organizations with oversight and operational
authority and responsibility.); and
4. Examining, with contractor support, areas of prime concern,
such as "Congressional Micrographic Applications," performed
by Dataflow Systems, Inc.
As a result of these activities, a better balance in the allocation of staff and other resources should be achievable and user needs should be more effectively met. It should be noted that in many areas of activity described in the individual task force reports, significant initiatives already had been undertaken by the congressional organizations with ongoing oversight and operational authority and responsibilities.

31-469-78--2








2







0
0 >
z


l r
LLJ
u


CL
Y
cc
0
c
>
0
z


cc c
s 0. A co 2
c
E
LLJ w z
cr 5 0
L)
LLJ a:
<
75
--:E
C:E >c c >
o LAJ
... n .. c) ui 32 u -a Xc m
0 CC
V) U) :-2 > c c >-j
c LLJ
LLJ co-;;Omooc 00
cc Z CC
ui
>
cc
ui cc 0
Z Ci cc a
cc c 3 L) _j
w u -E5 -i
02 CL r <
Cc CL LLJ
CC cc 2
00 U) LLJ W.2
LLI E C!
z D
uj 0 Etr E c
0 > r Z) cr. CL !! E
w 2 E
0
LL

5 x E
Q 2 u
r E
CC
0 0
0 Z
co C cc E

LU
uj LLJ 2 c I->

0
CL 0 c 0
U- m Z


Ei ui
D F- E

E Eft C'
uj

cc LU

o


ui w

z 0 zcc c!
.cy R Z ; 0 cc U -, _C w c cr a: -0 u U 7;
< w cc WULL
tA cc r,12 0 .2
cr.
E
0 cn LL

uj
> < Z3 Z


(n c e
m CE=,
-t c LLJ E-2
-. E
CE -- ;i 0
9











11. TASK FORCE REPORTS
In this section information on each active task force is set forth under the following headings: charter statement, objectives, major activities for the reporting period, projected areas of concentration, and task force staffing.
LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION AND STATUS SYSTEM (LEGIS)
CHARTER STATEMENT
In order to formally include staff from the Library of Congress' Information Systems Office (ISO) and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in the ongoing activities of the joint House/Senate LEGIS working group, the Policy Coordination Group established a LEGIS Task Force. This Task Force is comprised of representatives involved in policy, software development, data base maintenance, and user support functions within the Senate, House, and Library of Congress. In its charter statement, the Policy Coordination Group stated that the LEGIS Task Force should support and where appropriate coordinate the development of a capability-by the Senate, House, and Congressional Research Service-to enter, edit, and validate each body's official legislative information. These data would be concerned with both the content and status of pending and enacted legislation. In addition, the Task Force was to recommend procedures allowing the transmission of that information over the congressional computer network during the same day in which pertinent legislative action occurs.
OBJECTIVES
The primary goals of this Task Force were set in Task Force meetings and working sessions. These objectives include:
(1) Elimination of duplication in the data entry and data
validation of status and bill identification data (e.g., bill number, sponsor, cosponsor, date of introduction, and official title) by the
CRS Bill Digest Unit;
(2) Significant improvement in the delivery of timely digests,
revised digests, amendment digests, abstracts, and indexing terms
from CRS to the House and Senate;
(3) Formulation of priorities for data created by the Bill
Digest Unit;
(4) Development of the data specifications and formats of
House and Senate data for delivery to the Library of Congress to be used in updating the Bill Digest data base and the CG95 SCORPIO display file. This effort has included a comparison of Senate/House and Library "status steps" for compatibility and convertibility from the Senate and the House to the Library
of Congress;
(3)





4

(5) Planning for the automated data link between the Senate
and the Library and between the Library and the House. (House/ Senate data exchange has been previously agreed upon by House Information Systems, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Senate Computer Center staffs); and
(6) Exploration with Library personnel (responsible for software development) of additional programming which would alleviate the processing time required of the House and the Senate when
addin(r CRS data to their respective LEGIS data bases.
MAJOR ACTIVITIES FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD
All of the activities initiated and carried out by the Task Force in its first year were designed to speed the implementation of a Hill-wide LEGIS information network. The Task Force provided support or assisted in implementing the following activities:
(1) Staff of the CRS Bill Digest Unit has agreed to accept
Senate and House data both for the published Digest of PZic General Bills and Resolutions and the Library's on-line CG95
SCORPIO display file;
(2) CRS has established a higher priority for preparing digests
of measures scheduled for action or receiving action;
(3) A priority ranking of all Bill Digest data by the staff of the
House, the Senate, and CRS has been completed;
(4) Data and tape specifications were agreed upon for transfer
of official title data to the Library from both the Senate and the
House;
(5) The Senate established a courier service for tape exchange
among the Senate, the House, and the Library;
(6) The House and the Senate have expedited delivery of bills
and resolutions to the CRS Bill Digest Unit through the cooperation of the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate;
(7) At the request of the Task Force, the LCJSO established
a study team for determining the best way of implementing bill digest "transaction updates" to alleviate the House and Senate processing load when updating their respective data bases with
LC data; and
(8) At the request of the Task Force, the Senate Bill Clerk
and the House Bill Clerk will provide the Library with a list of "carry-over bills" from the 95th to the 96th Cong esses as part of the House/Senate study of cross-reference requirements and data sources for their respective LEGIS data bases. The CRS
Bill Digest staff will participate in this study.

PROJECTED AREAS OF CONCENTRATION
Work not completed during the previous reporting period will be continued during 1978.
Additional tasks arising during the course of the working group's activities-all of which are in support of implementing the Congressional Legislative Information System as authorized by"Ae respective chairmen of the Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House Administration-will be examined as the need arises.






5

TASK FORCE STAFFING
Chairman: Anthony Harvey, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, 1978; James Price, Congressional Research Service, 1977.
Members: Willi.am Hill, House Information Systems; Terry Guertin, Congressional Research Service; Richard Reed, Senate Computer Center; Kathy Reichel, Congressional Research Service; Tim Cavanaugh, House Information Systems; Jeri Thomson James, Office of the Sergeant at Arms, U.S. Senate; Alice Tennes, Library of Congress/Information Systems Office; Marilyn Courtot, Office of the Secretary of the Senate; Patricia Dowling, House Information Systems; John Kaldahl, Congressional Research Service; Charlene Woody, Library of Congress/Information Systems Office; Michael Fitzgerald, Library of Congress/Information Systems Office.
AUDIO AND VIDEO TECHNOLOGY
CHARTER STATEMENT
The Task Force on Audio-Video Technology is charged by the Policy Coordination Group with identifying the various ways in which both audio and video technologies can be of use to the Senators and Representatives in their ongoing chamber, committee, and constituentoriented activities. In particular, emphasis will be placed on examining state-of-the-art developments and looking at how multimedia user configurations, including the use of computer-generated graphics, can meet the dynamic needs of the Congress.
OBJECTIVES
The Task Force on Audio-Video Technology has a threefold set of obj ectives: 121
(1) Facilitate the integration of audio-video activities within
and between the Senate, House, and Library of Congress;
(2) Promote educational activities-through briefings, video
tape presentations, etc.-and the distribution of educational materials on new audio-video technologies and their use in the
information transfer process; and
(3) Serve as a point of reference for congressional organizations
and offices which seek information on how to produce, access, or
disseminate audio-video materials.
MAJOR ACTIVITIES FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD
The congressional personnel serving on the Task Force on AudioVideo Technology are active through their respective organizations in a variety of audio/visual programs. These activities include:
The closed circuit TV system for the House of Representatives; The Library of Congress American Television and Radio
Archives (ATRA) project;
The audio-cassette Issue Briefs of CRS; and
The recently released House Information Systems IMAGE
(on-line graphics) system.






6

During the Task Force's first year of existence, major activities were concentrated in two areas: (1) coordinating on-site briefings and demonstrations for key Senate, House, and CRS personnel involved in audio-video or automated technologies; and (2) serving in advisory capacities to congressional committees.
In order to monitor state-of-the-art technological advancements in the audio-video field, Task Force members participated in three tours, with associated briefings and demonstrations, arranged by Federal departmental, private sector, and congressional organizations:
(1) The Task Force toured the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center to view
that facility's audio-video support programs;
(2) The Task Force chairman conducted an initial visit to the
Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, N.J., for presentations on: a new mobile telephone concept, light wave (optical fiber) communication, picture phone transmission, and an experimental "talking" computer; and
(3) The Task Force was given a briefing on monitoring devices
and techniques used for congressional security operatimis.
In an advisory capacity, members of the Task Force participated in two significant projects:
(1) Provided technical assistance to the Select Committee on
Congressional Operations and the House Committee on Rules in their eValUatiODS of alternatives for performing televised coverage
of House proceedings; and
(2) Advised the Committee on House Administration regarding
the concept design, potential vendor support, and implementation
of a tone-and-voice paging system.
PROJECTED AREAS OF CONCENTRATION
One high priority item to be undertaken by the Task Force will be the examination of the benefits to be derived from the integration of cable systems in the Senate, House, and Library of Congress to disseminate audio-video information to any congressional office. As a follow-on project, the Task Force plans to identify visual materials which could be used for orientation purposes or to augment commentary on specific subject areas-e.g., transportation, energy, inflation-for possible airing, on the Hill closed circuit TV system.
Two other areas of interest will be investigated. A special Working Group on Visual Products, comprised of selected Task Force members, will define a study on how to integrate visual techno lue into legislative activities. Also, available dial-up services proven: audio-cassette playbacks will be examined for their potential to provide key information on major issues.
The Task Force also plans to present two demonstrations of video information systems:
(1) In early June, INSAC Group, Inc. of New York City, will
conduct a series of live demonstrations on Capitol Hill of the British Post Office's "Viewdata" interactive information retrieval system. This newly developed service allows home or office users to access a variety of data bases using existing telephone circuits
and specially modified TV receivers; and






7

(2) The video/digital systems developed by the General Electric Co. and utilized by the U.S. Bureau of the Census to superimpose politically oriented maps over satellite photographs will be
demonstrated to interested congressional personnel.
As an aid to their staying abreast of salient advances in various audio-video technologies, selected Task Force members soon will return to the Bell Telephone Laboratories, accompanied by senior congressional staffers concerned with the development of information services dependent on such technologies.
TASK FORCE STAFFING
Chairman: William Hartnett, Office of the Clerk of the House, 1977-78.
Members: James Price, Congressional Research Service; Richard Maynard, House Information Systems; John Swearingen, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; Ray Carroll, Architect of the Capitol; Frank Keenan, House Select Committee on Congressional Operations; William Adams, House Information Systems.
MICROFORM TECHNOLOGY
CHARTER STATEMENT
The Task Force on Micrographics Technology is charged with exploring the most efficient and effective uses of microf orm. tools and techniques within the congressional setting. These micrographic media and methods, as applied to the needs of legislative users, should include a capability for optimal storage, various retrieval options, and the transfer of selected data through the employment of latest state-ofthe-art technologies, e.g., computer output microfilm (COM).

OBJECTIVES
The Task Force on Micrographics Technology has established this set of initial objectives:
1. Coordinate micrographics standards-equipment, data formattino, stora e elements-for use by the Senate, House of
Representatives, and all legislative support groups;
2. Survey various congressional operations for possible micrographics applications;
3. Review state-of-the-art micrographic technologies for potential individual or coordinated use by Capitol Hill entities;
4. Examine existing congressional perform files for conversion
to microform in order to achieve space and cost savings, and
to enhance responsiveness to legislative clientele;
5. Evaluate selected commercial microform data bases for potential congressional use;
6. Explore the potential for COM by Members and committees;
and
7. Initiate orientation and training programs f or Capitol Hill
personnel in the application-showing both benefits and limitations-of micrographics.






8

MAJOR ACTIVITIES FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD
An initial undertaking of the Task Force involved a written review of all ongoing micrographics activities in the Senate, House of Representatives, andl Congressional Research Service (CRS). These reports, prepared by cognizant personnel in each of these organizations, were submitted to the Task Force and compiled into one major document. This edited text was augmented with additional materials which included an historical overview of micrographics, the various types of microforms, a glossary of terms, and a selected reading list. After final editorial reviews are performed, this document will be published as a Policy Coordination Group publication in order to inform the Hill1 community of the present and potential legislative uses of micrographics.
The Task Force, as one of its activities, analyzed the joint GAO/ CRS microfilming project of the General Accounting Office "Legislative History File." Over the years, GAO has amassed a legal inf ormation base consisting of some 20,000 files of laws that average 100 pages per file. Dating back to the 65th Congress, the file also includes congressional documents and GAO reports. In studying this venture, the Task Force made a major technical recommendation: the file's backup material is to be filmed at 42X (reduction)-to provide better clarity and resolution-but stored in a 48X format to allow for greater compactness.
The Task Force specifically addressed its goal of surveying various congressional op era tions for possible micirographics applications by undertaking a. thireefold study p~roject. The project combined requirements from the organizations represented to: (1) determine potential COM applications in the Senate; (2) conduct a user feasibility study of potential micrographics applications in the offices of Representatives; andl (3) survey the lpotenltial use of CR8 micrographic products by the two Houses. To perform these studies as comprehensively as possible and within the prescribed timeframe, contractor support was recommended by the Task Force. CR8 was selected as the responsible mechanism for contractor selection, contract administration, and overall project coordination. A final report setting forth specific findings and recommendations was delivered in January (via CRS) to the Trask Force by the contractors-Dataflow Systems, Inc. andl Eagle and Nair. A review of the document is now in its final stage.
In order to keel) abreast of the latest developments in micrographics technologies, Task Force members participated in three on-site tours:
(1) Special arrangements were made with the Planning Research Corp., for a demonstration of the company's "telefiche"
system at its McLean, Va., facility. Telefiche is an advanced micrographic technology allowing transmission of microfiche
material via digital facsimile to hard copy;
(2) Task Force members were able to question and review
leading micrographics manufacturers at an equipment exhibit sponsored by the National Micrographics Association held in
Washington, D.C.; and
(3) A tour of the Photoduplication Service and the new BetaCOM 800 system of the Library of Congress was arranged.






9

PROJECTED AREAS OF CONCENTRATION
During the remainder of this year, the Task Force will be involved in a broad range of orientation activities, coordinating efforts, and feasibility studies focused on matching known resources with legislative user needs. Briefings and demonstrations designed to keep the group's membership aware of state-of-the-art developments or pertinent innovative microform applications will be arranged. The first in this series of presentations will focus on the use of micrographics by the State legislatures. In addition, certain Task Force members will be attending the next annual meeting of the National Micrographics Association (NMA). Consisting of educational seminars, application areas, new technologies, and equipment demonstrations, this NMA gathering will provide members with some insight into future Task Force areas of involvement.
Although microforms have been used for many years in the legislative arena, more staff exposure to micrographics devices and applications is necessary. The Task Force has determined that a concerted effort to produce a formalized micrographics orientation and training program should be pursued. The possibility of initiating appropriate joint action with the Task Force on Orientation and Training now is being examined. Concurrently, efforts will be undertaken by the Task Force on Micrographics Technology to identify other task forces where the application of microforms could be a consideration. One such group is the Task Force on Word Processing.
To aid those Capitol H4ill staffers who are responsible for legislative research functions, the Task Force plans to conduct a preliminary sampling of existing private sector micrographic data bases. If the initial effort proves successful, a complete survey of microform-based resources will be carried out with the results annotated and catalogued.
The Task Force members also plan to determine the utility of pilot projects in these areas:
First, the commercial availability of "telefiche" this spring
should lead to an examination of its potential for the Congress;
and
Second, exploration in Word Processing Output Microfilming
(WPOM)-generating microfiche directly from a word processing tape-would be useful in considering future options for the publication of congressional documents and correspondence.
TASK FORCE STAFFING
Chairman: Alan Linden, Congressional Research Service, 1977-78.
Members: Richard Maynard, House Information Systems; Trudy Grieb, House Information Systems; Marilyn Courtot, Office of the Secretary of the Senate; Joyce Amenta, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; Karl Jansson, Office of the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate.

COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS
CHARTER STATEMENT
In the original document setting forth the roles and responsibilities of the task forces, the duties of the groups charged with examining






10

long-range hardware andm software requirements were described separately:
Long-ran ge hardware req irements.-In coordination with the
Task Force looking at long-range software requirements, to recommend through an intensive technical (esign study the full array olf equipment needs of the Congress alnd its supporting agencies. This twin-faceted plan, covering a 5-year period, will take into account projected user need-s and the known potential
of candidate hardware.
Long-range softlw'are requirement s.-T his coordinated, in-parallel
effort with the Task Force responsible for recommending longrange hardware requirements, also will result in the preparation of a detailed technical design report. With the continuing, myriad options available through the use of computer programs-and the interfaces necessary to integrate other technologies such as telecommunications and microfoim-the readying of a 5-year
plan is a matter of high importance.
OBJECTIVES
The Task Force on Computer Hardware and Software Requirements has determined that the following items comprise its initial set of objectives:
1. Define and prioritize the most critical automatic data processing (ADP) applications, both existing and projected, for each of
the participating congressional entities;
2. Determine which congressional computer facility will serve
as backup site for similar operations in cases of temporary
emergencies;
3. Develop a plan for offloading excess computer work from one
installation to another;
4. Recommend procedures for accounting and billing to apply
during resource-sharino arrangements;
5. Establish procedures to communicate major configuration
changes being planned by any Capitol Hill computer facility;
6. Develop and maintain an index of computer software having
potential utility for other congressional installations; and
7. Coordinate hardware, software, and procedural developments to assure backup compatibility among the congressional
computer facilities.

MAJOR ACTIVITIES FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD
In initial discussions, the members of the Task Force on Hardware Requirements determined that many issues to be addressed would concern software development and communications capabilities, as well as hardware requirements. With this thought in mind, the Task Force requested that the Policy (Coordination Group give serious consideration to reinstituting the original concelpt of a "Task Force on Hardware and Software Requirements." The Policy Coordination Group concurred with the Task Force's recommendation and approved a new charter which states in part that the newly designated Task Force on (Computer iardiware and Software Requirements ". .will develop and recommend administrative policies and technical standarIds, procedures, ind conventions. The scope of responsibility of the Task Force icluhde, coml)uter hardware, software, and communiC a tiO S. .





11

In order to become more familiar with each legislative computer facility, arrangements were made for formal on-site computer configuration visits and ADP workload presentations. Tours were conducted through the House Information Systems (HIS), Senate Computer Center (SCC), and Library of Congress (1C) computer facilities. In addition, Task Force members recommenle(1 that appropriate personnel from the Government Printing Office (GPO) be
appointed to the Task Force. Subsequently, a facility tour and statistical presentation were provided by GPO.
The Task Force determined that a great many issues and questions which might be addressed by the group in the next several months would be of a highly technical nature. Since a number of the Task Force participants were not involved in the dJay-to-(lay technical procedures of their computer centers, "technical working groups" were created. Each technical working group is male up of personnel from the organizations participating on the Task Force and includes some Task Force members. The Technical Working Group on Computer Backup currently is addressing the problem of which site will offer backup support for one or more of its congressional counterparts in case of some emergency. The Techiical Working Group on Computer Communications is serving as a coordinating body for the interrelated communications activities of the )articipating computer facilities.
To date, three specific policy questions have been raise(t and preliminary discussions have ensued
(1) What site on Capit.ol HlI could be SCl if one of the HIS,
SCC, LC, or GPO computer facilities met with some catastrophe, i.e., fire, flood, van(lalism, or some other severe form of prolonged
power outage?
(2) What tasks currently being performed are of the highest
priority to each legislative branch agency, andl what interim backup capability could be provide( by another congressional
facility?
(3) What possibilities exist for better utilizing, the computer
facilities currently in operation on Capitol Hill throuo'h the
"sharing" of unused computer capacities?
In light. of these discussions, each Task Force participant representing a major Hill installation has drawnn up a list of that facility's priority projects which must be protected in order to continue an acceptable, if minimal, level of support. An example of one application of concern to all is payroll delivery.
A tentative definition which reflects backup nee(Is in terms of a time framework and responsive actions was proposed:
(1) 0 to 24 hours-transfer computerize(l files and1 applications
support; this may be planned in advance;
(2) 1 to 14 days-transport operating prograins; support can
then be provided by using borrowed hardware; and
(3) 14+ days-install a complete, new operating capability at
another designate(l backup facility.

PROJECTED AREAS OF CONCENTRATION
In the coming year, the Task Force on Comimptter Iardware and Software Requirements hopes to i(lentify ant I reconmnen d policy





12

changes which woull affect long-range Capitol Hill computer planning. Five priority action areas have been identified:
1. The group will identify unique hardware backup requirements for each of the separate computer facilities;
2. Each installation will be encouraged to develop and test
systems for external emergency support of critical applications.
A special report will be prepared detailing the benefits, limitations, and cost of a "stand-alone" backup site located in a building
which does not contain a primary computer facility;
3. A software index will be developed, catalogued, and up(dated in a timely fashion as a potential source reference for other
facilities;
4. The 'Task Force will assist in interface planning which involves communication software (COMTEN) in each of the Capitol Hill computer facilities. When a common networking system is
in ol)eration, on-line backup will be possible; and
5. Establish methods for maintaining documentation and status
information pertaining to the retirement and acquisition of computer hardware and software.
TASK FORCE STAFFING
Chairman: Cirt lerrick, House Information Systems; 1978; James Myracle, Library of Congress/Information Systems Office; 1977
Members: Anthony [arve y, Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration; Frank Reeder, House Information Systems; Pat Sarman, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; William Poulin, Senate Comnputer Center; Ron Ontko, Senate Computer Center; Richard Fie l is, House Information Systems; James Price, Congressional Research Service; William Nugent, Library of Congress/ Information Systems Office; Donald Pfalzgraf, Library of Congress/ Information Systems Office; Raymond Pluto, Government Printing Office; Dennis Chastain, Government Printing Office.

()JUENTATION AND TRAINING
(CHARTER STATEMENT
members, committees, and staff in Congress have experience an ever-increasing proliferation of computer-oriented information resources an(d services. Acquainting the Members and staff personnel with the (haracteristics and( uses or information technology is a neverending job. The importance of orienting and educating the congressional communitv-usinr such diverse media as brochures, films, briefings, and( an assortment of more traditional pro(lucts-in how and when computers (and other tools) can be of help) is critical to the future role of information technology on Capitol Hill. Also, the teaching of particular skills, such as operating computer terminals, has placed a deman(l on Senate, Ilouse, and CRS training personnel that calls for the coordinated allocation of resources. The charter of the Task Force on Orientation and Training is to initiate, coordinate, and sponsor those types of activities which would both orient and train congressional )peIrsonnel in the "what, when, and how" of information technology.





13

OBJECTIVES
The Task Force on Orientation and Training is a newly activated group. At its initial meeting, the members of the Task Force identified two broad objectives which will provide the basic scope for the coming year's activities:
(1) Coordinate dissemination of automation-related Capitol
Hill orientation and training programs and materials of general use by congressional staff; and
(2) Examine the feasibility of developing and maintaining a
"clearinghouse" for information science and automation-related information which would include conferences, seminars, briefings and demonstrations that would be of interest to Task Force
members as well as other appropriate congressional personnel.
As the year prog esses, the Task Force may choose to more narrowly define or subdivide these broad-based objectives.
MAJOR ACTIVITIES FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD
Since the Task Force on Orientation and Training is one of the most recently inaugurated groups, many of the Task Force's activities are anticipatory in nature. At one of the first Task Force meetings, members of the group identified several key issues which the Task Force would address during the year:
1. Those orient ationl training methods associated with automated and information science activities;
2. The separation of treatment regarding the principles,
practices, and procedures associated respectively with orientation and training functions; and
3. Examination of both the time-honored and current orientation and training methods and the latest state-of-the-art developments in each of these fields.
Prior to the initiation of the Task Force, two of the current Task Force members participated in .the writing and editing of a
handbook on information transfer. This publication, soon to be released, will describe various methods, media, and modes utilized for purposes of orientation and training as Members and staff seek to transfer ideas and knowledge.
PROJECTED AREAS OF CONCENTRATION
In the coming year, the Task Force will be concerned with the coordination and promotion of orientation and training activities on Capitol Hill. To achieve these ends, several projects and programs are envisioned:
1. The Task Force will examine the feasibility of establishing an
information "clearinghouse" that will maintain-in a timely fashion-listings of organizations responsible for computer and information science-oriented seminars, conferences, briefings,
tours, and demonstrations useful to congressional personnel;
2. If the "clearinghouse" concept should prove useful, the Task
Force will evaluate the potential for developing an automated information file that will serve as an on-line "activities clearinghouse";





14

3. An additional task will encompass the preparation of a
reference guide to instructional materials, which might be of
use in the Capitol Hill orientation/training environment;
4. The Task Force will consider a comprehensive Hill-wide
presentation package on automated services for Member orientation programs;
5. Each participating Task Force organization will conduct a
briefing on its own orientation training capabilities and programs
for the entire Task Force membership;
6. The Task Force will develop and recommend to the Policy
Coordination Group a formal proced(lure for notifying pertinent Capitol Hill staffs of ongoing or projected congressional orientaton/traming activities:
7. Members of the Task Force will attend various orientation
and training briefings and demonstrations sponsored by private and public sector organizations. This activity will provide its members with insight into both currently available and developing orientation/training tools and techniques. In turn, the Task Force may sponsor similar briefings and demonstrations for the congressional user community at a later (late; and
8. The Task Force on Orientation and Training will work in
close association-either through direct support or in an advisory capacity-with other task forces to promote computer-related
information resources an( services in the congressional a rena.
TASK FORCE STAFFING
Chairman: Ed-ward \Mason, Congressional Research Servce; 1978.
Members: Patricia Dowling, House Information Systems; Dianne Oshetski, House Information Systems; Jeri Thomson James, Office of the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate; Barbara Trueheart, Office of the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate; MIarian Saunders, Senate Computer Center; Mary Ruth Alter, Senate Computer Center; Marilyn Courtot, Office of the Secretary of the Senate; John Kaldahl, Congressional Research Service; Marvin Kornblub, Congressional Research Service; Jane Lindley, Congressional Research Service; Wayne Edblom, Library of Congress/Information Systems Office.

WORD PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
CHARTER STATEMENT
The Task Force on Word Processing originally was tasked by the Policy Coordinat ion Gro,,up to coordinate the research, development, and use of word or text processing equipment and related man-machine techniques in support of constituent, legislative, and administrative functions. In its recently expanded charter, this task force is charged with monitoring state-of-the-art advances in this technology as well as assessing the research and developmental activities of word processing vendors.








OBJECTIVES
At the initial meeting of the Task Force on Word Processing, the participating members defined the following major objectives:
1. Coordinate research, analysis, and developmental efforts in
the field of word processing not only between. the Senate, House of Representatives, and Library of Congress, but also between those other congressional organizations with whom they must
interface periodically in a word processing mode;
2. Relate state-of-the-art word processing technology to legislative, administrative, and constituent-oriented processes on
Capitol Hill; and
3. Propose orientation program, for legislative personnel designed to show both the benefits and limitations of the technology.

MAJOR ACTIVITIES FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD
The Task Force had its first organizational meeting on April 4, 1978. At that time, the Task Force's members discussed tentative objectives and possible work assignments. M\1ore formalized and focused plans will be approved by the group at subsequent meetings. Due to its high visibility and rapidly changing technology, plus the potential impact which word processing will have on the congressional milieu, the Task Force will be meeting on a semi-monthly basis.

PROJECTED AREAS OF CONCENTRATION
The members of the Task Force on Word Processing plan to initiate, coordinate, and sponsor numerous activities throughout the next year. These projects and programs will fulfill two go's: (1) to educate the Task Force members regarding salient developments, and (2) to provide greater exposure for large numbers of Capitol Hill staff to word processing technologies.
There are six action areas which will be pursued:
(1) To obtain a thorough understanding of current word processing activities on Capitol Hill, briefings by each Task Force participant will be presented. These presentations will allow the Task Force members to become more fully acquainted with each
legislative agency's word processing efforts:
(2) Task Force members will identify and select common
problems related to word processing that might be reduced or resolved through research and analysis efforts sponsored by the
Zroup;
(3) An attempt will be made to categorize current word
processing technologies into a number of fields based on specific Capitol Hill word processino application areas. Special working groups comprised of appropriate Task Force members and other legislative branch resource personnel will be formed to address
any unique or highly technical problem areas;
(4) In addition to keeping abreast of present state-of-the-art
developments in word processing, vendor perceptions and plans concerning developments undlerwavy which involve these technologies will be solicited; and






16

(5) Several products are envisioned in the course of the next few
months:
(a) A brief but comprehensive "primer" on word processing, defining and describing applications, will be prepared for
congressional distribution; and
(b) Seminars detailing current uses of word processing for
publication purposes, office practices, and administrative uses will be conducted and/or sponsored by the Task Force.
In addition, the Task Force will develop a notification system to make known any private, professional, academic, or federally sponsored word processing conferences or
workshops open to congressional personnel.

TASK FORCE STAFFING
Chairman: Cheryl Smith, House Information Systems; 1978.
Members: Alan Linden, Congressional Research Service; Joyce Amenta, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; Janice Robertson, House Information Systems; Paula Hantman, House Information Systems; Jack Carpenter, Committee on House Administration; Pat Sarman, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; Lou Frazier, Senate Computer Center; Dave Brazeal, House Information Systems; Barry Wolk, Office of the Secretary of the Senate.












III. RELATED DOCUMENTATION

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE,
Hon.OWAR W.CAN-ONWashington,, D.C., April 27, 1977. Chairman, Committee on Ruies and Administration, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR HOW~ARD: During the past few years, there has been a tremendous growth in the development of automated information systems to serve the Congress. As this work continues it becomes-increasingly desirable to formalize the working relationships involving leg-islative branch staffs and facilities responsible in this critical area.
As you know, there have been many instances during- recent Congresses when staff from the Senate, House, Libr'ary of Congress, andl other legislative agencies wo-rked tog-ether, as in the development of a Legislative Information and Status System (LEGIS) and certain fiscal-budgetary applications.
In order to eliminate duplication and redundancy in the collection, storage, processing, and management of key legislative data, and ensure the more efficient use of the Senate, House, and Library coputer installations, I should like to propose the creation of a "Joint Working Group.," This group, comprised of carefully chosen st aff personnel from the Senate, House, and Congrressional Research Service, would function under a formal charter with the explicit responsibility to coordinate the development of technology-supported information systems during the present andi succeeding Congresses.
With the concurrence of Frank Thompson, chairman of the Cornmittee on House Ad ministration, and yourself, I will assign to specific staff members of the Congressional Research Service, who will be supported by other appropriate Library personnel, the responsibility for working closely with designated staff from the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House Administration. Through this Joint Working Group we shall be able to commit key resources to the fulfillment of priority goals. Responsiveness to the information needs of the Members and committees of both chambers will increase accordingly.
Should this group be established, I foresee the need for undertaking specific assignments through the use of subgroups (or task forces) of staffers with those skills and experience that will ensure success. Certain of these tasks will have very precise, essentially technical objectives. Others will be of a more research and development nature, looking at how new technology-word processing, for example-can facilitate congressional information handling.
Illustrative of the top priority task force areas are those listed below: 1. Legislative Information and Status System (LEGIS) .-Development during the 95th Congress of the capability by the Senate, House, and Congressional Research Service to enter, edit, and validate each
(17)






18

body's official legislative information concerning the content and status of pending legislation, with the further ability to transmit that information over the Capitol Hill computer network during the day in which the legislative action or analysis occurs. A unified approach will be developed for the most expeditious, nonduplicative collection, data base maintenance, and versatile accessing of desired information, as well as a shared development of necessary additional software.
2. Budget and fiscal systems.-Coordinated development of those Federal budgetary and fiscal systems capable of directly supporting the le zislative work of the committees of both chambers and other Capitol Hill analytical elements. Included will be the creation of data to be subsequently available through display and printout for use by Member staff.
3. Word processing technology.- Coordinated research and analysis of the potential of word processing equipment and techniques in support of constituent, legislative, and administrative applications.
4. Bill drafting and statutory retrieval.-Joint assessment of the systems requirements necessary to create an effective congressional bill drafting capability plus a committee and conference report preparation system. Also, to provide support to the Justice Retrieval and Inquiry System (JURIS) of the Department of Justice which offers a legal information retrieval capability by coordinating the efforts of the Legislative Counsels, Law Revision Counsels, and the Government Printing Office in the creation and timely maintenance of an up-to-date United States Code, U.S. Statutes-at-Large, and public law enactments as they occur.
5. Microform technology.-Exploration of the most effective use of microform tools and techniques, including the transfer of selected data employing computer output microfilm (COM) technology.
6. Hardware and software requirements.-Determination through an intensive technical design study, of the equipment and software (computer programs) needs of the Congress and its supporting legislative branch agencies. This could then serve as the nucleus of a long-range, plan for the entire legislative branch: Senate, House, Library of Congress, General Accounting Office, Government Printing Office, Office of Technology, and Congressional Budget Office.
7. Video and audio technology.-Identification of those ways in which both video and audio technologies can be of use to the Senators and Representatives in their on-going chamber, committee, and constituent-oriented activities.
With the emphasis today on functioning as effectively as possible, and in the light of recognized limitations on our respective resources, it seems imperative that we combine the vitality and vision of our professional information staffs so that the end results meet the broader needs of the Convress.
I shall look forward to receiving your reaction to this proposal, and to working with your staff in meeting our common goals.
Sincere,
GILBERT GUDE, Director.






19

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, Washington, D.C., April 27, 1977.
Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.,
DEAR FRANK: During the past few years, there has been a tremendous growth in the development of automated information systems to serve the Congress. As this work continues it becomes In,creasingly desirable to formalize the working relationships involving legislative branch staffs and facilities responsible in this critical area.
As you know, there have been many instances during recent Congresses when staff from the Senate, House, Library of Congress, and .other legislative agencies worked together, as in the development of a Legislative Information and Status System (LEGIS) and certain fiscal-budgetary applications.
In order to eliminate duplication and redundancy in the collections, :storage, processing, and management of key legislative data, and ensure the more efficient use of the Senate, House, and Library computer installations, I should like to propose the creation of a "Joint Working Group." This group, comprised of carefully chosen staff personnel from the Senate, House, and Congressional Research Service, would function under a formal charter with the explicit responsibility to coordinate the development of technology-supported information systems during the present and succeeding Congresses.
With the concurrence of Senator Howard Cannon, chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and yourself, 1 will assign to specific staff members of the Congressional Research Service, who will be supported by other appropriate Library personnel, the responsibility for working closely with designated staff from the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House Administration. Through this Joint Working Group, we shall be able to commit key resources to the fulfillment of priority goals. Responsiveness to the information needs of the Members and committees of both chambers will increase accordingly.
Should this group be established, 1 foresee the need for undertaking specific assignments through the use of subgroups (or task forces) of staffers with those skills and experience that will ensure success. Certain of these tasks will have very precise, essentially technical objectives. Others will be of a more research and development nature, looking at how new technology-word processing, for example-can facilitate congressional information handling.
Illustrative of the top priority task force areas are those listed below: 1. Legislative Information and Status System (LEGIS).-Development during the 95th Congress of the capability by the Senate, House, and Congressional Research Service to enter, edit, and validate each body's official legislative information concerning the content and status of pending legislation, with the further ability to transmit that information over the Capitol Hill computer network during the day in which the legislative action or analysis occurs. A unified approach will be developed for the most expeditious, nonduplicative collection, data base maintenance, and versatile accessing of desired information, as well as a shared development of necessary additional software.






20

2. Budget and fiscal systems.-Coordinated development of those Federal budgetary and fiscal systems capable of directly supporting the legislative work of the committees of both chambers and other Capitol Hill analytical elements. Included will be the creation of data to be subsequently available through display and printout for use by Member staff.
3. Word processing technology.-Coordinated research and analysis of the potential of word processing equipment and techniques in support of constituent, legislative, and administrative applications.
4. Bill drafting and statutory retrieal.-Joint assessment of the systems requirements necessary to create an effective congressional bill drafting capability plus a committee and conference report preparation system. Also, to provide suIpport to the Justice Retrieval and Inquiry System (JURIS) of the Department of Justice which offers a legal information retrieval capability by coordinating the efforts of the Legislative Counsels, Law Revision Counsels, and the Government Printing Office in the creation and timely maintenance of an up-to-date United States Code, U.S. Statutes-at-Large, and public law enactments as they occur.
5. M1icroform techn ology.-Exploration of the most effective use of microform tools and techniques, including the transfer of selected data employing computer output microfilm (COM) technology.
6. Hardu'are awd software reqiiirements.-Determination through an intensive technical design study, of the equipment and software (comptuter programs) needs of the Congress and its supporting legislative branch agencies. This could then serve as the nucleus of a long-range plan for the entire legislative branch: Senate, House, Library of Congress, General Accounting Office, Government Printing Office, Office of Technology, and Congressional Budget Office.
7. Video and audio technology. -dentification of those ways in which both video and audio technologies can be of use to the Senators and Representatives in their on-going chamber, committee, and constituent-oriented activities.
With the emphasis today on functioning as effectively as possible, and in the light of recognized limitations on our respective resources, it seems imperative that we combine the vitality and vision of our professional information staffs so that the end results meet the broader needs of the Congress.
I shall look forward to receiving your reaction to this proposal, and to working with your staff in meeting our common goals.
Sincerely, GILBERT GUDE, Director.


U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION,
W ashington, D.C., May 4, 1977.
Mr. GILBERT GUDE,
Director, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR GIL: I wholeheartedly endorse your proposal to formalize the working relationships among computer services staff of the Library of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives. As you know, staff of the Library and the Rules and Administration Com-






21

mittee have developed informal but highly productive working relationships during the past two Congresses. The installation of display and printer terminals in 98 Senators' offices which are used for on-line access to Library and Congressional Research Service data bases is an unusual example of how well even informal arrangements can pay off. A second example is that of our Congressional Legislative Information and Status System known as LEG IS. The LEG IS j o int project authorized by the chairman of the Committee on House Adlministration and myself is now being implemented in its first version, with the Library performing an outstanding job as the Scorpio and CRS bill content dlata "subcontractor."
In addition, hardware and software compatibility has been maintainedl at all three computer facilities. This compatibility has enabled us to join the three facilities into a common computer communications network. These and similar activities can be cited of staff initiative in the development of efficient information services to the legislative branch without expensive and wasteful duplication of facilities and staff .
I am satisfied that these activities have proven the practicality and, in fact, paved the way for (deeper andl more effective arrangements for providing computer services here on Capitol Hill. The first two tasks which you recommend as priority task force areas are especially wNell chosen. Our respective staffs are presently cooperating in the development of both these areas, namely, LEGIS and budgetary andl fiscal systems. Much, however, remains to be accomplished during the 95th Congress. And, if these accomplishments result in information systems which are as good as we intend them to be, much will1 remain to be done in the integration of the resultant systems and in the elimination of unnecessary duplication wherever we find it while still maintaining adequate backup.
In closing, I fully concur with your recommendation that we formalize the working relationships among the computer staffs of the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Library of Congress.
With all best wishes,
Sincerely,
HOWARD W. CANNON, Charm an.


CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESEN-TATIVES,
COMIMITTEE ON HOUSE AD-MINISTRATION,
Hon.GILERTGDEWashington, D.C., May 6, 1977. Director, Congressijonal Research Service, Library of Congress,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR GIL: Thank you very much for your letter of April 27 concerning the automated information systems of the Congress.
Charlie Rose briefed me on your proposal for a "Joint Working Group" of staff from the Senate, the House and the Library of Congress. I think this is an excellent idea, and I pledge you our full cooperation. Better coordination of our computer systems ought to
improve the efficiency of the legislative branch.






22

I am designating Boyd Alexander and Neal Gregory from the staff of the Committee on House Administration to represent the House in this effort.
With kind regards,
CordillyFRANK THOMIPSON, Jr., Chairman.


THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, Washington, D.C., June 21, 1977.
Hon. HOWARD W. CANNON,
Chairman, Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR HOWARD: Good progress has been made by our staffs in establishing a coordinating mechanism to oversee the development of technology-supported information systems for the Congress. It is suggested that the nomenclature be changed, however, to "Policy Coordination Group (PC G)," which is more accurately descriptive of this staff support function.
I am attaching for your review and approval the concept paperwhich sets forth the "Roles and Responsibilities of the Policy Co-ordination Group." Upon receipt of your approval and that of Frank Thompson, Jr., chairman of the Committee on House Administration, we shall use this as a working charter and proceed to activate the task forces that will actually address the various action areas.
In the light of the Congress' increasing commitments in fundingand staffing of advanced information systems, the importance of this coordinating effort continues to grow.
Your support of this effort is much appreciated, and we look forward to your comments regarding this paper.
Sincerely, GILBERT GUDE, Director.

Enclosure.

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, Washington, D.C., June 21, 1977.
Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration, U.TS. House of
Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR FRANK: Good progress has been made by our staffs in establishing a coordinating mechanism to oversee the development of technology-supported information systems for the Congress. It is suggested that the nomenclature be changed, however, to "Policy Coordination Group (PC G)," which is more accurately descriptive of' this staff support function.
I am attaching for your review and approval the concept paper which sets forth the "Roles and Responsibilities of the Policy Coordination Group." Upon receipt of your approval and that of Howard W. Cannon, chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration, W6&





23

shall use -this as a working charter and proceed to activate the task forces that will actually address the various action areas.
In the light of the Congress' increasing commitments in funding and staffing of advanced information systems, the importance of this coordinating effort continues to grow.
Your support of this effort is much appreciated, and we look forward to your comments regarding this paper.
Sincerely, GILBERT GUDE, Director.

Enclosure.

ROLES ANDRESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POLICY COORDUN-ATIONGROUP
PURPOSE AND PRIORITIES
In fulfillment of a longstanding desire on the part of the Congress to more effectively plan for and institute improved information resources and services, the creation of a coordinating staff mechanism has been authorized. This "Policy Coordination Group (PCG)"originally referred to as the "Joint Working Group (JWG)"-and comprised of carefully chosen staff personnel from the Senate, House, and Congressional Research Service, has been assigned the explicit responsibility to "coordinate the development of technology-supported information systems during the present and succeeding Congresses." 1
The emp1lasis of the Policy Coordination Group, as it strives to ensure maximum cooperation in areas of common interest between legislative branch staffs and facilities responsible for developing advanced information services, is on:
1. Communicating regularly in order to identify changing
leadership, Member, and committee requirements for various
kinds of information products and services;
2. Establishing feasible work plans that will result in shortterm benefits to the users, as well as the creation of a long-range
strategy for supporting the congressional community; and
3. Providing a structure which would recommend the commitment of those key resources sufficient to meet the needs and
attain the priority goals of the Congress.
Through these actions, and with appropriate review by its authorizig agents, the Policy Coordination Group will seek-in the words ,of Gil&ert Gude, Director of CRS-to eliminate unnecessary duplication and redundancy "in the collection, storage, processing, and management of key legislative data, and insure the more efficient use of the Senate, House, and Library computer installations. 11 2
The composition of the Policy Coordination Group will be one principal member and one alternate each from the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, and Congressional Research Service. Resource personnel from these and other legislative branch organizations will be utilized in undertaking task-oriented assignments, as necessary.
An aueement has been reached concerning an initial grouping of high priOrity task areas where common interest has been demonstrated, with some having very precise, essentially technical objectives, while
I Separate letters from Gilbert Gude, Director, Congressional Research Service to: 11on. Howard W Cannon, chairman, Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S. Senate; and Hon. Frank Thompson. Jr.: chairman, Committee on House Administration, U.S. House of Representatives (both dated Apr. 27,1077)s .2 Ibid.





24

others are of a more research and development nature. The nine top priority areas which will be addressed by special "task forces" of staff personnel with pertinent skills and experience include:
1. Legislative Informationt and Stat us System (LEGIS) .-Developrnent during the 95th Congress of the capability by the Senate, House, and Congressional Research Service to enter, edit, and validate each body's official legislative information concerning the content and status of spending legislation, with the further ability to transmit that info)rmation over the Capitol Hill computer network during the (lay in which the legislation action or analysis occurs. A unified approach w~ll be (developed for the most expeditious, nonduplicative collection, data base maintenance, and versatile accessing of desired information, as well as a shared development of necessary additional software.
2. Budget and fiscal systems.-Coordinated development of those Federal budgetary and fiscal information systems capable of directly supporting the legislative work of the committees of both chambers and other Capitol Hill analytical elements. Included will be the creation of data to be subsequently available through display and printouit, and the utilization of computer-supported "models," for use by Members and committee staff. It is recognized that this activity must be closely coordinated with the fiscal -budgetary users' group and the technologyp committee that already have established vital links between the Congressional Budget Office and the other elements of the legislative fiscal-budgetary community.
:3. Bill drafting and statutory retrieral.-Joint assessment of the systems requirements necessary to create an effective automated congressional bill drafting capability plus a committee and conference report preparation system. Also, to provide support to legal information retrieval capabilities by coordinating the efforts of the Legislative Counsels, Law Revisions Counsels, and the U.S. Government Printing Office in the creation and timely maintenance of an up-to-date United States Code, U.S. Statutes at Large, and public law enactments as they occur. Great care will be taken not to duplicate the work of the Advisory Committee on Automation and Standardization of Congressional Publications.
[NOTE.-These first three Task Force areas represent areas where considerable activity already exists, but in each instance the importance of the project is such that an overview ensuring maximum coordination must be considered a sine qua non.]
4. Word processing technology.-Coordinated research and analysis of the potential of word (or text) processing equipment and manmachine techniques in support of constituent, legislative, and administrative applications.
5. Microform technology.-Exploration of the most effective use of microform tools and techniques, when applied to the needs of legislative users, including the transfer of selected data employing computer output microfilm (COM) technology.
6. ideo and audio tecknology.-Identification of those ways in which both video and audio technologies can be of use to the Senators and Representatives in their ongoing chamber, committee, and constituent-orientedl activities. This may include looking at how multimedia user configurations, including the use of computer-generated graphics, can meet the dynamic needs of the Congress.






25

[NOTE.-The second group of three Task Force areas is illustrative of the need for information systems developers on Capitol Hill to stay abreast of state-of-the-art progress.]
7. Long range hardware requirements.-In coordination with the Task Force looking at long-range software requirements, to recommend through an intensive technical design study the full array of equipment needs of the Congress and its supporting agencies. This twin-faceted plan, covering a 5-year period, will take into account projected user needs and the known potential of candidate hardware.
8. Long range software requirements.-This coordinated, in-parallel effort with the Task Force responsible for recommending long-range hardware requirements also will result in.the preparation of a detailed technical design report. With the continuing, myriad options available through the use of computer programs-and the interfaces necessary to integrate other technologies such as telecommunications and microform-the readying of a 5-year plan is a matter of high importance.
[NOTE.-Participation in these two Task Force areas by all legislative branch entities is planned: Senate, House, Library of Congress Congressional Research Service, General Accounting Office, Government Printing Office, and Congressional Budget Office.]
9. Orientation and training.-Acquainting the Members and staff personnel of the Congress with the characteristics and uses of information technology is a never-ending Job. The importance of orienting and educating the congressional community-using such diverse media as brochures, films, briefings, and an assortment of more traditional products-in how and when computers (and other tools) can be of help is critical to the future role of information technology on Capitol Hill. Also the teaching of particular skills, such as operating computer terminals, has placed a demand on Senate, House, and CRS training personnel that calls for the coordinated allocation of resources.
In addition, the PC G will activate, as required, ad hoc task forces to deal with short-term matters necessitating immediate attention. Illustrative of this is the plan to formally describe the current computer equipment backup arrangements that exist within the legislative branch.
In endorsing this approach to coping With the complexities in providing comprehensive, accurate, and timely information support to the Conzress, Senator Howard W. Cannon, chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, noted the "informal but highly productive working relationships" between his staff and that of the Library of Congress during the past two Congresses. He then went on to say that since "hardware and software compatibility has been maintained at all three computer facilities" it has "enabled us to join the three facilities into a common computer communications network. 11 3 Representative Frank Thompson, Jr., chairman of the Committee on House Administration, also pledged "full cooperation" and stressed that "Better coordination of our computer systems ought to improve the efficiency of the legislative branch. 11 4
3 Letter from Hon. Howard W. Cannon, chairman, Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S. Senate to Gilbert Gude, Director, Congressional Research Service (dated May 4, 1977). 1 p. of4 Letter from Hon. Frank Thompson, Jr., chairman, Committee on House Administration, U.S. House Representatives, to Gilbert Gude, Director, Congressional Research Service (dated May 6, 1977). 1 p.








COGNIZANCE OF CURRENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACTIVITIES
The basic responsibility for guiding the development of information products and services involving the support of computers and related technology is vested in the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on' House Administration. Each of these oversight bodies has been performing this duty during
e 5 hich he 1970
decad and has prepared a set of formal guidelines w is encapsulated below.
The Senate "Guidelines for Information Processing and Computer Service Activities," adopted by the Committee on Rules and Administration on July 21, 1971, include this opening paragraph 6
The Committee on Rules and Administration shall have
authority concerning policy, organization, initiation, implementation, operation and evaluation of all matters concerned
with information processing and communications as, they'
relate to mechanization, automation, computerization, or
related functions.
During this period, prior to the 95th Congress, the Subcommittee on Computer Services was the primary mechanism for carrying out the series of guidelines but, commencing in 1977, this responsibility has been assumed by the full committee.
The House of Representatives, having unified its computer-oriented activities in 1971 under the aegis of the House Information Systems (HIS) group, employed identical wording in delineating its authority over all computerization (and related) matters, but also took steps to establish (on March 17, 1977) a Policy Group on Information and Computers : 7
. which shall oversee the activities of House Information Systems and shall make recommendations to the committee concerning i nf formation policy for the House of
Representatives.
The Policy Coordination Group, having been created through the approval of the chairmen of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House Administratim, will conduct its activities with a full cognizance of the areas of purview already established by the Senate and House' guidelines governing information processing and computer service activities.
In those instances -%ihere either the Senate or House has initiated study or pilot efforts which fall within one of the Policy Coordination Group task force areas, the approach to a coordinated endeavorinvolving key representatives from all germane legislative groupswill be undertaken in such a way as to prevent duplicative or conflicting results.
9 See 'U.S. Congress. House.Selcet Committee on Committees. The Congress and information technology. Staff report prepared for the use of the Select Committee by the Science Policy Research Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 93d Congress, 2d session, May 5, 1974. Washington, D.C., U. S. G overnm ent Pri nti ng 0 ffice, 1974. 277 p.
6 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Rules and Administration. Report of the Subcommittee on Computer Services. 95th Congress, 1st session, Jan. 3, 1977. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977. Exhibit 2, p. 19-20.
7 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on House Administration. Policy draft: information processing and computer service activities. Washington, D.C. 20515. [Approved Mar. 17, 19771. 1 p.
8 Also see U.S. Congress. House. Committee on House Administration. Providing funds for the expenm of the House Information Systems of the Committee on House Administration. 95th Congress, Ist s6ssion, Report No. 95-137, Mar. 29, 1977. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing 01-11ce, 1977. 22 p.








CURRENT COMTNMITMENTS IN PROVIDING AUTOMATED INFORMATION SUPPORT
In keeping with the trend towards larger congressional staffscommittee, personal, amnsrtv, and legislative support groupsthat has seen a twofold increase between 1970 and 1976, there has been a concomitant buttressing of resources committed to providing automated information support. A McKinsey & Co. study recently indicated that funding for "computer systems spending" had risen from $4,896,000 in 1970 to $29,112,000 in 1976.9
These costs are a telling indicator of the commitment which has been made by the leadership of the two chambers to insure the best possible information resources and services. Figure 2 depicts, by agency, the computer costs and how they have increased during this decade.'0

1970 =$4,896,000 1976 = $29,112,000


LOC Senate41200

2 04,00 GO 13,734,000:,' LOC
...... .House 6,626,000


S '298,000 SeatA...





increased. Examples of this latter trend: House Information Systems personnel strength grew from one in 1971 to 210 in 1977; 11over a longer time span, the Library of Congress has increased its manning commitment -from 15 in 1966 to 168 in 19761 It should be noted that in addition to sheer numbers, the diversity of skills required has grown apace.
From modest beginnings in the mid-sixties when computers were used primarily in handling payrolls and inventories of equipment, the computing facilities of the Senate, House of Representatives, and Library of Congress-each supported by sizable staffs of analysts, systems designers, programmers, applications specialists, and data entry personnel-now are capable of providing high volume and diversification processing services. Many tasks are still performed in
9 Management issues: congressional analytic and information support. A presentation before the Policy Group on information and Computers, U.S. House of Representatives, dated Jan. 31, 1977. Washington, D.C., McKinsey & Co., Inc.: p. 7.
10 Congressional analytic and information support: exhibits. A presentation before the Policy Group on Information and Computers, U.S. House of Representatives, dated Jan. 31, 1977. Washington, D.C., McKinsey & Co., Inc. [exhibit 7].
11 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on House Administration. Providing funds for the expenses of the House Information Systems of the Committee on House Administration, op. cit., p. 4. 12 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on House Administration. Library of Congress, information resources and services for the U.S. House of Representatives. A report prepared for the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Computers of the Committee on House Administration. 94th Congress, 2d session, Apr. 27, 1976. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. Table G3, p. 105-106.






28

"batch" mode, often in the off-hours when other demands on the central processing units are less. Increasingly, however, the teleprocessing capability of the computer is called upon, as witnessed by the fact that the Library of Congress computer alone now supports more than 700 terminal devices.'13
As noted earlier, one of the primary functions of the Policy Coordination Group is to coordinate unilateral efforts in known areas of common interest. If for example, developmental work is underway to support Members of the House as they deal with constituent requests for assistance-the pilot Member office support system (MOSS) was undertaken by HIS in 1976-then this should be compared to the Senate's Correspondence Management System (CMS). Transferability of lessons learned about file creation, technology employed, and options for retrieval does not just happen, and this is where the PCG role can be critical.

POLICY COORDINATION GROUP MODE OF OPERATION
The structure and functioning procedures of the Policy Coordination Group are relatively straightforward. The PCG is comprised of one principal and one alternate each from the three lead organizations; the individuals designated to serve in these positions are:
U.S. Senate-John K. Swearingen (principal), Anthony L.
Harvey (alternate)
U.S. House of Representatives-Boyd L. Alexander (principal),
Franklin S. Reeder (alternate)
Congressional Research Service-Robert L. Chartrand
(principal), James R. Price (alternate)
The chairmanship of the PC G shall rotate every six 'Months; the initial chairman will be Robert L. Chartrand (CRS). The permanent secretariat for the PCG will be situated in the CRS Information Sciences Section of the Science Policy Research Division.
At the end of each quarter, commencing October 1, 1977, an overview report highlighting the significant activities of the Policy Coordination Group will be prepared for review by the chairmen of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House Administration.
In accordance with guidance contained in the letter proposing establishment of the Policy Coordination Group (formerly the Joint Working Group), and subsequently approved by the authorizing agents,' the actual work of the PC G will be performed through specially created Task Forces. As each Task Force is formed with representation from all appropriate legislative branch groups, that cadre will prepare a recommended scope of action-noting precise tasks, resources required, and the nature and timing of specific products-for review and approval by the PCG management.
Upon completion of these initial "scoping" reports by the nine task forces, a "Short-Term Work Plan". will be prepared that projects the major action steps in fulfillment!Iof stipulated near-term objectives.
13 Computer service center has first million-transaction month. In Library of Congress information bulletin, v. 36, no. 21, May 27, 1977.: p. 346.
14 Separate letters from Gilbert Gude to Hon. Howard W. Cannon and Hon. Frank Thompson, Jr. (both dated Apr. 27, 1977), op. cit., p. 2-3.






29

Careful attention will be given in this second PCG document to synchronizing the activation of the task forces and timing the release of their various studies and reports so that the benefit to the Congress is maximized. Upon completion of this "Short-Term Work Plan," authorization to proceed will be requested of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House Administration.
The third projected PCG document, a "Long-Range Concept for Systems Development," will not be initiated until the nine task forces are underway and addressing~ the identified near-term objectives. The emphasis in this longer-term perception of legislative information systems development will be on establishing those major goals which reflect the discernible needs of the Congrress within a 5-year timeframe.
Thus, the Policy Coordination Group, through its series of three initial documents, will exercise its multiple roles of coordinating, monitoring, and selectively encouraging the development of technologry-supportedl information resources and services for the Congress. In this way, its service role will hell) ensure that the information problem and its solution are not viewed as existing in isolated parts, but as a whole.
jIJNE 17, 1977.
ROBERT L. CHARTRAND.
BOYD L. ALEXANDER.
JOH-N K. SWVEARINGEN.
0




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 09120 8636