From OpenCongress Wiki

(Difference between revisions)

Revision as of 21:23, September 18, 2012

1 Introduction
2 Quick Facts
3 Blog Posts
4 Policy Documents and Gov't Resources
- 4.1 Government Resources
- 4.2 Civil Society Organization Resources
5 News Stories
6 Additional Resources
7 The History of THOMAS Generally
8 States that provide bulk access to legislative data
9 Historical Resources on the Development of Congress' Legislative Information Systems
10 Ideas for Upgrading THOMAS

Introduction

This wiki gathers information concerning public bulk access to information stored on THOMAS, a comprehensive Internet-accessible database that makes federal legislative information available to the public at no cost. THOMAS is operated by the Library of Congress and was launched in January of 1995 at the inception of the 104th Congress.

Quick Facts

At least twice as many people access congressional legislative information through third party sources than directly through the THOMAS website. Major third party sources include GovTrack.us, OpenCongress.org, and Sunlight's Congress app for Android.
Providing “bulk access to data” means releasing an entire database for use by others.
GPO currently publishes 6 datasets in bulk (including the Federal Register); Data.gov (launched March 2010) has 400,000 datasets; New Jersey and New Hampshire publish legislative data in bulk.
A coalition of organizations issues the major Open House Report calling on Congress to "embrace structured data by publishing the status of legislation and other information to the Web not only as it is now, but also in structured data formats." (May 2007) (http://bit.ly/HkPycb)
The Explanatory Statement accompanying the Committee Print of the House Committee on Appropriations for Public Law 111-9 (March 2009) articulates Congress' support for bulk access to legislative information. (http://1.usa.gov/I2UvJG p. 1770)
In 2008, the Library of Congress says it expected to report on the resources necessary to supply the public with raw legislative data within the first part of the calendar year. It established a bulk data task force that has never completed its deliberations. (http://bit.ly/A4c5le)
Rep. Bill Foster introduced HR 6289 (in the 111th Congress) that would require some legislative data to be made available in bulk and create a THOMAS advisory committee. (Sep. 2010) (http://1.usa.gov/HZthAp)
Congressional Facebook Hackathon endorses bulk access to legislative data as an action item: "Release Structured Machine-Readable Legislative Data: Providing legislative data in a bulk format to enable third-party developers to create more dynamic interfaces for legislative information." (November 2011) (http://1.usa.gov/ygzQpl)
30 organizations and companies call for bulk access to legislative data and the creation of an advisory committee. (April 6, 2012)

Blog Posts

"Looking Forward to the THOMAS Beta Website" by Daniel Schuman (9/14/2012)
"How to #FreeTHOMAS: A report on implementing bulk access" by Daniel Schuman et al (8/24/2012)
"Rep. Honda Speaks on Bulk Access on the House Floor" by Daniel Schuman (6/8/2012)
"Major Transparency Milestone in Bulk Access Statement" by Daniel Schuman (6/6/2012)
"Issa amendment denied, but leadership supports bulk access" by Matt Rumsey (6/6/2012)
"Issa Offers #FreeTHOMAS Amendment to Leg Approps Bill" by Daniel Schuman (6/5/2012)
"Media Spotlight on Congress Stalling Open Access to Legislation" by Nicko Margolies (6/5/2012)
"Bulk Access Language Tweaked by Approps" by Daniel Schuman (6/5/2012)
"#FreeTHOMAS" by Daniel Schuman (6/4/2012)
"Bulk Access Developments after the H. Approps Hearing" by Daniel Schuman (6/1/2012)
"THOMAS Talking Points" by Daniel Schuman (5/30/2012)
"Appropriators May Undercut Legislative Transparency" by Daniel Schuman and Eric Mill (5/30/2012)
"Full Committee Markup on Leg Approps Set for Thursday" by Daniel Schuman (5/24/2012)
"Will the House's Leg Spending Bill Match Its Transparency Priorities?" by Daniel Schuman (5/24/2012)
"Two Steps Forward on Improving Public Access to Legislative Information" by Daniel Schuman (5/18/2012)
"Appropriators Should Consider Public Access to Leg Info at Friday Mark-up" by Daniel Schuman (5/17/2012)
"News Without Transparency: House Passes Bridge BIll After an Earmark Debate" by Matt Rumsey and Melanie Buck (5/10/2012)
"Improve Public Access to Legislative Information" by Daniel Schuman (4/10/2012)
"Help improve public access to Congressional/legislative information #FDLP" by James Jacobs (3/28/2012)
"GovTrack Users Want Better Transparency From Congress" by Josh Tauburer (3/16/2012)
"Tell Congress to Open Up" by Nicole Aro (3/12/2012)
"Government Transparency “To Do” Your Government Transparency 'To-Do'" by Jim Harper (3/12/2012)
"Partners in Data Transparency: Parliaments and Non-Profits" by Daniel Schuman (3/1/2012)
"Put THOMAS on the Fast Track" by Daniel Schuman (2/9/2012)
"Benchmarks for Measuring Success for Legislative Data Transparency" by Daniel Schuman (2/2/2012)
"Bulk Data at the House Legislative Data Conference" by John Wonderlich (2/2/2012)
"Liberate OpenGovData Now" by David Moore (2/1/2012)
"In #HackWeTrust - The House of Representatives Opens Its Doors to Transparency Through Technology" by Daniel Schuman (12/8/2011)
"House Holding Wonk-a-thon on Public Access to Congressional Info This Thursday" by Daniel Schuman (12/5/2011)
"Sunlight Testimony: Bulk Access to THOMAS and Access to CRS Reports" by Daniel Schuman (12/5/2011)
"Read the Bill 2.0" by Daniel Schuman (11/14/2010)
"Rep. Foster Introduces Bill To Improve THOMAS" by Daniel Schuman (9/30/2010)
"Apps for THOMAS: 3 Wishes" by Daniel Schuman (7/29/2010)
"Birds of a Feather: What's in the DISCLOSE Bills" by Daniel Schuman (5/3/2010)
"Tip of the Hat to THOMAS" by Daniel Schuman (1/6/2010)
"House Leg Branch Appropriations Review" by John Wonderlich (6/27/2009)
"Legislative Databases recommendation makes it to House Leg Branch Appropriations markup" by Josh Tauburer (4/14/2008)
"Congressman Honda on the Open House cause" by Josh Tauburer (2/1/2008)
Discussion on the Open House Project email list (link) (11/14/2007)
"Mash-ups for government transparency" by Josh Tauburer (1/25/2007)
"Finding Bills Online" by Paul Blumenthal (1/9/2007)

Policy Documents and Gov't Resources

Government Resources

"House Leaders Back Bulk Access to Legislative Information" Speaker Boehner Press Office (6/5/2012)
Amendment Offered to H.R. 5882, by Rep. Issa (R-CA) (6/5/2012)
House of Representatives Adopts Standards for Electronic posting of House and committee documents and data (committee resolution as PDF) (document naming conventions as PDF) (December 2011)
House of Representatives launches transparency portal docs.house.gov (December 2011)
"Annual Report of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress for Fiscal Year 2009" (January 2010). See page 20.
"Remarks from the Public Printer of the United States" (October 19, 2009)
Library of Congress letter to Committee on House Administration on THOMAS (4/31/2008)

Civil Society Organization Resources

30 Organizations Send Letters to Appropriators and Rulemakers regarding bulk access to THOMAS (April 10, 2012)
Comments Submitted for the Record by Joshua Tauburer for House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch regarding bulk data for legislative information (Febuary 6, 2012)
Comments Submitted for the Record by the Sunlight Foundation for the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch Hearing (February 6, 2012)
Comments Submitted for the Record by the Sunlight Foundation for the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch Hearing Regarding Bulk Access to THOMAS data (May 11, 2011)
Open House Project Report: "Congressional Information & the Internet: A Collaborative Examination of the House of Representatives and Internet Technology" Chapter 3: Legislation Database (May 8, 2007)

News Stories

"In Support of Legislative Transparency" Google Public Policy Blog (6/15/2012)
"The State of Personal Democracy: Is Government Really More Secretive? #pdf12" Forbes (6/10/2012)
"Federal News Minute" WNEW-FM - Washington, D.C. (6/8/2012)
"Congressional data may soon be easier to use online" Washington Post (6/8/2012)
"Rep. Crenshaw backs down, loses control over bulk data issue" GovTrack.us (6/7/2012)
"A week ago, we wrote about Congress..." Skimmer Hat (6/6/2012)
"Free THOMAS!" Fierce Government (6/5/2012)
"House Appropriations trims legislative agencies budget request" Fierce Government (6/5/2012)
"Report May Hinder Goal of Open Congress" Roll Call (6/5/2012)
"Of, By and For: A Short Legislative History of THOMAS, the Spirit of the Law, and Elle Woods" Lulu in the Library (6/5/2012)
"Rep. Crenshaw thinks American public can’t be trusted with overseeing Congress" GovTrack.us (6/4/2012)
"Can we stop talking about accountability for a minute? Please?" Legal Information Institute - Cornell University Law School (6/2/2012)
"House Appropriators May Limit Public Availability of Pending Bills" Slashdot (6/1/2012)
"For Transparency Advocates, the Honeymoon with House Republicans May Be Over" Tech President (6/1/2012)
"Hill may freeze THOMAS in digital past" Washington Examiner (5/31/2012)
"Transparency group decries legislative data bulk download prohibition" Fierce Government IT (5/31/2012)
"Transparency Advocates Frustrated With House Appropriators' Plan To Make A Plan" (5/30/2012)
"Congress Refuses to #FreeTHOMAS Open Congress" Open Congress (5/17/2012)
"Open government advocates seek greater access to congressional data" Federal News Radio.Com (4/16/2012)
"GovTrack users want better transparency from Congress" GovTrack.us (4/16/2012)
"US Agency Takes 'Private' Approach to Streamlining IT Procurement" E-Commerce Times (4/14/2012)
"Your Government Transparency 'To Do'" Washington Watch (4/12/2012)
"Transparency Groups Call for THOMAS bulk downloads" Fierce Government IT (4/11/2012)
"Transparency Groups Say THOMAS website is outdated" Federal Computer Week (4/10/2012)
"An API for Federal Legislation? Congress Wants Your Opinion" Threat Level (3/5/2009)
"Congressional Data Mining: Coming Soon?" Mother Jones (3/5/2009)
"Bulk Data Downloads: A Breakthrough in Government Transparency O'Reilly Radar (3/4/2009)
"Lawmakers favor outside access to legislative data Government Executive (1/23/2008)

Additional Resources

"Government: Do you really need an API" by Eric Mill (3/21/2012)
Sites that use GovTrack Data (list)
THOMAS RSS feeds (link)
How often is THOMAS updated (link)
Josh Tauburer on Civic Technology (link)
House of Representatives Adopts Standards for Electronic posting of House and committee documents and data (committee resolution as PDF) (document naming conventions as PDF)
House of Represnetatives launches transparency portal docs.house.gov
Library of Congress letter to Committee on House Administration on THOMAS (4/31/2008)

The History of THOMAS Generally

"Congress on the Internet: New Web Server Organizes Online Information" Library of Congress Information Bulletin (1/25/1995) - Announces the creation of THOMAS and includes introductory remarks at Jan. 5 launch event by then-Speaker Gingrich
Access to Government Information on the Internet Interpersonal Computing and Technology Journal (10/1993) - Discusses the precursor to THOMAS, the Library of Congress Information System (LOCIS)
"The Hill on the Net: Congress Enters the Information Age," by Chris Casey (1996) - Has history of creation of THOMAS.

States that provide bulk access to legislative data

New Hampshire
New Jersey
The Sunlight Foundation scrapes and provides bulk access to [50 of 50 state legislative data]

Historical Resources on the Development of Congress' Legislative Information Systems

Legislative Language and Committee Reports

H. Rept. 103-517 (accompanying P.L. 103-283, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1995)

The Committee on House Administration and the Senate Com-

mittee on Rules and Administration have indicated that there are

several instances where Congressional information systems may be

generating or tracking duplicate information. For example, there

are several data bases which maintain the status of legislation, in-cluding

House, Senate, and Library of Congress-operated systems.

The Committee directs the automation department of the Li-

brary of Congress to work with the Committees enumerated

with the objective of identifying and eliminating such redundancies. At

the conclusion of these consultations, the Committees on Appro-

priations would be pleased to receive a report of findings and rec-

ommendations.

S. Rept. 104-114 (accompanying Legislative Branch Appropriation 1996)

The Committee has recommended an administrative provision,

section 210, requesting the Library of Congress to develop and

maintain, in coordination with other appropriate legislative branch

entities, a single legislative information retrieval system to serve

the entire Congress. The purpose of this provision is to reduce the

cost of information support for the Congress by eliminating duplication

among systems which provide electronic access to legislative

information. House Report No. 103–517 directed the Library to conduct

a study to identify and eliminate such redundancies in congressional

information systems.

Based upon preliminary analysis and discussions, the Committee

sees opportunities to eliminate duplication and, therefore, directs

the Library to complete the study, and develop a plan for the Library

to create and maintain, in coordination with other appropriate

legislative branch entities, a single legislative information

retrieval system to serve the entire Congress.

To the extent possible, the Library’s system should be closely integrated

with other legislative branch systems that provide access

to information related to legislation. Such information includes, but

is not limited to, information originating from other legislative

branch support agencies and offices, publications of conference organizations,

and information by or about Members.

The officers of the Senate and House, as well as committees and

subcommittees, and any other legislative entities responsible for

the origination of legislative information, shall retain their authority

over and responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of their

information.

H. Rept 104-141 (accompanying the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 1996)

The Committee has asked the Clerk of the House to investigate
methods for increasing electronic printing of House documents. The
proposal should be coordinated with the House entities (such as
committees, legislative and law revision counsels, etc.) who require

document printing and storage to carry out their legislative responsibilities,

and with GPO, and should be presented to the appropriate authorities for

approval before implementation. The position
of Assistant Clerk (FEC) has been eliminated in a reorganization
of the Clerk’s office; funds for that position, therefore, have not
been provided. Funds for subscriptions to the U.S. Code have also
been deleted from the Clerk’s budget. For those Members who require

office copies, the Code can be purchased from official expense
funds. Alternatively, the Code is available in the House library, at
the Library of Congress, on Internet through the ‘Thomas’ connection,

through GPO ‘Access’, another online service, and on CD–
ROM which is available from the Government Printing Office.
Closed captioning funds are not provided since the Committee has
been told that the contract will be renewed with FY 1995 funds.
Also, funds for contracting out stenographic reporting of Committee
hearings are provided in the Clerk’s budget ($800,000, a savings of
$300,000 below the amount provided in FY 1995.) It should be
noted that funding for the U.S. Code, stenographic contracting, and
newspaper subscriptions have formerly been carried in the ‘

‘Allowances and expenses’’ appropriating paragraph. The Clerk does not
control the use of these funds, but does the ordering or contracting
as a service to other House offices, a more convenient administrative

procedure. The Clerk should consult the users of such services
to determine their continued need and to fully inform the ultimate
consumers of their actual cost.

H. Rept. 104-212 (accompanying Legislative Branch Appropriations 1996)

Amendment numbered 32:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment

of the Senate numbered 32, and agree to the same with an

amendment, as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert:

SEC. 209.(a) The purpose of this section is to reduce the cost of

information support for the Congress by eliminating duplication

among systems which provide electronic access by Congress to legislative

information.

(b) As used in this section, the term ‘‘legislative information’’

means information, prepared within the legislative branch, consisting

of the text of publicly available bills, amendments, committee

hearings, and committee reports, the text of the Congressional

Record, data relating to bill status, data relating to legislative activity,

and other similar public information that is directly related to

the legislative process.

(c) Pursuant to the plan approved under subsection (d) and consistent

with the provisions of any other law, the Library of Congress

or the entity designated by that plan shall develop and maintain,

in coordination with other appropriate entities of the legislative

branch, a single legislative information retrieval system to serve the

entire Congress.

(d) The Library shall develop a plan for creation of this system,

taking into consideration the findings and recommendations of the

study directed by House Report No. 103–517 to identify and eliminate

redundancies in congressional information systems. This plan

must be approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration

of the Senate, the Committee on House Oversight of the House of

Representatives, and the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate

and the House of Representatives. The Library shall provide

these committees with regular status reports on the development of

the plan.

(e) In formulating its plan, the Library shall examine issues regarding

efficient ways to make this information available to the

public. This analysis shall be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations

of the Senate and the House of Representatives as well

as the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, and

the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives

for their consideration and possible action.

And the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 34:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment

of the Senate numbered 34, and agree to the same with an

amendment, as follows:

Restore the matter stricken by said amendment, amended to

read as follows:

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

SEC. 210. The fiscal year 1997 budget submission of the Public

Printer to the Congress for the Government Printing Office shall include

appropriations requests and recommendations to the Congress

that—

(1) are consistent with the strategic plan included in the

technological study performed by the Public Printer pursuant to

Senate Report 104–114;

(2) assure substantial progress toward maximum use of

electronic information dissemination technologies by all departments,

agencies, and other entities of the Government with respect

to the Depository Library Program and information dissemination

generally; and

(3) are formulated so as to require that any department,

agency, or other entity of the Government that does not make

such progress shall bear from its own resources the cost of its

information dissemination by other than electronic means.

And the Senate agree to the same.

H. Rept. 104-657 (accompanying Legislative Branch Appropriations bill 1997)

The Committee bill continues to stress the use of cost-effective

electronic format and telecommunications technologies. The agencies

of the Legislative Branch are striving toward a CyberCongress

mode whereby information can be shared more easily among the

agencies and with the public at large. It has been estimated that

the accompanying legislative branch appropriations bill contains

over $211 million for computer, telecommunications, and other information

processing operations and investments. These resources,

amounting to about 12.5% of the entire amount appropriated, in

clude the investments necessary to maintain an effective legislative

process during times of continued budget restraint while, at the

same time, continuing to develop capabilities that will facilitate information

exchange among agencies and the public.

This is not a small undertaking. In the House of Representatives,

funds are provided to equip Member, committee, and staff offices

with up-to-date computing and communications capabilities to facilitate

information processing within and between Congressional

offices, including district office locations. The THOMAS system at

the Library of Congress has made tremendous progress in making

Congressional information products available to both Congress and

the general public through Internet. The Library of Congress continues

to develop the technology for a digital library. The Government

Printing Office continues to upgrade their own electronic data

base, ACCESS, which also provides a great deal of legislative information

in direct access, on line format. The Superintendent of Documents

is pursuing a program to transition the Federal Depository

Library program to electronic format within a reasonable period of

time. In addition, the General Accounting Office has virtually completed

a ‘‘shared resources’’ project which facilitates audit and program

evaluation work done in the field by that agency. The Congressional

Research Service and Copyright Office are investing in

optical storage systems and other advanced technologies, and the

Architect of the Capitol continues to maintain the basic telecommunications

infrastructure ‘‘CAPNET’’, which provides the

communications pathway for legislative agencies to share this data

with each other.

These are only a few examples of the inexorable movement toward

CyberCongress. All of these and other related efforts are

funded in this appropriations bill. Much of the savings made necessary

due to the constraints on funding of legislative activities are

only possible because of the continued investments made in information

processing technology. This bill maintains the commitment

to going forward with the infrastructure necessary to utilize modern

telecommunications capabilities.

In a related matter, the Committee on House Oversight and the

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration have begun a process

to develop a common information dissemination system. The

Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate have been

called upon to coordinate the project with the oversight of those

Committees and to ultimately propose the standards for a legislative

branch wide information system to the Committees for approval.

An open exchange of technology, projects, plans and developments

are crucial to the success of a legislative branch wide information

system. It is expected, therefore, that the following organizations

will be relied upon to participate and assist in all the efforts

of the Clerk and the Secretary: the Library of Congress, the

Government Printing Office, House Information Resources, the

Senate Computer Center, the General Accounting Office, the Congressional

Budget Office, and the Architect of the Capitol.

Section 209 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996,

directed the Library of Congress to develop a plan and supporting

analyses for this system. In so doing, the Library identified the

major programs under development in various parts of the legislative

branch as well as a significant amount of duplication. The

process begun by the oversight committees will enable the

strengths of each program to be recognized and integrated into a

system that will benefit Congress as a whole.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

The Clerk of the House is encouraged to continue with efforts to

implement various print on demand capabilities related to legislative

documents, subject to appropriate approvals. In particular, the

Clerk should establish, in consultation with the Committee on

House Oversight and the Joint Committee on Printing, a formal

system in accordance with Title 44, United States Code, to expand

print on demand use in the House Document Room. The Clerk

should prepare a report for submission to the Committee on House

Oversight outlining the various print on demand goals, a timetable

for their implementation, and a projection of the benefits, costs,

and cost reductions associated with each.

The Clerk has indicated there has been a nearly 80 percent reduction

in requested document reprints from the Government

Printing Office for use in the House Document Room. The Committee

supports this cost saving effort and encourages the Clerk, in

consultation with the Joint Committee on Printing, to continue

these efforts to minimize reprinting where feasible.

The Clerk is also directed, in consultation with the Secretary of

the Senate, the Joint Committee on Printing, and the Government

Printing Office, to study and determine alternatives to the current

procedures being used for creating, formatting and transmitting

Committee and other House documents in preparation for printing.

As the Congress moves toward modernization of technology and

print-on-demand capability, alternatives to continued reliance upon

GPO details should be evaluated. It may be that in-house expertise

and technology can be used more cost-effectively. The Clerk will be

expected, after due consultation as noted above, to present recommendations

in the next appropriations cycle. Funds for this effort,

which should not exceed $100,000, may be derived from savings

in the Clerk’s budget, or elsewhere in the ‘‘salaries, officers

and employees’’ line item. If necessary, the Committee will consider

a reprogramming of funds presented in the customary manner.

Moreover, it is expected that the same staff resources can expedite

posting of committee legislative information on the THOMAS system.

The Clerk has also indicated that various steps are being taken

to establish common standard generalized markup language

(SGML) definitions for the creation of legislative documents in electronic

format. This is consistent with actions being taken throughout

the Legislative Branch. The Clerk should seek guidance from

the Committee on House Oversight, the Joint Committee on Printing,

Government Printing Office, House Information Resources, the

Secretary of the Senate, private industry, and other interested parties,

in establishing standards that are based upon past and ongoing

GPO, HIR, and Senate efforts. The overarching objective should

be the development of standards and systems that will be of common

use by the Clerk and other interested Legislative Branch entities.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

The Committee has included $81,669,000 for printing and binding of congressional documents at the Government Printing Office
for use by Congress and by-law programs. The amount provided reflects a savings of $1,050,000 by converting the permanent, bound
Congressional Record to a CD–ROM format. The daily Congressional Record will continue to be distributed in the formats preferred by the recipients, i.e., paper or microfiche, and is also available electronically via the widely-accessible Internet distribution
network through the THOMAS system and the GPO ACCESS network. The permanent, paper-based bound Record, which is delayed
in production by 8 years at the present time, is a perfect candidate
for electronic format. Each set costs almost $12,000 to print and
bind, and is made available in limited quantities. CD–ROM’s can
be provided at a fraction of this cost and will be very flexible research tools in library or office settings, where the bound paper
sets are normally utilized. The bill provides $100,000 for a more
limited number of printed, permanent Records which can be produced from the less expensive CD–ROM format data base setup.
These copies can be distributed at the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing. For those offices and institutions that cannot
do without paper copies, CD–ROM’s can be printed by commercial
printing establisments at a much smaller cost than current charges
against the Congressional printing and binding appropriation.

The Committee has been informed that the conversion to CD–
ROM will expedite the availability of the permanent version of the
Congressional Record by several years, thereby making it available
much sooner than the current 8-year delay. The GPO is directed
to develop a plan that will minimize the time necessary to distribute this record of House and Senate debate. The plan should include the objectives and a time line for achieving the time savings.

Also, the GPO, in consultation with the Library of Congress, should plan to make the CD–ROM version of the permanent Record available on Internet to the broadest possible audience.
Both plans should be presented in the fiscal year 1998 budget
submission.

A general reduction of $1,051,000 has also been taken. The GPO,
in consultation with the Joint Committee on Printing, should review those materials which are non-legislative in nature now being
charged against this appropriation and determine the extent to
which House or Senate can provide direct reimbursement or reduce
the need for such material.

H. Rept. 104-733 (accompanying P.L. 104-53, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1997)

Amendment No. 23: Deletes a provision proposed by the Senate

regarding an electronic information system. The managers on the

part of the House and Senate agree that the Congressional Research

Service, upon the request of the Senate Committee on Rules

and Administration, and in consultation with the Secretary of the

Senate and the heads of the appropriate offices and agencies of the

legislative branch, shall coordinate the development of an electronic

congressional legislative information and document retrieval

system to provide for the legislative information needs of the Senate

through the exchange and retrieval of information and documents

among legislative branch offices and agencies. The managers

on the part of the House and the Senate also agree that the Library

of Congress shall assist the Congressional Research Service

in supporting the Senate in this effort, and shall provide technical

staff and resources as may be necessary.

S. Rept. 105-16 (accompanying Supplementation Appropriations and Rescissions Act, 1997)

The Committee recommends the transfer of $5,000,000 from

funds available under the heading ‘‘Senate’’ to the Secretary of the

Senate, to be available through September 30, 2000, for development

and implementation of a comprehensive, Senatewide legislative

information system [LIS]. The accounts from which the transfers

occur are contingent upon the approval of the Committee on

Appropriations. Pursuant to section 8 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations

Act, 1997, the Secretary is required to develop and implement

LIS under the oversight of the Committee on Rules and

Administration.

H. Rept. 105-196 (accompanying H.R. 2209, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 1998)

An open exchange of technology, projects, plans and developments

is crucial to the success of a legislative branch wide information

system. It is expected, therefore, that the following organizations

will continue to participate and assist in all the efforts of the

Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate: the Library of

Congress, the Government Printing Office, House Information Resources,

the Senate Computer Center, the General Accounting Office,

the Congressional Budget Office, and the Architect of the Capitol.

The Committee on House Oversight and the Senate Committee

on Rules and Administration have begun a process to develop a

common information dissemination system. The Legislative Information

System (LIS) being developed by the Congressional Research

Service and the Library of Congress, when completed, will

replace the retrieval functions for legislative information systems

currently being operated by House Information Resources (HIR).

The Library and CRS must devote sufficient resources to accomplish

the following during FY1998:

Provide comparable functionality so that legacy retrieval systems

can be retired by 12/31/98;

Improve the productivity of Congressional staff by making significant

progress in implementing previously identified high

priority functionality; and

Improve the accuracy, usability, and timeliness of legislative

information retrieval.

S. Rept. 105-47 (accompanying S. 1019, Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY ending Sep. 30 1998)

In the conference report (H. Rept. 104–733) accompanying the

fiscal year 1997 legislative branch appropriation bill (Public Law

104–197), the Congressional Research Service was directed to coordinate,

and the Library of Congress was directed to provide technical

support for, the development of a legislative information retrieval

system to serve the Senate. The Senate has undertaken a

major program to rebuild its systems for creating and managing its

legislative information. This program, which will take several years

to complete, is being carried out by the Secretary of the Senate

with the oversight of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.

The retrieval system being coordinated by CRS and supported

by the Library is an integral part of that program. CRS and

the Library are, therefore, directed to continue their development

of the legislative retrieval system for the Senate in conjunction

with the Senate’s efforts to manage its legislative information more

efficiently.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and House

Oversight Committee, per the recommendation of the Secretary of

the Senate and the Clerk of the House, have approved the establishment

of a data standards program, including standard generalized

markup language [SGML] for data interchange of legislative

information. The purpose of this program is to ensure that the

preparation and exchange of legislative information is made more

efficient through the use of data standards. Once published these

standards will be used by all legislative branch agencies, including

GPO in transmitting and producing information which is utilized

in the legislative process. The Secretary of the Senate and Clerk

of the House will be responsible for updating and maintaining and

publishing the data interchange standards for legislative information.

S. Rept. 105-204 (accompanying Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1999)

In the conference report (H. Rept. 104–733) accompanying the

fiscal year 1997 legislative branch appropriation bill (Public Law

104–197), the Congressional Research Service was directed to coordinate,

and the Library of Congress was directed to provide technical

support, for the development of a legislative information retrieval

system to serve the Senate.

The Senate has undertaken a major program to rebuild its systems

for creating and managing its legislative information. Although

this program is going to take a number of years to complete,

the Senate is already realizing benefits from this program.

The Secretary of the Senate, with the technical support of the Sergeant

at Arms, is providing Senate offices floor amendments electronically

minutes after being introduced on the floor.

The retrieval system being designed and maintained to provide

a comprehensive legislative resource by the CRS and supported by

the Library is proving to be a valued recourse for Senate and congressional

office. CRS and the Library are, therefore, directed to

continue their development of the legislative retrieval system for

the Senate and provide an annual report outlining the strategic objective

of this initiative.

H. Conf. Rept. 105-734 (accompanying HR 4112, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill for FY ending Sept. 30, 1999)

The conferees agree with language in the House report directing

the Library to develop measurements of the extent of the collections

security problem and with language in the Senate report urging

the Library to continue efforts to assist the Senate with a legislative

information retrieval system.

H. Rept. 106-635 (accompanying the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill 2001)

Information security is a collective responsibility within the legislative

branch. The Clerk of the House in consultation with the Secretary

of the Senate shall consult with all legislative branch entities

that create or store legislative information in electronic form

and prepare standards and procedures for ensuring the security of

such information as well as for establishing a process to routinely

assess risks to the security of legislative information.

The Clerk in consultation with the Secretary shall submit proposals

for standards and procedures for approval to the Committee

on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and

Administration, respectively, on a date to be specified by those

Committees. Upon approval, the Clerk, the Secretary, and the legislative

branch entities shall provide their plans to the House Committee

on Appropriations and Senate Committee on Appropriations.

The Library of Congress and the Government Printing Office

shall work with the Clerk and the Secretary to test, develop, and

implement, no later than January 3, 2001, systems that will enable

them to confirm the authenticity of such legislative information.

S. Rept. 107-37 (accompanying S. 1172, Legislative Branch Appropriations 2002)

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,571,000 for

expenses of the Office of the Secretary. The Committee has included

$7,000,000 for the Legislative Information System Augmentation

Project.

H. Rept. 110-98 (accompanying Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 2008)

Improved Access to Roll Call Information.—The Committee believes
the public could benefit from more easily accessible roll call
information. To that end, the Committee requests that the Chief
Administrative Officer work with the Clerk of the House and the
Library of Congress to study how, within the public House of Representatives
website and the THOMAS website, a joint system
might be developed to allow roll call searches by specific word, and
report back to the Committee on Appropriations of the House by
December 1, 2007.

Joint Explanatory Statement, House Committee on Appropriations, Omnibus Act, 2009 (accompanying H.R. 1105 / Public Law 111-8, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009)

See Book G, explanatory statement on Congressional Research Service Salaries and Expenses, the paragraph starting with the phrase "Public Access to Legislative Data" (or page 10 of this PDF) (March 2009).

Public Access to Legislative Data.--There is support for enhancing public access to legislative documents, bill status, summary information, and other legislative data through more direct methods such as bulk data downloads and other means of no-charge digital access to legislative databases. The Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, and Government Printing Office and the appropriate entities of the House of Representatives are directed to prepare a report on the feasibility of providing advanced search capabilities. This report is to be provided to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate within 120 days of the release of Legislative Information System 2.0.

H. Rept. 112-511 (accompanying HR 5882, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill for 2013)

During the hearings this year, the Committee heard testimony

on the dissemination of congressional information products in Extensible

Markup Language (XML) format. XML permits data to be

reused and repurposed not only for print output but for conversion

into ebooks, mobile web applications, and other forms of content delivery

including data mashups and other analytical tools. The Com-

mittee has heard requests for the increased dissemination of congressional

information via bulk data download from non-governmental

groups supporting openness and transparency in the legislative

process. While sharing these goals, the Committee is also

concerned that Congress maintains the ability to ensure that its

legislative data files remain intact and a trusted source once they

are removed from the Government’s domain to private sites.

The GPO currently ensures the authenticity of the congressional

information it disseminates to the public through its Federal Digital

System and the Library Congress’s THOMAS system by the

use of digital signature technology applied to the Portable Document

Format (PDF) version of the document, which matches the

printed document. The use of this technology attests that the digital

version of the document has not been altered since it was authenticated

and disseminated by GPO. At this time, only PDF files

can be digitally signed in native format for authentication purposes.

There currently is no comparable technology for the application

and verification of digital signatures on XML documents.

While the GPO currently provides bulk data access to information

products of the Office of the Federal Register, the limitations on

the authenticity and integrity of those data files are clearly spelled

out in the user guide that accompanies those files on GPO’s Federal

Digital System.

The GPO and Congress are moving toward the use of XML as

the data standard for legislative information. The House and Senate

are creating bills in XML format and are moving toward creating

other congressional documents in XML for input to the GPO.

At this point, however, the challenge of authenticating downloads

of bulk data legislative data files in XML remains unresolved, and

there continues to be a range of associated questions and issues:

Which Legislative Branch agency would be the provider of bulk

data downloads of legislative information in XML, and how would

this service be authorized. How would ‘‘House’’ information be differentiated

from ‘‘Senate’’ information for the purposes of bulk data

downloads in XML? What would be the impact of bulk downloads

of legislative data in XML on the timeliness and authoritativeness

of congressional information? What would be the estimated

timeline for the development of a system of authentication for bulk

data downloads of legislative information in XML? What are the

projected budgetary impacts of system development and implementation,

including potential costs for support that may be required

by third party users of legislative bulk data sets in XML, as well

as any indirect costs, such as potential requirements for Congress

to confirm or invalidate third party analyses of legislative data

based on bulk downloads in XML? Are there other data models or

alternative that can enhance congressional openness and transparency

without relying on bulk data downloads in XML?

The Committee directs the establishment of a task force composed

of staff representatives of the Library of Congress, the Congressional

Research Service, the Clerk of the House, the Government

Printing Office, and such other congressional offices as may

be necessary, to examine these and any additional issues it considers

relevant and to report back to the Committee on Appropriations

of the House and Senate.

Congressional Hearings

Documents and Reports Prepared by Congress and Legislative Branch Support Agencies

Duplication Among Legislative Tracking Systems: Findings, A Report Prepared by the Library of Congress for the House and Senate Appropriations Committees Pursuant to House Report 103-517 and House Report 104-141, July 14, 1995

A Plan for a New Legislative Information System for the United States Congress, Prepared by the Library of Congress, February 16, 1996

The Legislative Information System Strategic Objective Report, FY2012

Ideas for Upgrading THOMAS

Top Suggestions

Bulk Access to THOMAS data
Incorporate open data principles

Meta Suggestions

Have regular roundtable discussions with members of public and government to discuss ideas for improving THOMAS
Create THOMAS users group (email discussion?)
Programmer access page: for XML access, RSS feeds, email sign ups, etc.
Work to improve parsability of all search results; more structured data
- All bills in XML
- Singe page (no pagination) that lists every bill in Congress with status; updated daily on a new page (for scraping); preferably in a feed or XML format
Create and make public unique IDs for commonly used entities (or draw upon those created by others)
- List of all Committees and Subcommittees Members
Incorporate Senate Amendments (See S Res. 562)
Consider redesign of site (look at LIS, GovTrak, OpenCongress for ideas + public)
Provide more detailed history of how THOMAS came to be

Specific Suggestions

Make Public Laws Searchable by law number and by name
Allow for bill alerts system (email) for bills and topics
Add short name of bill to weekly top 5 (plus link to archives)
Allow highlighting of "hot" bills -- where there's some kind of legislative action
Word/Phrase vs. Bill Number
- have search box handle both;
- allow search of entire bill text
- make selection of phrase vs number sticky
Improve "related bills" -- run comparison of bill summaries/ text -- both in this Congress and over past Congresses
- Make easier to trace bills through, especially when there is a substitute
- e.g., HR 3200 became HR 3590
Is legislation searchable by CRS tags? (Make available list of tags). Add tags to each bill, so can search for related bills.
Organize front page of THOMAS around what's going on today in congress; with info on yesterday and upcoming
Permalink: "save" on share/save tab is confusing; perhaps make its own link
Daily Digest -- when send email, include contents of daily digest, not just link
Increase size of search fields
3 organizing links:
- what's going on today -- running info from floor embedded into THOMAS
- what happened yesterday
- what's upcoming this week
order plain language search for bills by topic + frequency and tags
Is search boolean?
- want to be able to eliminate terms from search (the "not" function, e.g. Israel not steve)
When in search result, there's a calendar, link to it automatically

Fun Suggestions

Create twitter account to tweet whenever a bill is introduced (see OLRC) or goes to committee, enacted, etc.; tweet top five viewed bills
Mobile version

@@ Line 162: / Line 162: @@
 A general reduction of $1,051,000 has also been taken. The GPO,<br/>in consultation with the Joint Committee on Printing, should review those materials which are non-legislative in nature now being<br/>charged against this appropriation and determine the extent to<br/>which House or Senate can provide direct reimbursement or reduce<br/>the need for such material.
 </div><div style="margin-left: 40px"><br/></div></div></div></div></div>
 === H. Rept.&nbsp;[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-104hrpt733/pdf/CRPT-104hrpt733.pdf 104-733]&nbsp;(accompanying P.L. 104-53, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1997) ===
 <div style="margin-left: 40px">Amendment No. 23: Deletes a provision proposed by the Senate</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">regarding an electronic information system. The managers on the</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">part of the House and Senate agree that the Congressional Research</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">Service, upon the request of the Senate Committee on Rules</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">and Administration, and in consultation with the Secretary of the</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">Senate and the heads of the appropriate offices and agencies of the</div><div><div style="margin-left: 40px">legislative branch, shall coordinate the development of an electronic</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">congressional legislative information and document retrieval</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">system to provide for the legislative information needs of the Senate</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">through the exchange and retrieval of information and documents</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">among legislative branch offices and agencies. The managers<br/></div><div style="margin-left: 40px">on the part of the House and the Senate also agree that the Library</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">of Congress shall assist the Congressional Research Service</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">in supporting the Senate in this effort, and shall provide technical</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">staff and resources as may be necessary.</div></div>
 === S. Rept. [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-105srpt16/pdf/CRPT-105srpt16.pdf 105-16] (accompanying Supplementation Appropriations and Rescissions Act, 1997) ===
 <div style="margin-left: 40px">The Committee recommends the transfer of $5,000,000 from</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">funds available under the heading ‘‘Senate’’ to the Secretary of the</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">Senate, to be available through September 30, 2000, for development</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">and implementation of a comprehensive, Senatewide legislative</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">information system [LIS]. The accounts from which the transfers</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">occur are contingent upon the approval of the Committee on</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">Appropriations. Pursuant to section 8 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">Act, 1997, the Secretary is required to develop and implement</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">LIS under the oversight of the Committee on Rules and</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">Administration.</div>
 === H. Rept. [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-105hrpt196/pdf/CRPT-105hrpt196.pdf 105-196] (accompanying H.R. 2209, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 1998) ===
 <div style="margin-left: 40px">An open exchange of technology, projects, plans and developments</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">is crucial to the success of a legislative branch wide information</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">system. It is expected, therefore, that the following organizations</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">will continue to participate and assist in all the efforts of the</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate: the Library of</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">Congress, the Government Printing Office, House Information Resources,</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">the Senate Computer Center, the General Accounting Office,</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">the Congressional Budget Office, and the Architect of the Capitol.</div><div style="margin-left: 40px"><br/></div><div><div style="margin-left: 40px">The Committee on House Oversight and the Senate Committee</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">on Rules and Administration have begun a process to develop a</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">common information dissemination system. The Legislative Information</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">System (LIS) being developed by the Congressional Research</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">Service and the Library of Congress, when completed, will</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">replace the retrieval functions for legislative information systems</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">currently being operated by House Information Resources (HIR).</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">The Library and CRS must devote sufficient resources to accomplish</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">the following during FY1998:</div><div style="margin-left: 40px"><br/></div><div style="margin-left: 80px">Provide comparable functionality so that legacy retrieval systems</div><div style="margin-left: 80px">can be retired by 12/31/98;</div><div style="margin-left: 80px"><br/></div><div style="margin-left: 80px">Improve the productivity of Congressional staff by making significant</div><div style="margin-left: 80px">progress in implementing previously identified high</div><div style="margin-left: 80px">priority functionality; and</div><div style="margin-left: 80px"><br/></div><div style="margin-left: 80px">Improve the accuracy, usability, and timeliness of legislative</div><div style="margin-left: 80px">information retrieval.</div></div>
@@ Line 192: / Line 190: @@
 === H. Rept. [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt511/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt511.pdf 112-511] (accompanying HR 5882, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill for 2013) ===
 <div><div style="margin-left: 40px">During the hearings this year, the Committee heard testimony<br/></div><div style="margin-left: 40px">on the dissemination of congressional information products in Extensible</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">Markup Language (XML) format. XML permits data to be</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">reused and repurposed not only for print output but for conversion</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">into ebooks, mobile web applications, and other forms of content delivery</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">including data mashups and other analytical tools. The Com-</div><div><div style="margin-left: 40px">mittee has heard requests for the increased dissemination of congressional</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">information via bulk data download from non-governmental</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">groups supporting openness and transparency in the legislative</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">process. While sharing these goals, the Committee is also</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">concerned that Congress maintains the ability to ensure that its</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">legislative data files remain intact and a trusted source once they</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">are removed from the Government’s domain to private sites.</div><div style="margin-left: 40px"><br/></div><div style="margin-left: 40px">The GPO currently ensures the authenticity of the congressional</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">information it disseminates to the public through its Federal Digital</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">System and the Library Congress’s THOMAS system by the</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">use of digital signature technology applied to the Portable Document</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">Format (PDF) version of the document, which matches the</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">printed document. The use of this technology attests that the digital</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">version of the document has not been altered since it was authenticated</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">and disseminated by GPO. At this time, only PDF files</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">can be digitally signed in native format for authentication purposes.</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">There currently is no comparable technology for the application</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">and verification of digital signatures on XML documents.</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">While the GPO currently provides bulk data access to information</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">products of the Office of the Federal Register, the limitations on</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">the authenticity and integrity of those data files are clearly spelled</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">out in the user guide that accompanies those files on GPO’s Federal</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">Digital System.</div><div style="margin-left: 40px"><br/></div><div style="margin-left: 40px">The GPO and Congress are moving toward the use of XML as</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">the data standard for legislative information. The House and Senate</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">are creating bills in XML format and are moving toward creating</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">other congressional documents in XML for input to the GPO.</div><div style="margin-left: 40px"><br/></div><div style="margin-left: 40px">At this point, however, the challenge of authenticating downloads<br/></div><div style="margin-left: 40px">of bulk data legislative data files in XML remains unresolved, and</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">there continues to be a range of associated questions and issues:</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">Which Legislative Branch agency would be the provider of bulk</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">data downloads of legislative information in XML, and how would</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">this service be authorized. How would ‘‘House’’ information be differentiated</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">from ‘‘Senate’’ information for the purposes of bulk data</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">downloads in XML? What would be the impact of bulk downloads</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">of legislative data in XML on the timeliness and authoritativeness</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">of congressional information? What would be the estimated</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">timeline for the development of a system of authentication for bulk</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">data downloads of legislative information in XML? What are the</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">projected budgetary impacts of system development and implementation,</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">including potential costs for support that may be required</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">by third party users of legislative bulk data sets in XML, as well</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">as any indirect costs, such as potential requirements for Congress</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">to confirm or invalidate third party analyses of legislative data</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">based on bulk downloads in XML? Are there other data models or</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">alternative that can enhance congressional openness and transparency</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">without relying on bulk data downloads in XML?</div><div style="margin-left: 40px"><br/></div><div style="margin-left: 40px">The Committee directs the establishment of a task force composed</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">of staff representatives of the Library of Congress, the Congressional</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">Research Service, the Clerk of the House, the Government</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">Printing Office, and such other congressional offices as may</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">be necessary, to examine these and any additional issues it considers</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">relevant and to report back to the Committee on Appropriations</div><div style="margin-left: 40px">of the House and Senate.<br/></div></div></div>
+== Congressional Hearings ==
 == Documents and Reports Prepared by Congress and Legislative Branch Support Agencies ==
 <div>Duplication Among Legislative Tracking Systems: Findings, A Report Prepared by the Library of Congress for the&nbsp;House and Senate Appropriations Committees Pursuant to House Report 103-517 and House Report 104-141, July 14,&nbsp;1995</div><div><br/></div><div>[http://democrats.rules.house.gov/archives/theplan.htm A Plan for a New Legislative Information System for the United States Congress], Prepared by the Library of&nbsp;Congress, February 16, 1996</div><div><br/></div><div><div>The Legislative Information System&nbsp;Strategic Objective Report, FY2012</div></div><div><br/></div>

Personal tools

THOMAS bulk data access - OpenCongress Wiki

Views

Navigation

THOMAS bulk data access

From OpenCongress Wiki

Revision as of 21:23, September 18, 2012

Contents

Introduction

Quick Facts

Blog Posts

Policy Documents and Gov't Resources

Government Resources

Civil Society Organization Resources

News Stories

Additional Resources

The History of THOMAS Generally

States that provide bulk access to legislative data

Historical Resources on the Development of Congress' Legislative Information Systems

Legislative Language and Committee Reports

H. Rept. 103-517 (accompanying P.L. 103-283, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1995)

S. Rept. 104-114 (accompanying Legislative Branch Appropriation 1996)

H. Rept 104-141 (accompanying the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 1996)

H. Rept. 104-212 (accompanying Legislative Branch Appropriations 1996)

H. Rept. 104-657 (accompanying Legislative Branch Appropriations bill 1997)

H. Rept. 104-733 (accompanying P.L. 104-53, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1997)

S. Rept. 105-16 (accompanying Supplementation Appropriations and Rescissions Act, 1997)

H. Rept. 105-196 (accompanying H.R. 2209, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 1998)

S. Rept. 105-47 (accompanying S. 1019, Legislative Branch Appropriations for FY ending Sep. 30 1998)

S. Rept. 105-204 (accompanying Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1999)

H. Conf. Rept. 105-734 (accompanying HR 4112, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill for FY ending Sept. 30, 1999)

H. Rept. 106-635 (accompanying the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill 2001)

S. Rept. 107-37 (accompanying S. 1172, Legislative Branch Appropriations 2002)

H. Rept. 110-98 (accompanying Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 2008)

Joint Explanatory Statement, House Committee on Appropriations, Omnibus Act, 2009 (accompanying H.R. 1105 / Public Law 111-8, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009)

H. Rept. 112-511 (accompanying HR 5882, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill for 2013)

Congressional Hearings

Documents and Reports Prepared by Congress and Legislative Branch Support Agencies

Ideas for Upgrading THOMAS

Top Suggestions

Meta Suggestions

Specific Suggestions

Fun Suggestions

Toolbox