U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–667 2011

MODERNIZING INFORMATION DELIVERY IN THE 

HOUSE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Held in Washington, DC, June 16, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California, Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PHIL GINGREY, M.D., Georgia 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

PHILIP KIKO, Staff Director and General Counsel 

JAMIE FLEET, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

PHIL GINGREY, M.D., Georgia, Chairman 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

(1) 

MODERNIZING INFORMATION DELIVERY IN 

THE HOUSE 

THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Phil Gingrey (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gingrey, Nugent, and Lofgren. 

Staff Present: Phil Kiko, Staff Director and General Counsel; 

Peter Schalestock, Deputy General Counsel; Kimani Little, Parliamentarian; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk; Yael Barash, Assistant 

Legislative Clerk; Salley Wood, Communications Director; Linda 

Ulrich, Director of Oversight; Dominic Stoelli, Oversight Staff; 

Reynold Schweickhardt, Oversight Staff; Jamie Fleet, Minority 

Staff Director; Kyle Andersen, Minority Press Secretary; Matt 

Defreitas, Minority Professional Staff; Khalil Abboud, Minority 

Elections Staff; Thomas Hicks, Minority Elections Counsel; and 

Mike Harrison, Minority Professional Staff. 

Mr. GINGREY. I will now call to order the Committee on House 

Administration Subcommittee on Oversight for today’s oversight 

hearing on modernizing information delivery in the House. The 

hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days so that Members may submit any materials that they wish to be included therein. 

A quorum is present, so we may proceed. 

Central and integral to our oversight responsibility is ensuring 

efficiency and transparency in how we, the House, create and disseminate legislative information. Today, we are interested in learning from our witnesses about how we can improve information delivery in the House, how we can improve the way we create and 

distribute legislative documents, and how we reduce costs and increase transparency. 

I am eager to hear from our knowledgeable witnesses about their 

experiences and, of course, recommendations as we seek to improve 

both of these aspects: the creation and the delivery of legislative information. 

In today’s environment, we have no choice but to cut long-term 

costs, eliminate unnecessary printing, adapt to the electronic delivery of information, and bring more transparency, accessibility, and 

accuracy to the legislative process. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

2 

We are approaching the 20th anniversary of the GPO Electronic 

Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993, which began the 

transition to electronically based legislative information. Title 44, 

the statute governing our paper-based requirements, has not been 

seriously and properly reformed and updated in decades. Now is 

the time to reevaluate and revisit these laws and bring our information delivery system into this 21st century. 

We need to reevaluate what documents we need to maintain in 

hard copy and which ones can be made solely available electronically. For example, it is estimated that only 3 percent of introduced 

bills in the House ever become law. However, the House spends 

$1.7 million annually printing all introduced bills, every one of 

them. And while we know from our last hearing, that for some publications approximately 70 percent of the costs are related to 

preproduction, perhaps it is worth considering only printing bills 

that are reported by committee or are actually going to be considered on the House floor. 

Finally, we should utilize our collective wisdom. During the 

112th Congress, both the Rules and the Natural Resources Committees have been experimenting with cost-savings measures in relation to markups and committee documents, respectively. 

I would like to thank both Chairman Dreier and Chairman Hastings for their submitted statements describing what they have 

learned. I request unanimous consent that we include these two 

statements in the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Again, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses as we continue to reduce government spending and increase efficiency and 

transparency. 

I would now like to recognize my colleagues, starting with Congresswoman Lofgren, for the purpose of providing her opening 

statement. I turn it over to Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I welcome today’s hearing on modernizing information delivery in the 

House of Representatives. As a Member representing Silicon Valley, I know the importance that technology can have on adding productivity and maximizing efficiency in the workplace. 

As I was mentioning to my colleague Mr. Walden, I first came 

here in the 1970s as a young staffer, and the House was using 

typewriters and carbon paper at that time, and something called a 

Robo Machine, which was a tape with little holes punched in it. 

When I came back as a Member in 1995, not every office had a 

computer, e-mail was in its infancy, most Members did not have 

Web pages. Blackberrys, smart phones, a necessity in today’s work 

environment, weren’t in wide use until after 2011. 

Change sometimes comes slowly to a body that is based on traditions and precedent. However, we have been embracing new technology at an accelerated pace over the last 2 years, particularly 

under the leadership of Representative Bob Brady, the former chair 

of this committee, who I would like to single out for tremendous 

credit for the leadership that he showed in this area. 

During the last Congress, the committee oversaw a number of 

technology initiatives for the House. We redesigned the house.gov 

Web site to make it easier for visitors to navigate. We initiated 

HouseLive, a searchable video database of floor proceedings. We 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

3 

started posting statements of disbursements online, reducing the 

need for printed copies. We consolidated individual servers in Member offices to centralize location, reducing energy and resources required for computer operations, and also increasing cybersecurity. 

We increased Internet bandwidth for most district offices, and installed a campus-wide wireless network. We started supporting 

Apple products, including desktops, iPhones and iPads, and we are 

testing Voice-over-Internet Protocol, known as VoIP, a system for 

House implementation. 

These improvements help Members and their staff work more efficiently, but also provide the American people more access to information on our branch of government. 

One of the most important partners that Congress has in terms 

of disseminating legislative information to the public is the Government Printing Office. And just as Congress has changed, adapted, 

integrated technology, so has the GPO. Going back to my first time 

here as a staffer, the GPO is not the same. When I started in the 

1970s as a staffer, printing was an important function of the GPO, 

but they had around 8,000 employees at that time. The GPO today 

is down to 2,200. They have streamlined their workforce and are 

using technology. Since the GPO has started making government 

documents available online at gpo.gov, this has been one of the government’s most visited sites. 

On the ink and paper side, 70 percent of the printing GPO is responsible for is done by outside contractors. GPO’s printing procurement program continues to be one of the government’s longestrunning partnerships with the private sector, saving millions of 

taxpayers’ dollars per year, and creating jobs and tax revenues in 

States and localities nationwide. Moving forward, I hope the GPO 

continues to be a close partner with us in providing documents for 

the legislative branch and the general public. 

I think it is important to have this hearing because although we 

have made tremendous progress, we always seek further improvements. And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, 

and yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Congresswoman Lofgren. 

Mr. GINGREY. Does any other Member wish to be recognized for 

the purpose of making an opening statement? 

I would now like to introduce our first witness. The Honorable 

Greg Walden represents the Second Congressional District in the 

great State of Oregon. Elected in 1998, this is Congressman Walden’s seventh term in the U.S. House. A former small business 

owner, he is chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee 

on Communications and Technology, and has served as chairman 

of the House Republican leadership since February of 2010. He is 

also a deputy whip, and he chaired the majority transition team for 

Speaker Boehner after the 2010 midterm elections. In that role, 

Congressman Walden and his colleagues analyzed House practices 

and procedures for ways to improve efficiencies, increase the effectiveness of the House, and to reduce costs to the taxpayer. 

Congressman Walden has a bachelor of science degree from the 

University of Oregon, and was a member of the Oregon State 

House of Representatives from 1989 to 1995, and the Oregon State 

Senate from 1995 to 1997. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

4 

On the first panel, our second witness is my colleague, our colleague, the Honorable Michael Honda. Congressman Honda represents the 15th Congressional District of California. He is a member of the Appropriations Committee, a member of the Budget 

Committee, a House Democratic senior whip, and cochair of the 

Democratic Caucus’s new media working group. Congressman 

Honda has been a California State Assembly member, a Santa 

Clara County Board supervisor, a San Jose planning commissioner, 

a Peace Corps volunteer in El Salvador, and a teacher, principal, 

and school board member. In 2000, Congressman Honda was elected to the House, where he has served ever since. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And if the gentleman would yield, Mr. Honda is 

also my neighbor in Santa Clara County, and someone who I have 

served with in local and Federal Government for 30 years. 

Mr. GINGREY. Very happy to yield to the ranking member. And 

that prompts me to say that Congressman Walden is my neighbor 

on North Carolina Avenue here in Washington. I wish he would 

keep his yard in a little bit better shape. 

Finishing up with my introduction of Congressman Honda, he 

earned a bachelor’s degree in biological sciences and Spanish, a 

master’s degree in education from San Jose State University. 

Congressmen, we both thank you for being here today. The committee has received your written testimonies, and I will recognize 

each of you for 5 minutes to present a summary of your submissions. To help keep that time, we have a timing device near the 

witness table. The device will emit a green light for 4 minutes, and 

it will turn yellow when 1 minute remains. And when the light 

turns red, it means your time has expired. For my colleagues, the 

gavel will be quite soft. 

Congressman Walden, we will start with you. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor and delight to be before your subcommittee here. I recognize you and your 

ranking member, Ms. Lofgren. And Congressman Nugent, always 

good to see you. I want to commend this committee, both in its current configuration and in its prior iterations, for the work it has 

continued to do in a bipartisan way to reform how the House operates. 

When Speaker-designee Boehner asked me to chair the transition 

team, I approached it from the notion that it was the people’s 

House, the public’s business, the taxpayers’ money, and they 

should have the right to watch and participate in the process, and 

that we had an obligation to make sure that their precious dollars 

were spent as efficiently and minimally as possible. 

We created a 22-member team, including four freshmen. I 

reached out to Speaker Pelosi’s office and asked them to designate 

Representatives from the Democratic Caucus. And they, fortunately, gave me two outstanding Members, Mr. Andrews and Bob 

Brady from this committee. We solicited every Member in the 

House, current, and their staff. I, like your colleague there, Chairman, served on congressional staff in the 1980s. And while I wasn’t 

here to learn about the Robo-tape, when we got here I was the remstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

5 

cipient of the memory typewriter, though, because I was press secretary. That meant I didn’t have to retype the Congressman’s biography every time it needed to go out. I could push a button. It was 

remarkable. But we still had typewriters. 

And then I was here when we got our first XT IBM PC and had 

to figure out that the floppy disk in the drive was the reason you 

couldn’t do anything because it would give you that error message. 

Anyway, you all understand that. We have come a long way, is 

the long and short of it. And as we approached the transition, I invited back people who had led transitions before. Jim Nussle, who 

coordinated the 1994 transition. I said, tell us lessons learned. 

What did you find? What did you change? The same with Mike 

Capuano. I asked him to have lunch with me. We had a delightful 

talk about things that worked, things that didn’t, and how we could 

continue to restore faith and confidence in this institution and 

bring about efficiencies and transparency. 

I know Jim Nussle mentioned that in 1994 they were still delivering ice to each office. Now, ice was a delivery that was begun before refrigeration and only stopped in 1995. And it saves taxpayers 

about a half a million dollars a year. So we began to look for ice 

buckets of our own. What was working, what wasn’t? And in a bipartisan way, we decided the composting attempt didn’t work. And 

both parties agreed that the way it was configured it was probably 

an idea ahead of its time and not as efficient or cost savings as anticipated. So it went away. 

We also reduced our own budgets by 5 percent. We looked at a 

number of other things that needed to be done. And then we solicited the public. And I think your committee is the beneficiary of 

over 2,000 responses we got. Some of them you probably don’t want 

to print publicly. But most of them were very helpful. 

And the staff I think really were helpful. My wife and I were in 

small business for 22 years. And I always enjoyed filling in on the 

vacation shifts at our radio stations because I could really learn 

what our folks were dealing with firsthand and then work to improve and gain efficiencies. 

If you go in my chief of staff’s office or in our back legislative office in the Rayburn Building offices, you will see upwards of 50 file 

cabinets. Those originated in the days when you had typewriters 

and carbon paper and you filled files. Today, we click a place on 

a piece of software and file a document. So then that really leads 

us to how we can tighten our belts here. 

GPO received $147.46 million in 2010, with $93.7 million appropriated for congressional printing and binding. I have before me 

here some documents that I am not saying you get rid of these, but 

let’s talk about going forward, some make sense, some may not. 

We always continue to improve. These are the statements of disbursements of the House. This is a set of documents that is published quarterly and distributed. Does everybody need one? Do we 

have to have them published? How big? How many? Every Congress, they do a congressional directory. Now, that is a pretty 

handy document. You may want to keep that in written form. But 

in today’s world with the changes that occur every minute around 

here, maybe an electronic is actually more up to date and better. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

6 

There are periodic publications. Very nicely bound documents. 

This is Deschler-Brown-Johnson Precedents of the U.S. House, volume 17, chapters 34 through 40. Now, I was up last night going 

through chapter 17, but I am not sure everybody does this. No, I 

am kidding. I don’t know who reads these other than the Parliamentarians and your colleague there. But do you need the printed 

copies? I don’t know. 

The calendars are delivered every day to the House. This is May and June piled here. A total of $2.3 million a year. Congressional 

Record, which we all dutifully vote on almost every day, $2.1 million, delivered to each House office when we are in session. And 

then we send out an index every 2 weeks to this directory. And I 

would wager there aren’t many Members that spend much time 

reading the hard-bound copies. 

The Federal Register gets published every day that the Federal 

Government is open. Is this the best form? Does it need to be distributed as widely as it is? 

I just think these are questions that we should ask. As the chair- man said, we spend $1.7 million each year on printing bills that 

we introduce, only 3 percent of which ever become law. Maybe we 

ought to print our own bills as needed, but not have them printed 

fully. 

I realize—I couldn’t see the clock, Mr. Chairman—my time has 

expired. I thank you for taking a look at these issues. I encourage 

you and applaud your work, and look forward to doing my part to 

be of assistance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Congressman Walden. 

Mr. GINGREY. And now we will turn to Congressman Honda for 

his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL M. HONDA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. And good morning, Chairman Gingrey, 

Ranking Member Lofgren, and Mr. Nugent, for allowing me and 

asking me to testify today. 

This hearing, Modernizing Information Delivery in the House, is 

extremely broad because as Members we receive information from 

many sources. This information is developed within the House by 

the Clerk’s organization, the committees, and others, along with 

their Senate counterparts. Official legislative information is prepared and disseminated mainly through documents delivered in 

electronic and printed form by the Government Printing Office. 

Bills have been introduced that would cut back or eliminate most 

congressional printing, which begs the question: Is Congress ready 

to go paperless? While I wish the answer were ‘‘yes,’’ I am extremely doubtful that old ways can be changed on a dime. And we 

saw with the recent autopen signature of a bill by President 

Obama that not everyone is ready to bring our legislative process 

into the current century. 

We are also not a society that likes to read and analyze everything digitally. We like to receive information digitally and then 

print electronic documents in sometimes multiple copies. 

When it comes to GPO documents such as bills and reports, it 

may be more expensive to eliminate GPO prints, leaving offices 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

7 

with only electronic copies that are printed at a higher rate. According to GPO, it costs taxpayers 7 cents for a Member’s office to 

print a single-sided document. GPO can copy or print that same 

document for 5.5 cents. And if the GPO press were being used, it 

would cost taxpayers about 1 cent. 

Also these bills assert that they would save money, and the estimates used are often inflated. During a recent hearing that we 

held in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, I was 

surprised to learn that according to GPO, approximately 68 percent 

of the costs producing the Congressional Record would be incurred, 

whether multiple copies were printed or not. This is the pre-press 

cost, which is used to create the electronic file form, which they 

upload online and also print. Again, 68 percent of the cost is incurred before the very first copy is printed. 

GPO has made progress in using technology to cut down the 

amount of congressional records that it needs to print. When GPO 

started offering online access in 1994, about 18,000 copies of the 

Record were printed daily. Today, GPO prints 3,600 copies, about 

900 of which are sent to local libraries and reading rooms in communities across the country for our constituents to access. 

Now, GPO has surveyed the House and Senate for their continued need for print copies of the Record, along with other print documents like the Federal Register, the first survey of its kind. For 

those offices that have told GPO they want to opt out of the 

Record, they stopped those deliveries. The goal of some of these 

bills, to decrease Congress’ paper usage, is laudable. I believe every 

Member can support moving towards a more paperless Congress as 

technology allows. And I would join my colleagues on both sides of 

the aisle in finding ways to restructure our processes so that we 

can eventually get to a point where less and less paper is needed 

for this body to properly function. 

However, we are just not there yet. For example, when a Member submits a document to the body, whether it is a bill, extension 

of remarks, or an amendment, he or she is required to sign that 

document as verification for the Clerk that it is the official document that Member intended to submit. And as an individual, when 

I write a bill I like to see that in print, too. There certainly is technology out there that would allow Members to provide an electronic 

signature for these documents. But to my knowledge, the House 

has no infrastructure in place for using this technology. 

Furthermore, any effort to modernize the House way of doing 

business would also have to be joined by the Senate. It would be 

impractical for the House to send the Senate digitally signed copies 

of bills and for the Senate to still send us paper copies. 

Again, the goal of some of these bills, to decrease Congress’ paper 

usage, is credible; but we must caution ourselves against imprudently going paperless without putting the necessary infrastructure 

in place that would allow us to reach those goals in a constructive 

way. 

So as we explore ways to modernize congressional printing, let’s 

make sure that we somehow don’t treat GPO as the villains or deprive the agency of tools they need to support us in what we do. 

The men and women of GPO are truly our partners in the legislative process. At this time, we could not function without the Conmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

8 

gressional Record every morning in both printed and electronic 

form, and other congressional documents, too. Those are the principal ways Members receive official information for their work. And 

GPO assists us in our work. Also, Members should know that GPO 

does not print anything that is not required or requested by Congress. 

The House Clerk, Senate Secretary, and the congressional committees are the drivers of many of our GPO practices. If we want 

to make it a priority to become a paperless Congress, then we need 

to start in house, and GPO will follow whatever business practice 

Congress wants. Just to put it succinctly, GPO will do whatever 

they are directed by both the House of Representatives and the 

Senate. 

Again, I thank the subcommittee for inviting me to testify today. 

[The statement of Mr. Honda follows:] 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

9 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 24 here 67667A.001
10 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 25 here 67667A.002
11 

Mr. GINGREY. I thank both witnesses for their testimony. And 

Representative Honda, thank you for your comments in regard to 

the laudability of our efforts in regard to what we are trying to do 

here in this hearing, and, in particular, the last paragraph of your 

printed statement in regard to GPO. 

I agree with you that we should never try to villainize, not certainly to do anything like that with the fine men and women that 

work in the Government Printing Office. We are just looking for 

their help, and you and Congressman Walden and the second 

panel, to find ways to save money for the taxpayer. But thank you 

so much, both of you, for your testimony. 

We now have time for committee members to ask questions of 

the witnesses. Each member is allotted 5 minutes of questioning 

time. To help each member to track that time, we also will use the 

timing device on the witness table. We will alternate back and 

forth among the majority and minority. 

I will recognize myself first, and then defer to the ranking member, Ms. Lofgren. 

It is my understanding that while traditionally when Members 

of Congress testify before a committee or subcommittee, we extend 

the courtesy to them of not grilling them with questions. But it is 

my understanding that Congressman Walden would be willing to 

take a question or two. So I will direct my time to Congressman 

Walden and put the first question to him. 

Congressman Walden, what publications do you think we could 

publish only in electronic format? Are there some on the table in 

front of you? 

Mr. WALDEN. I would think, first of all, I would look at the calendar, the House calendar, which the Clerk maintains all the relevant data for the calendar and provides the electronic feed to 

GPO. GPO then charges the House $2.3 million, I am told, for the 

preparation and publication of the calendar. I think it is something 

that could be posted electronically and could save us money, and 

certainly probably in a more searchable format than what we have 

here. 

I was thinking, Mr. Chairman, searchable format means you 

have to, you know, on a printed document look through it, electronically just like that. And that would save us money. I was also 

thinking, as I just sat here looking around me, and having been a 

small business owner, the fact that we actually have pads printed 

up to make notes on that somebody is paying to put the ink on to 

say House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. The napkin here, 

I would never preprint napkins for my little company. I would have 

found—you know, these are very nice, and I am not criticizing the 

committee, we all do this around here. And I think we really need 

to just say when we are borrowing 42 cents on the dollar, is this 

something you would do if this was your money? So I would start 

with the calendars. 

Mr. GINGREY. Congressman Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. I think that is a great question: What can be done 

electronically only? Being a classroom teacher, and then also coming from Silicon Valley, process is kind of an important issue. And 

I would probably engage members of the committees and also those 

who are in GPO to sit down and look at the array of things that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

12 

are done, and then ask ourselves, and perhaps poll our own membership, as has been done in the past, to find out that which can 

be done. I wouldn’t mind having certain things electronically printed, because then I can enlarge the print. 

Mr. WALDEN. I concur with his assessment. 

Mr. HONDA. And I think it is important to figure out which ones 

do we contract out for printing and for less of a cost to Congress, 

and that which is done commercially that may be sold in our stores 

downstairs. So those categories would probably have to be looked 

at, too. But I think it is a great question because it really moves 

us towards becoming more refined in some of the things that we 

are doing. 

Mr. GINGREY. I thank both of you for your comments regarding 

that question. We, by the way, will be hearing from Silicon Valley 

in our next panel of witnesses. 

Is it, Congressman Walden, is it just about saving money? 

Mr. WALDEN. I don’t think so, Mr. Chairman. It is about saving 

money; I was intrigued to learn that 68 percent of the costs of 

doing some of the printing, according to my colleague here from 

GPO, is just the setup fees. And I thought to myself, so the other 

part is 32 percent. That is a huge savings. 

Now, you are not going to not print everything, necessarily. But 

what if you were able to cut back your printing 10 percent, 5 percent? These are the things you look for in small business, things 

we always look for all the time. And what we were doing is, is 

there a better way? Sometimes that requires an up-front investment to get a longer-term rate of return that saves you more. 

Sometimes it is just a matter of changing practice. And I think we 

all are of a mind to embrace this technology. 

As chairman of the transition team, I was honored when Eric 

Schmidt came to see me from Google to talk about just brainstorming how we might use technology in our committee sessions. 

And we got to talking about how markups occur. And he said, 

What if your amendments popped up on a laptop, and in real time 

as they are adopted, merged into the statute so you could actually 

read the statute as it is being changed? He was like, Well, this 

could be done. This is a software issue. This could be managed. 

And by the way, the entire world could watch this process, and 

maybe help us be better legislators by weighing in as we went 

along. Just as we now put all of these hearings up online for the 

public to watch, it is their business and their money. What if our 

markups actually were something more meaningful than if you 

looked at these amendments where strike line 2, add ‘‘the’’ to line 

7, delete paragraph 3, move section 7 up? Nobody knows what that 

means. Wouldn’t it be great if there were a better way? 

And I think the brilliant people behind us could give this Congress some real help in how to improve that process. If we each had 

our own laptops or whatever, and you all made progress making 

Internet available around here, it could be a really better legislative process. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you. Congressman Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I think that is also a great question 

about should everything be a cost consideration. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

13 

I think the other question would be cost benefits. And I think 

that Congress and our government wants to be the Nordstrom’s of 

government, where the customer is always right, and we like to deliver to our customers. 

So I think the 18,000 copies that the GPO used to make, reducing it down to 3,600, and 900 going out to the communities, is 

something that we still need to keep an eye on, making sure that 

the public has access to it, both printed and electronically. But that 

that is available. 

And then I think things like my colleague had mentioned, realtime kinds of efforts. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to have an iPad during our committee hearings when we are looking at amendments. 

Because I look at insert ‘‘the,’’ and I am thinking what page? You 

are shifting through. I can do that with an iPad. 

Mr. GINGREY. I will just say this, and I know my time has expired, and I want to yield to my colleague, Ms. Lofgren. But as part 

of the rules package for the 112th Congress, we did make that— 

change the rules to allow the iPads to be used on the House floor. 

Mr. HONDA. Right. 

Mr. GINGREY. I am not sure in regard to in committee, but I see 

all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle looking at them. So we 

must have approved it for committee use as well. 

I will now yield to my colleague, Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And respecting our tradition of not grilling our colleagues as witnesses, I will just maybe 

make a couple of comments and invite their reflection. 

I think Mr. Walden said something about the Senate. And in 

fact, if the Senate doesn’t join us in modernizing, the value and 

cost savings are going to be more limited than they otherwise 

would be. So actually, I am really focused on that, and you mentioned it. 

So I think in addition to reaching out to users, as Mr. Honda has 

suggested, we really need to reach out also to the United States 

Senate, that may be a little behind us in terms of the embracing 

of technology. 

The other thing I am thinking about—and would welcome your 

comments—are really twofold. Most of the costs of the printing, as 

Mr. Honda has mentioned, is in the preparation. So that is going 

to be an expense whether there is a single thing printed. And it 

is cheaper to print at the GPO than to print in the offices. So anything that people are going to be printing we ought to have printed 

and distributed. 

The question is: How do we define what really isn’t necessary in 

terms of printing? And I think we need to reach out beyond the 

House itself for some of those items. For example, we have got repository libraries. And although we are into, you know, real time, 

there are actually people around the country that are looking at 

the real copies. And not everybody in the world, I hate to say, is 

online. So we are going to have to make a finding of what is going 

to have to be printed at some point anyhow. And the extra copies 

are tiny compared to the production of the first one. So it is really 

a process that I am suggesting, rather than a conclusion that we 

need to go through. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

14 

And the second issue has to do with retention and cybersecurity. 

Mr. Walden and I were talking while we were assembling, and he 

mentioned the old technology of a wire that you could play music 

on. Now, the Library of Congress has that. We think of digital as 

permanent, but it is only as permanent as we have the programs 

to read them. And so that is something that we are actually not 

addressing as a Nation, let alone as a Congress. And it has important historical and archival implications. And I think that is something we need to reach out to the broader community about. 

And then certainly I don’t use the calendar very often. That is 

the kind of document that I think probably could go online, because 

it is real time. The archivists aren’t looking at it. The repository 

libraries maybe aren’t—I don’t know. We should solicit input. But 

the opportunity to have a more user-friendly markup and the like, 

and also to have that be available online so that the public can see 

exactly what we are doing as we are doing it, I think has tremendous potential and would really be good for openness in our democratic system. 

So any comment you have on those thoughts, and then I will 

yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. If I might respond, I concur with your statements 

both in terms of partnership we need to have with the Senate as 

we move forward—or as you move forward on these initiatives, or 

we do in the House. And also I think just the notion of permanency 

and archival storage is really important for historical purposes. 

There are other things, though, that are changing in such real 

time that technology is the better way to go. I was thinking that 

as I was looking and mentioned this Congressional Directory. People are changing jobs all the time. The directory is printed once a 

year, is out of date before the ink is dry. Now, is it handy to have 

a hard copy so you have a base number? Yeah, but maybe you do 

that differently then. 

I was also thinking, as I was looking at the Congressional Record 

and the calendar, they don’t even have the Web site printed on the 

front. Now, you show me any other material in the private sector 

that is trying to get you do something; I will wager, whether it is 

the cover of a magazine or an advertisement, they all have the Web 

site. Now, maybe it is on here and I just missed it, but I don’t see 

it on any of these that direct you where to go to the Web site for 

the House to find it. And if we are going to continue printing, at 

least we ought to perhaps—and maybe, again, it is in here. It is 

not obvious to me. So I think technology in some places is a better 

fix, and in other places having a printed copy makes sense. And 

that is what you all get the big bucks to sort out the difference. 

So your surveys are going to be real important. 

Mr. GINGREY. Representative Honda, do you have a comment? 

Mr. HONDA. Yes. It is an interesting dialogue, because I think 

when we talk about Web sites, it should be obvious on some of our 

documents. But I thought about our own Web sites that we have 

individually, that we can also refer to documents electronically to 

where our readers or our constituents, whoever is tracking us, can 

be referred to also. 

And in terms of real time, not only real time but access to the 

information should be universal, and not only to the interests of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

15 

congressional Members. So those are the things. And calendars, I 

too, don’t use the calendar every day, but I suspect that my staff 

does. So I have to sort of talk to them before I make any firm comments. But I think that the process will help us get to an answer. 

And I think one thing I learned about in schools is I have to trust 

the process. 

And then on the archival issues, I think that is important. And 

it sort of reminded me of the near trauma that this country went 

through when we got to Y2K and when we had looked at our digital thing and said originally we could have done it in four digits 

rather than two, and then when we got to Y2K we started saying, 

oh, my God, what is embedded in there? 

And so the congressional library serves a wonderful function. I 

don’t know if there is a congressional museum. But there has got 

to be someplace where we can access processes that were historical, 

but may be needed in the future so that we can solve or anticipate 

problems in the future, too. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. I now yield 

5 minutes to my colleague from Florida, Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much 

for this distinguished panel. 

You know, as sheriff, we went digital. And there was a lot of 

gnashing of teeth as to why it wouldn’t work and why we need to 

have copies, why we need to have paper. In the legal department 

that I had that worked for me as sheriff, they would buy the statute books. They looked really nice on the shelf. But in actuality, 

the attorneys were utilizing the digital on a CD that was a lot less 

expensive than the hard copies and much more relevant because 

she could actually search. Like I said, there was a gnashing of 

teeth as to why we have to do certain things. 

I am going to be interested to hear from the next panel particularly about the archival process; you know, how do we make sure 

that we have those documents available for public scrutiny off into 

the future? 

Obviously, on the transparency side I think we would all agree 

that having the ability for the general public to look at what we 

do on a regular basis. And I am intrigued by the opportunity, possibly, to as it moves along in the process, to see the actual markup 

change before your eyes. Because you are right, I am sitting here 

reading it; I am going, I don’t understand what that means. You 

have any comments? 

Mr. WALDEN. Yeah, I would. I serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee, as does Mr. Gingrey. And I am amazed during 

a markup; we sit and wait while the staff rushes around with the— 

I don’t know, somebody on your staff could probably tell you—I 

think you have to make 50 or a hundred copies of every amendment and submit it to the committee. Literally, they are carting in 

these boxes of paper and trying to keep piles this high so they can 

quickly distribute it to 50–plus Members. It may be a two-line 

amendment that we have already voted on before it is fully distributed because the Clerk has read it and it is agreed to. And I assume all that paper gets recycled. But you think of each of our offices and anybody that is offering amendments, if that process 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

16 

alone were made electronic for us, there would be enormous savings. 

Now, the public may need to see copies, and maybe there is another way to handle that. But for heaven’s sakes, for the committee 

members we ought to have a more simplified and efficient system, 

because there often we wait while the clerks literally run around 

and hand out the amendment. We are debating it, and then it is 

agreed to or rejected because we know what is coming in this process. Wouldn’t it be great if it popped up on your screen, you are 

able to see how it integrates into the statute? 

The Oregon legislature, oftentimes in committee we could see 

how the statute was being amended. So you could actually read the 

statute as you went. Now, I am not a lawyer, but you could read 

the statute as it went, and then you could kind of question, well, 

how does this read then if it says this here? And you get a better 

understanding and better feel for it as opposed to debating the concept. 

We are into the weeds a little deeper. I don’t know if that addresses your question, but that is what we should look at getting 

into. 

Mr. HONDA. That is a great question because in Appropriations, 

you know, I will see—I will replace 100 million with 179 million. 

I want to know, is that good for me or is that bad for me? 

Mr. NUGENT. Right. 

Mr. HONDA. And electronically, you can get that quickly. Or if I 

have a question, you really need to get the answer quickly, because 

the committee moves forward sometimes very quickly, and you 

need to get a response to make the right decision in voting. 

But having said that, to put the master piece together, the master copies together, whether it is electronic or not, someone has to 

input all that first. And so if we save 32 percent and expend 68 

percent on staffing at the committee level, that is still a savings. 

But we still have to remember that someone has got to put the initial input while we make amendments on the bill. 

But I think that there is always a way, if we look at it and study 

it. So I think that this is a very good process that we are going 

through. 

As far as being a sheriff, when I did ride-alongs I had a mountain area, and the sheriff’s office—this is back in the early 1990s— 

and the sheriff’s office up in the hills, he had a CB radio, a shortwave, and then cell phones. And he had two cell phones because 

of the way communication was done. But with the proper repeating 

stations and access to information at headquarters, they can get 

their job done quickly, and either act as a law enforcement agent 

or a counselor at the site. 

So I think that it all has benefits. But I think we have to look 

at, you know, what is the bottom line that we have to look at, and 

then factor in the extra costs or how many jobs we will be saving 

and things like that. So it is a worthwhile effort that we are in. 

Mr. WALDEN. Could I add one other thing? Because we are focused on sort of calendars and Records and indexes and things of 

the House. Let’s not forget in many pieces of legislation we demand 

of agencies that they report to the Congress. And until that is removed, they report to Congress. And I know in the past there have 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

17 

been efforts to look at whether those reports are needed, how they 

are produced. Some of them used to be really glossy, glitzy, expensive, four-color, slick paper. 

And I think as a Congress, on a regular basis we should be reviewing a compendium of the reports that we require and asking 

ourselves, are they still necessary? Has the purpose been served? 

And can we eliminate them? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentlewoman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Just a quick follow-up on that. That is a really 

good opportunity for digital reporting. And sometimes a picture—— 

Mr. WALDEN. There you go. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Says more than 50 pages. But digital 

photography is available. So I think that that is something that we 

really ought to utilize the process to expand. I thank the chairman. 

Mr. GINGREY. That concludes our questioning for the first panel. 

I would like to thank Congressman Walden, Congressman Honda, 

for your generosity of your time and willingness to take questions 

from the members of the subcommittee. And we thank you for that. 

We will now dismiss the first panel and ask the second panel to 

come to the table to be seated. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HONDA. It has been enlightening to me. And I just want to 

leave the last message that GPO will do what the House of Representatives and the Senate together will be directing them. Again, 

I thank you for this opportunity. 

Mr. WALDEN. And I will try to get your lawn mowed again, sir, 

soon. 

Mr. GINGREY. Please do. Thank you, Congressmen. 

I would like now to introduce our second panel of witnesses. Mr. 

Thomas Bruce is the co-founder and director of the Legal Information Institute, a research and publication endeavor of the Cornell 

Law School. The Legal Information Institute’s mission is to facilitate public access to legal information through the application of 

technical and editorial innovation. The LII was the first legal information site on the Web, offering Supreme Court opinions in 1992, 

and a full U.S. Code in 1994. It developed the first XML version 

of the Code in the year 2000—and for those that don’t know, XML 

stands for extensible markup language—and will this year release 

a full edition of the Code of Federal Regulations developed in collaboration with the Office of the Federal Register and the United 

States Government Printing Office. 

Mr. Bruce was educated at Yale College and the Yale School of 

Drama, and has been, among many other honors, a senior international fellow at the University of Melbourne School of Law in 

Australia. 

The second witness on the second panel is Mr. Kent 

Cunningham. Mr. Cunningham is the chief technology officer for 

the Microsoft Corporation. He has been in the field of information 

and communication technologies for over 20 years, and has worked 

directly with vendors and the standards bodies through nearly 

every phase of the evolving communications market. He is currently a business development manager for Microsoft in the Apmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

18 

plied Innovation Group. In this role, he is responsible for defining 

go-to-market strategies and product development roadmaps, as influenced by and tailored to meet public sector customer needs. 

Mr. Cunningham holds a bachelor of science in electrical engineering and communications from ITT Technical College. He has 

an MBA in business strategy and leadership from New York Institute of Technology Old Westbury, and an MBA in business strategy 

from Carnegie Mellon University. 

Our last witness of the second panel is Mr. Morgan Reed. Mr. 

Reed is the executive director at the Association for Competitive 

Technology. ACT is an international grassroots advocacy and education organization representing more than 3,000 small and midsize IT firms from around the world. Mr. Reed is a widely sought 

technology expert, with a background in software development, 

having contributed to several open source projects. He also specializes in issues relating to patents, copyrights, and intellectual property in the digital age. 

Mr. Reed studied political science at Arizona State University. 

He did graduate research at the University of Utah and in Taiwan. 

STATEMENTS OF THOMAS BRUCE, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE AND 

DIRECTOR AT LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE, CORNELL 

LAW SCHOOL; KENT CUNNINGHAM, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY ADVISOR, U.S. PUBLIC SECTOR, MICROSOFT CORPORATION; 

AND MORGAN REED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION 

FOR COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGY 

Mr. GINGREY. This panel has a wealth of knowledge and experience, and we thank each of you for being here today. The committee has received your written testimony. I will recognize each 

of you for 5 minutes to present a summary of that submission. 

To help keep the time, as you heard with the first panel, we have 

a timing device near the witness table. The device will emit a green 

light for 4 minutes, and it will turn yellow when 1 minute remains. 

When the light turns red, it means your time has expired. 

We will start with the testimony of Mr. Bruce. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS BRUCE 

Mr. BRUCE. Thank you, Chairman Gingrey, Ranking Member 

Lofgren, members of the committee. I would like to thank you for 

inviting me to appear today and for giving such a nice recitation 

of our corporate resume. I would add to that that we continue to 

work with government on a number of projects, including one currently with the Library of Congress to rethink some of the model 

underpinnings of both the THOMAS and the LIS systems. 

Last year, our Web site served more than 14 million unique individuals, with over 71 million page views of legal information. 

Roughly 22 percent of our referred traffic comes to us from government Web sites; notably, the IRS. 

Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor have already 

voiced support for new electronic data standards at the House, including especially the creation of documents in open, machine-readable format such as XML. 

Today I would like to say a little about the implications of that 

strategy, and sketch the shape and size of its benefits. I would also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

19 

urge you to consider some specific ways to make it happen. The 

manner of its implementation will strongly affect its usefulness to 

the Congress and to the American people. 

The use of open standards to create interoperable, accessible legislative information creates four main benefits: 

First, it can make the internal work of Congress faster and easier. Many have spoken about that already. 

Second, by reengineering the document lifecycle, it can reduce 

the costs of congressional work. 

Third, it can make the work of Congress easier to find and understand. Now, usually when we talk about that kind of threshold 

lowering, we talk about transparency. That is often a code phrase 

for public accountability, which is certainly a noble goal. But transparency has another meaning: opening legislative data to questions 

asked for business and professional purposes. For example, data 

about the legislative activity that creates and surrounds the Tax 

Code is as much a predictor for the business climate as the weather data provided by NOAA is for the climate itself. And that predictive value is used to plan business strategy and activities at all 

scale of business. When primary legislative data meets this huge 

public need, it stimulates and shapes business activity at all levels. 

That in turn creates a marketplace for information products and 

services where editorial and technical innovation can be rewarded. 

Finally, the use of open standards can help technical communities inside and outside government to carry these three aims further by making new products and services. 

What is needed to make this happen? Well, first we need to clean 

and open up the data. The data provided under any modernization 

initiative should meet a short list of requirements. It should be 

clean and consistent. It should be compliant with open, well-documented standards such as XML. It should be clear as to its authority. It should be available in bulk through well-documented access 

methods and APIs. Most of all, it should be timely. 

Right now, if you are using the systems that government provides to the public, it is very difficult even to work out what the 

current state of the law is. This morning the LII’s U.S. Code updating feature shows that 988 changes have been made to the Tax 

Code since the last electronic release of a full title update by the 

Office of the Law Revision Counsel. It can be as much as 18 

months out of date, depending upon where we are in the revision 

cycle, and what has happened in between, and various other accidents of the calendar. We can reach these goals by implementing 

standards and creating partnerships. 

First, the House needs to create a model or models for legislative 

data and metadata, one that embraces the entire legislative 

lifecycle. That effort can usefully draw on several similar undertakings now underway. It needs to be aimed at both the modernization of systems and work flows inside the House, and at the free 

provision of high-quality, open, interoperable bulk data to outside 

innovators and markets. 

The specifications for that project might best be created by an 

advisory group drawn from government, the technology and legal 

publishing sectors, and the legal information science and engineering community. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

20 

The second need is for an appropriate framework in which to foster public-private partnerships designed to make use of such data. 

Remarkable things are possible when data is carefully leveraged to 

promote both efficiencies and services through collaboration between inside and outside stakeholders. Collaborative projects make 

the most sense when they are aimed at particular constituencies 

affected by defined categories of legislation. That implies that the 

best results will be achieved by chartering multiple small projects 

based upon public-private partnerships. Development of a suitable 

framework for chartering such projects will be critical. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Bruce follows:] 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

21 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 49 here 67667A.003
22 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 50 here 67667A.004
23 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 51 here 67667A.005
24 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 52 here 67667A.006
25 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 53 here 67667A.007
26 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 54 here 67667A.008
27 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 55 here 67667A.009
28 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 56 here 67667A.010
29 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 57 here 67667A.011
30 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 58 here 67667A.012
31 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 59 here 67667A.013
32 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 60 here 67667A.014
33 

Mr. GINGREY. We now go to Mr. Cunningham. 

STATEMENT OF KENT CUNNINGHAM 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Chairman Gingrey, Ranking Member Lofgren, 

and members of the subcommittee, my name is Kent Cunningham. 

I am the chief technology officer for Microsoft’s Federal Civilian 

and Healthcare Group. 

I appreciate today’s opportunity to share Microsoft’s views on 

how the House can modernize information delivery, improve productivity, and reduce paper throughout the legislative process. 

The first thing that I would like to openly acknowledge is that 

technology does not solve problems. People and processes solve 

problems. And before any workplace can become truly productive, 

we have to engage the right people and craft the optimal processes 

which we will utilize to reach our collective goals. 

During this past year, I have responded to countless government 

RFPs, edited numerous public documents for Microsoft, and most 

recently collaborated to produce my first House testimony, all without highlighting, retyping, or even printing a single document until 

this one that I hold in my hand today. 

Perhaps of additional interest is that, thanks to the technology 

advancements which I will share with you today, I have also been 

able do all of this while living in Nashville, Tennessee, working almost exclusively remotely from Microsoft’s headquarters and my 

geographically dispersed teammates. 

Through the use of centralized collaboration platforms, my coworkers, partners, and I routinely collaborate to create confidential 

documentation from different corners of the country, all while 

working simultaneously from various devices, operating systems, 

and platforms. 

I firmly believe that the House can also achieve great productivity gains through the use of these tools, while reducing costs and 

ensuring confidentiality. As we all know, the House is inherently 

a collaborative body. Collaboration, relationships in the House 

often evolve based on particular interests or issues. This means 

that who you work with on one project may very well not be who 

you are working with on another project. And this is why confidentiality and access controls must be integral components of any system that the House adopts. Today’s collaboration platforms can 

easily accommodate these scenarios. 

And in the next few moments, I would like to highlight four specific ways in which the House could benefit from a more modern 

and collaborative IT environment. 

First, the House could quickly expand upon its existing IT systems by providing unified access to real-time collaboration mechanisms such as user presence, instant messaging, and even real-time 

voice and video conferencing for the House Members and staff. 

These tools deliver the capabilities to quickly determine who is 

available for an immediate conversation and what might be the 

best way to engage them for a given scenario. 

Second, the House could deploy technology to improve the creation and sharing of digital information. Web-based document coauthoring could be utilized to develop and refine legislation across 

multiple authors, offices, and computing platforms in real time. If 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

34 

this information were then downloaded and shared electronically 

via e-mail, permissions can be assigned to the document itself 

which controls who can view, edit, or modify the content, or even 

who can copy it, paste it, and forward it to others. 

Third, the House could implement enhanced search features to 

enable faster access to more contextual decision-making. For example, the House directory could be published in a searchable electronic format which makes it easy to discover which offices and individuals are working on a particular issue, or find someone who 

has expertise on a particular topic, or even perhaps build a mailing 

list of all LAs who cover a particular issue for Members of a State 

delegation, committee, or party. 

Finally, the House could increase productivity by empowering 

people to work effectively regardless of where they are, whether 

they are in the office or on the go. In fact, many Members of the 

House are commonly adopting a broad range of exciting new devices and applications to connect with each other already. 

However, many of these tools were designed primarily to meet 

the day-to-day needs of consumers, and not the special needs of a 

government institution, where security, reliability, and trust are 

paramount. As the House considers how to best modernize its IT 

system, it should keep in mind three important challenges. 

First is security. The House routinely deals with sensitive or confidential information that must remain protected and secure. 

Second is document fidelity. Unless the electronic system can ensure document fidelity, information or features that are embedded 

within the document could be lost while documents traverse various files and platforms. For example, imagine if a watermark, including the information that named a document as confidential, 

were lost in this process. 

Third is interoperability. For the House to obtain full value from 

its information technology investments, the various applications, 

devices, and platforms used by Members must be able to access 

and utilize this information easily. 

In conclusion, I am happy to report that the House has already 

laid the foundation for this framework with many of its existing infrastructure investments. My written testimony details specific 

measures that the House is well positioned to implement over the 

next 18 months. These include Web-enabled document collaboration; shared online work spaces; an electronic directory; presence 

features to enable real-time instant messaging, video chat, application sharing, and even group teleconferencing; and finally, federation for agency communications. 

Again, on behalf of Microsoft, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. 

[The statement of Mr. Cunningham follows:] 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

35 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 66 here 67667A.015
36 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 67 here 67667A.016
37 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 68 here 67667A.017
38 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 69 here 67667A.018
39 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 70 here 67667A.019
40 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 71 here 67667A.020
41 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 72 here 67667A.021
42 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 73 here 67667A.022
43 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 74 here 67667A.023
44 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 75 here 67667A.024
45 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 76 here 67667A.025
46 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 77 here 67667A.026
47 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 78 here 67667A.027
48 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 79 here 67667A.028
49 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 80 here 67667A.029
50 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 81 here 67667A.030
51 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 82 here 67667A.031
52 

Mr. GINGREY. We will now call on Mr. Reed for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MORGAN REED 

Mr. REED. I am going to make sure I eat my own dog food here. 

I am using a nonpaper version today. 

Chairman Gingrey, Ranking Member Lofgren, and distinguished 

members of the committee, I am the executive director of the Association for Competitive Technology, or ACT, and we are an advocacy and education organization for people who write software programs, we refer to them as application developers, and providers 

of information technology services. We represent over 3,000 smalland mid-sized IT firms throughout the world, and advocate for public policies that help our members leverage their intellectual assets, 

raise capital, create jobs, and innovate. 

In discussing this hearing with committee staff, the question was 

posed whether the House could conduct official business, especially 

hearings, using modern technology rather than the traditional 

binder, folder, or sheaf of looseleaf paper. Could committee members use a Windows tablet, an iPad or a Kindle during a markup 

or a hearing in the absence of paper? The answer is, of course. But 

this isn’t really the whole question. 

Instead, the larger question to answer is how can the House use 

technology that is transformative to the way that Members of Congress do the work of representing their constituents? And ‘‘transformative’’ may seem like a broad term, but we witnessed two different transformative events in the last 13 to 15 years. The Blackberry. Every Member of Congress’ thumbs is a powerful part of 

their hand now, and the Internet itself. 

So rather than spend 5 minutes of my time on acronyms and statistics, I thought I would look at a couple day-in-the-life examples 

of a Member of Congress. So let’s look at the typical Thursday 

afternoon after last votes. Members are hurrying to the airport, 

staff has prepared documents for them, and they hand them on 

their way to the airport something that might look like that. Now, 

of course every Member of Congress would rather not get on the 

airplane with this, and rather have a device, say this thick, to go 

with them. But just translating paper into electronic form isn’t 

really transformative, other than to your chiropractic bill. 

But you know what is transformative is, let’s say in here is a 

GAO report that you wanted to take a look at on the plane flight 

home. Instead of looking at it here, you open it up in an app. Let’s 

look at one called iAnnotate. It is a PDF. You open it up. And instead of just reading it and trying to type notes in your Blackberry 

while you read it on your electronic device balanced in your coach 

seat, you actually can edit it with your fingertip right as you travel. 

You know, you see a question here in the report, so you highlight 

it with your finger. And you know, you are not sure where this 

goes, so you send a note and you mark it red so that Ted, your legislative director, can see it when it gets back to the office. And you 

know, you have got some graphics and notes that you think you 

should do when the next report comes out. And the beauty of this 

is when you land, this copy, this container of this information, is 

automatically synched up with your office back in the district. And 

so Ted, your LD, can look at all the questions in red and answer 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

53 

them in blue so that when you open this document up again, you 

can not only see the questions you asked, you can see the answers. 

Let’s look at another one, the hearing. We all know that in front 

of you is folders and looseleaf binders and information that has 

been put in place. But we also know what happens when a vote 

happens. Let’s say you are in another committee and there is a 

markup. Well, it would be really nice for you to go to that next 

markup and still keep track of what is going on in the hearing you 

just left. 

Well, with TVEyes, for example, which is not even an app—this 

is a Web-based program that runs on Windows tablets and iPhones 

and even Blackberry devices—you can see what is going on and 

have an actual video image of what is going on in the hearing. 

But you know, that probably bothers your colleagues. So instead, 

real-time transcript. You know, maybe this witness, maybe he said 

something you weren’t sure about, and you want to ask him a follow-up question. Highlight it with your finger, click e-mail and 

transcript, and the staff who is still in the committee hearing can 

see the question you asked. And when you show back up, you have 

got a follow-up question ready, with the supporting documentation 

attached. 

This is happening now. This can be done. But I think it is very 

critical to look at what my colleague here, Mr. Cunningham, has 

talked about, which is the ability to provide all of this information 

with an infrastructure that is enterprise-ready and secure. 

Because I will give you another example. Let’s step it up a game. 

Let’s say that Member on the Thursday trip that you went back 

for the district work period, your first stop was actually at an event 

for your constituents. And there are five members that are going 

to be there, five people from your district who are going to be there, 

that have had contact with your district office. Imagine if you can 

walk in, know who they are, know who talked to them in your office, the status of their request, and change from those times when 

you have always had to say, ‘‘We will get back to you’’ to saying, 

‘‘We are here for you now.’’ 

I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Reed. 

[The statement of Mr. Reed follows:] 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

54 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 88 here 67667A.032
55 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 89 here 67667A.033
56 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 90 here 67667A.034
57 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 91 here 67667A.035
58 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 92 here 67667A.036
59 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 93 here 67667A.037
60 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 94 here 67667A.038
61 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 95 here 67667A.039
62 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 96 here 67667A.040
63 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 97 here 67667A.041
64 

Mr. GINGREY. And I thank all three of the witnesses. We now 

have time for committee members to ask questions of the three witnesses. Each member is allotted 5 minutes to question you. We 

help each member to track the time as well, where we use the timing device on the witness table. We will alternate back and forth 

between the majority and the minority. And I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. 

I am going to direct my first question to Mr. Bruce. I will ask 

each of you a question. Try to keep your answers brief, I have only 

got 5 minutes, because I have one last question that I would like 

to maybe get a comment from all three of you. 

First question, Mr. Bruce. Give one example of how technology 

can increase practical transparency. That is not a trick question. 

You might refer to Mr. Reed’s posters. But in regard to this idea 

of improving our technology and going digital just as practically as 

we can, transparency of course is a huge goal, as you know. And 

we are always looking for an opportunity to make sure that things 

are transparent in a bipartisan way and for our constituents. So 

that is why I asked that question. 

You know, let me move to this. In your testimony you talk about 

how the Congressional Record Daily Digest is sometimes too detailed, and other times not detailed enough. How could users get 

just the right amount of information? 

Mr. BRUCE. Okay. Well, if we reconceived the Congressional 

Daily Digest as a document that is linked out to other information 

rather than existing in itself, it could be in its root form, the form 

that is transmitted to you, a much more compacted document, from 

which you could then click through to detail on any matter—voting, 

for example—for which you wanted detail, rather than having to 

read through it page by page. The idea is to create summaries that 

are linked out to broader bases of data that are of interest to the 

user. And you can only obviously do that in digital form. 

If you have ever worked with newspaper reporters, you know 

they use AP pyramidal style. This is AP pyramidal style created 

electronically. You start with the small lead and link out to greater 

and greater levels of detail as the user requires. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you. 

Mr. Cunningham, we all read about hackers and data being compromised. What is Microsoft—what is your company doing to make 

information more secure? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, sir, first the foundational component, 

Mr. Chairman, to any collaboration environment is a shared work 

space. And those shared work spaces must have controls placed 

upon them to provide access to the people—for the people to have 

access to those documents, the people that are working with you 

on any specific project. The controls are placed into the system to 

give us capabilities to determine who has accessed the document, 

who has modified what documents. 

Interestingly, we are in a similar business, in that we are in the 

intellectual property business. So these controls are very important 

to us as well. And at the same time, we use a technology called information rights management, which then says if I distribute that 

electronically via e-mail, I have controls available that restrict who 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

65 

can open the e-mail, who can forward the e-mail, who can edit that, 

who can forward that on to others. 

So from every step, the security actually is part of the document, 

part of the content itself, where we are validating who accesses it, 

the network style they are accessing it across, and what they are 

trying to do with that content. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. 

Mr. Reed, this is a similar question, but more pertaining to your 

testimony in regard to mobile devices. And by the way, I think the 

last thing you mentioned, I don’t know if I can hold this up and 

show you, but we can actually look at this monitor and tell whether 

or not you shaved this morning. We also can follow our other committees. And that is a very good point that you brought up. 

But my question is security is, of course, a hugely important 

issue. Mr. Cunningham touched on that. How can data on these 

mobile applications be protected? 

Mr. REED. Well, I actually think that part of it is understanding 

how our mobile devices actually work with the kind of enterprisegrade infrastructure that Mr. Cunningham’s company is creating. 

We actually rely on them to provide a lot of the backbone infrastructure for how we then contact a product that the House has 

created. We tie into it, we make a request for the information, and 

that information is given to us and is securitized by the House and 

its enterprise-grade infrastructure, given to us. We then display it. 

And the real question is to make sure that our mobile devices don’t 

create new kinds of information silos. 

So it will be very critical that as the House decides on rules, how 

my mobile devices might interact with your enterprise infrastructure, that you establish good rules for our behavior as well as for 

the behavior of the enterprise-grade stuff on the back end. 

So I think that the first answer to the question is you start with 

security by design and that you recognize that although Congressman Walden’s point about small business behavior was critical, 

that the House is at the enterprise level, and not strictly like a 

small business with only eight employees, and that we need to respect that and build with that in mind. 

Mr. GINGREY. I see my time has expired, so I won’t ask that last 

question of all three of you. I will go ahead and defer to my colleague from California, Ms. Lofgren, for her 5 minutes of questioning. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will be relatively 

quick. I know votes are coming up soon. I think this testimony has 

been very helpful. And I do appreciate each of the witnesses as well 

as our colleagues who preceded you. 

Listening to you and Mr. Reed, it was so fun to look at your exhibits, and I think we all want them. I am mindful that Members 

of Congress are elected by their constituents for a lot of reasons, 

and rarely is it because of their capacity to be technically proficient. So we are going to be able to move forward as an institution 

only so far as we can move our colleagues along. And I know, I am 

not going to mention any names, some of our colleagues who are 

quite intimidated by technology. I would say it is a minority at this 

point, but they have just as much right as those of us who like 

technology to participate in the legislative process. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

66 

So a component of this has to be dealing with the people themselves. And if we can’t get people to use it, we are not going to be 

able to move there. I just think it is important, before our colleagues start talking to us about this, that we say that and we understand and know that. 

That goes also to some extent for the population itself. I mean 

about a quarter of the American population does not currently have 

adequate access to the Internet. And they have just as much right 

as Americans to know about what is going on in their government 

as the people who do have access to the Internet. 

Now, we are making big strides, and we want to deploy 

broadband, and certainly rural areas are most disadvantaged, but 

there are inner-city areas as well, but I am mindful that that element of our society needs to be included. 

As we move forward, I am thinking about not just those issues, 

but also some principles that need to be adopted. We need to have 

open source. We need to have interoperable. We need to have security. And understanding the security most—I don’t want to say 

that—what can we say that are not classified? People are our weak 

link in cybersecurity. That goes back to my initial statement, which 

is not every Member or staffer is necessarily understanding the 

systems that they are using. And that poses challenges to our cybersecurity environment. 

So I am wondering in view of your testimony, which is really welcome, to aggressively move forward, how do you incorporate these 

issues that I have just outlined? Or do you think I have got them 

wrong? 

Mr. BRUCE. If I may, I think that the digital divide problem that 

you are mentioning, first of all, the 23 percent number that you 

mentioned is heavily skewed, as we know, both toward the elderly 

and toward lower-income households. And it may well be that the 

information needs of those people and those households are equally 

definable. 

It seems that that might separate out into two different classes 

of problem. One are areas where as a matter of public policy we 

want to have some sort of universal service mandate, things that 

we want to just make generally available to people probably 

through intermediaries. 

Then there is also the need for targeted programs that gets specific kind of information to specific populations that may be Internet-disadvantaged. Public libraries do a great deal along those 

lines. 

Now, what doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me is to imagine 

that the minimal number of printed copies that we are now requiring to be generated as a statutory matter are going to reach a population of 300 million people. I don’t think they do. But as long as 

we have digital information available, there is the possibility of localized print on demand, which I think holds a lot of promise for 

the sorts of problems you are discussing. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Ms. Lofgren, if I could add as well, I spent 

several years as a technical trainer myself. And when you work for 

a company such as Microsoft, you quickly learn how many of your 

friends are a little bit technically adept as well, and family members, and those who are not. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

67 

One of the things that we have learned is that versus presenting 

people with countless interfaces and applications, if you can create 

some fashion of a standard tool, a standard platform, a standard 

interface using these open standards that you mentioned, but not 

present them with a different interface and a different tool every 

time they need information to do their job, they will proceed much 

faster. 

The last thing I would like to mention is we certainly participate 

and collaborate and leverage a lot of open source at Microsoft as 

well. But I would like to mention and just toss out that you can 

certainly be open source but be closed platform. And that is certainly not what we want. Interoperability is key to success in this 

model. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Reed, did you want to comment quickly, 

please? 

Mr. REED. Just quickly, I would say that in my written testimony 

I talk about equity by design. And I think that addresses what the 

Congressman has gone to. And I want to echo what Mr. 

Cunningham said. I think that the design should be goals-based 

rather than technology-based. And this is for terms like ‘‘open 

source,’’ which has a broad meaning. 

Last but not least, I say that we have to remember that what 

I am doing here and what our folks are doing here is the tail, and 

not the dog. So we need to remember that the tail can’t wag the 

dog here, the business of the House needs to be the first and primary focus, and that we will provide that which makes it better. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you. And now we will turn to Mr. Nugent 

for his questions. 

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Cunningham, one of the questions, in particularly some of the districts that do not have broadband availability, 

how would we operate within that confine? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. For those who do not have broadband that are 

within the House themselves, but have access to the infrastructure 

while they are here—I heard earlier about a wireless network— 

there are tools which will give you the capability to provide realtime synchronization of documents and applications while you are 

here within the facility, even if you don’t know you need that document. Maybe you are working on three projects, you are on multiple committees; all of that information would be updated on your 

device before you go back to the rural suburbs where I live, for example, and maybe don’t have that type of access. So the information would be there when you want it on that device. And it can 

actually be very slowly streamed in the background from the device. 

If you do go back to your house, your location, and then need to 

access or even update a very large document, that can be done as 

a background process while you are still continuing to use your 

computer for other tools. 

Mr. NUGENT. To Mr. Reed, every day I receive a stack of correspondence that I have to read and then also change. The staff 

writes a response, and then I will change it. So I was quite intrigued by the iAnnotate ability, particularly if I had an iPad, 

which I don’t. I think you heard that, right? Because it was always 

a question. You know, when you have that hard copy, I can sit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

68 

there and scratch through it, make a note. And I was unaware of 

iAnnotate. Is that commercially available? I mean is that a—— 

Mr. REED. Yes. In fact, not to plug one specific product, because 

we have got a lot of folks who do similar stuff, but iAnnotate is actually a product that has been customized for some city councils 

and some locations for exactly this purpose. I mean, it obviously relies on the ability to securitize the data on the back end. But as 

far as your ability to do exactly what I showed you, I am happy 

to come into your office and give you a demo, because it is pretty 

cool stuff. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Can I touch on that one just for a second, sir? 

Mr. NUGENT. Yes. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Very similar controls also exist natively in the 

Microsoft Word products, to be able to annotate, do the yellow 

markup and the red markup, as was mentioned earlier; be able to 

determine who is simultaneously editing a document; look to see 

who those editors are; read all the revisions. 

So there are also in many cases, as have been discussed here 

today, opportunities to leverage tools which the House already has 

and already has deployed to do these types of things. 

Mr. NUGENT. As the ranking member had mentioned before, we 

all have different skills when it comes to technology. The more 

complicated, it won’t be used. If it is simple for somebody like me 

to utilize it, then it is more likely to be utilized. But if it is complicated, it just makes it much more difficult. So the seamlessness 

of it obviously is hugely important to the end user. 

I know one issue on security, I am still—I am always concerned 

about security and how do we utilize that to make sure that the 

documents that we are working on do not get corrupted? And how 

do we know at the end of the day—I know watermarks—how do 

we know at the end of the day that is the correct document that 

we worked on? I mean what are the security features? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. So there are absolutely—there are versioning 

features that you can use in the various products. We can go back 

to a previous version of a document if you would like to. But at the 

end of the day the real question becomes: Are we using open standards as we transfer that document from one device to another? 

So as I was creating this testimony today, actually I used a tool 

which is available on multiple platforms. That tool uses standardsbased such as XML and Open XML, which were mentioned here 

earlier today, to make sure that as I edit that from my iPad, my 

cell phone, my Windows PC, that document fidelity is maintained. 

And it is making sure that we rely on those types of standards and 

controls to make sure that we do not have document fidelity issues. 

Mr. REED. I would say that I actually did exactly what he said. 

So I wrote it in Word on a PC, and then I translated it—I sent it 

over via Dropbox to my iPad, which is an Apple product from a different company, and it is open and it shows docx at the end. So 

I am using an open standard to move it between multiple platforms, multiple devices, and through the cloud. So exactly your 

question, I am doing it right here right now. 

Mr. NUGENT. That was always a concern when you get into 

closed systems, we are held hostage in regards to cost. So we certainly want whatever we do need to be on open platform. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

69 

Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Nugent. 

I would like to now enter two documents into the hearing record. 

The first is a statement from Chairman Dreier of the Rules Committee. 

The second is a statement from Chairman Hastings of the Natural Resources Committee. 

Hearing no objection to that, so ordered. 

[The statement of Mr. Dreier follows:] 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

70 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 111 here 67667A.042
71 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 112 here 67667A.043
72 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 113 here 67667A.044
73 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 114 here 67667A.045
74 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 115 here 67667A.046
75 

[The statement of Mr. Hastings of Washington follows:] 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

76 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 117 here 67667A.047
77 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 118 here 67667A.048
78 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 119 here 67667A.049
79 

Mr. GINGREY. The Government Printing Office has provided information that up to 70 percent of the costs of publications is creating the PDF file prior to printing the first copy. 

I would like to thank Chairman Dreier for submitting his statement that describes the work of the Rules Committee to automate 

its markup processes. This approach shows great benefit for the 

Rules Committee, and we should examine how we can apply this 

approach more generally in the House of Representatives. 

And I also would like to thank Chairman Hastings for his statement describing the practical steps the Natural Resources Committee uses to reduce the cost of producing hearings. Committees 

should consider how to apply these lessons. And I appreciate the 

unanimous consent to include these two statements in the record. 

I want to finally, of course, thank all of the witnesses on the second panel, and for the members of the Oversight Subcommittee of 

the Committee on House Administration for their participation as 

well. 

I think this has been a very, very good hearing, with a lot of useful information. Be sure and leave your business cards behind and 

your e-mail so we can contact you. We may very well want all three 

of you in our respective offices to learn how to better use some of 

this technology. 

But, again, the purpose of the hearing is once again to look for 

ways that we can in a very practical manner save money for the 

taxpayer in regard to the Government Printing Office. As I said in 

my earlier remarks, wonderful men and women, Federal employees, many of whom have spent their entire careers, as do other 

Federal employees in the many agencies, over 60 of the Federal 

Government. But we have to—we have to as an obligation to the 

taxpayer, to our constituents, when we are sitting on $14.3 trillion 

worth of debt, long-term debt, not accumulated overnight of course, 

several administrations have their fingerprints on that—and Congresses I should say—but it is time to stop. I mean we can’t continue to spend 40 percent more than we take in in revenue. So that 

is really what this is all about. And I appreciate the bipartisan 

spirit of cooperation and testimony. And we are going to look for 

best practices and make sure that we don’t throw the baby out 

with the bath water. I just had to use that expression. As an OB/ 

GYN for 31 years, I like that one. 

Thank you all very much. This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

80 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 122 67667A.050
81 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 123 67667A.051
82 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 124 67667A.052
83 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 125 67667A.053
84 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 126 67667A.054
85 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 127 67667A.055
86 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 128 67667A.056
87 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 129/200 67667A.057