Pros And Cons Of The Legislative Reorganization Of 1970

“The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 transformed the Legislative Reference Service into the Congressional Research Service (CRS). It also directed CRS to devote more of its efforts and increased resources to doing research and analysis that assists Congress in direct support of the legislative process.” The Congressional Budget Office in addition to the Government Accountability Office oversees the budget for the CRS. The purpose of the CRS is to provide Congress with assistance in researching and analyzing issues of national interest that the United States is faced with. One of the disadvantages for the CRS is that the guidance they sometimes provide to our Congressional leaders is sometimes too vague. In other words, the insight provided

By doing this, the funding that is already appropriated to the CRS would continue with the change being in how the funds are funneled from the budget office of the CRS itself. The CRS would have an overall operating budget, but it would have to be broken down into smaller pieces to compensate those analyzing issues for each federal agency. Just as with current policy related to requesting research services through the CRS, requests for services could only be made by Members of Congress. The disadvantage to proceeding in this manner would be if the Member is unsure of which research agency to submit their request to. Rather than proceed in such an unsure manner, the CRS would be mandated to provide Members with a means of directing their inquiry

It is for this reason that special interest groups and lobbyists would be prohibited from contacting and/or influencing staff persons of the research groups; their efforts would be fruitless. The nature of the research work would be confidential until the reports are released to Members of Congress. By keeping the research confidential, the likelihood of it being influenced would be minimal. Members would be required to give a high level of consideration to the research findings of each of these groups because each group consists of staff persons who are experts in each area of subject matter. Members of Congress would not be mandated to use the information but only encouraged use it as a guide in deciding policy issues. “With public policy issues growing more complex, the need for insightful and comprehensive analysis has become