This is a one-sided article which does not discuss the opposing view, or the reason why they thought congress should appoint. Ironically, if this became law then it might have prevented Trump from removing the librarian as he attempted in 2025 (still pending in the supreme court). It also includes a term limit of 10 years.

https://www.stoneslaw.net/legislative-branch-agencies-clarif...

The plain language of the bill’s summary on the bill’s web page (ignoring the EFF article) explains it quite clearly:

1. Gives power to Congress to appoint/remove the librarian rather than the president (cool, great)

2. Strips the copyright power held by the Library of Congress away, library of Congress becomes a supporting resource like a consultant

3. Reassigns that same power to a different position that’s politically appointed by the president.

What you are saying is technically true, but the deck chairs have been shuffled around in a way that seems to at least partially negate the positive change.

I also find it odd that this was passed in a voice vote. It’s hard for me to tell if that means it has strong bipartisan support? I guess I’d have to watch a video recording of the proceedings to know. If I am recalling correctly, congresspeople can call for a tallied vote if they think the voice vote was too ambiguous.