HR-9360-119
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Sponsored by Mary Miller (R-IL)
What it does
This bill would abolish the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress by striking Chapter 27 of Title 44 of the U.S. Code, effective 60 days after enactment. In place of the committee, it would require the Director of the Center for Legislative Archives to submit an annual report on the management and preservation of congressional records to the Archivist of the United States, the Secretary of the Senate, the Clerk of the House, and relevant congressional committees. It would also require the Archivist, Secretary, and Clerk to meet periodically to review records management practices.
Who benefits
Congress as an institution, which would retain oversight of its own records through existing officers rather than a separate advisory body. The Archivist of the United States, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Clerk of the House, who would gain a more direct role in records review. Taxpayers, to the extent that eliminating the committee reduces administrative overhead. Researchers and the public may benefit if the streamlined reporting structure proves more responsive than the prior committee model.
Who is hurt
Members and staff of the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress, whose positions would be eliminated. Historians, archivists, and outside experts who participated in or relied on the committee's independent advisory function may lose a formal channel for external input into congressional records policy. Researchers and the public who valued having a dedicated, multi-stakeholder body overseeing congressional records preservation could see reduced independent scrutiny of those practices.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress is a redundant body whose functions can be performed more efficiently by existing officers — the Archivist, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Clerk of the House — who already have direct institutional responsibility for records management. They contend that replacing the committee with a structured annual reporting and review requirement maintains accountability while reducing bureaucratic overhead, consistent with broader efforts to streamline federal advisory committees under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that eliminating the committee removes the only formal mechanism for independent, outside expert input into how Congress manages and preserves its own historical records. They contend that replacing a multi-stakeholder advisory body with internal officer reviews creates a conflict of interest, since the same officials responsible for records management would now be the primary reviewers of their own performance — reducing the transparency and independence that the committee was designed to provide.