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

58–490 PDF 2010

THE CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE 

SAFETY: SAFETY CONCERNS AND 

FUTURE PLANS 

(111–141) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

September 30, 2010 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chair 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

VACANCY 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Ayers, Hon. Stephen T., Architect of the Capitol .................................................. 4 

Burger, Megan, Member, CVC Employees Union Organizing Committee, 

AFSCME Local 658 .............................................................................................. 12 

Chrisler, Tamara E., Executive Director, Office of Compliance, accompanied 

by Peter Eveleth, General Counsel, Office of Compliance ................................ 6 

Loversidge, Robert Jr., President & Chief Executive Officer, Schooley 

Caldwell Associates .............................................................................................. 8 

Reed, Wallace Jr., President, American Federation of State, County, and 

Municipal Employees ........................................................................................... 10 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Ayers, Hon. Stephen T. ........................................................................................... 33 

Burger, Megan ......................................................................................................... 42 

Chrisler, Tamara E. ................................................................................................. 50 

Loversidge, Robert Jr. ............................................................................................. 56 

Reed, Wallace Jr. ..................................................................................................... 65 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 58490.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 58490.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 58490.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 58490.004
(1) 

THE CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE: SAFETY 

CONCERNS AND FUTURE PLANS 

Thursday, September 30, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:09 p.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. The hearing will come to order. I am very pleased 

to welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony. 

This Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the Architect of the Capitol, the Capital program, and of course, we can engage in oversight 

generally concerning the AOC. Today, the Subcommittee will examine the fiscal year 2009 State of the Congressional Workplace report produced by the Office of Compliance and its relationship to 

the AOC’s infrastructure plan. 

The OCC was created by the Congressional Accountability Act of 

1995, which was passed through the Congress, and its auxiliary 

agencies generally follow the same employment labor accessibility 

and safety laws that apply to the private and public sectors. The 

Congressional Accountability Act applies to the employees of the 

House of Representatives, the Senate, the Congressional Budget 

Office, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, the Office of the 

Attending Physician, the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services, the United States Capitol Police, the General Accountability 

Office, and the Library of Congress, covering an estimated 30,000 

employees. Section 215(e) of the Congressional Accountability Act 

requires the OOC to inspect the facilities of the agencies under its 

jurisdiction for compliance with occupational safety and health 

standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act at least 

once each Congress. 

On July 13, 2010, the OOC released its fiscal year 2009 annual 

report, State of the Congressional Workplace. The fiscal year 2009 

annual report covers 96 percent of the 17 million square feet of 

space occupied by the Congress and other legislative branch facilities in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area. The United States 

Capitol Complex has a long and storied history, and includes the 

House office buildings, the Capitol, the Senate office buildings, the 

Library of Congress the Supreme Court Building, the Botanical 

Gardens, the Capitol Power Plant, and other buildings. Construction of the Capitol began in 1793, and extensions, additions and 

2 

renovations of the Capitol have continued in the late 18th century 

until now, when the Capitol Visitor Center, or CVC, the most recent addition to the Capitol, opened in 2008. 

Today the Capitol Complex encompasses over 450 acres and 

houses several important institutions in the American government. 

With several of the buildings approaching 100 years of age, the 

care, condition and safety of the buildings of the Capitol Complex 

are important concerns for this Subcommittee. 

In addition to being symbols of democracy, these buildings also 

house the working offices of America’s elected officials, the House 

of Representatives and the Senate, the Library of Congress and 

other public servants. The fiscal year 2009 annual report documents compliance with occupational safety health standards for the 

110th Congress, and provides projections for the number of hazards 

in the 111th Congress. 

The report indicates there are 9,200 hazards in the Congressional workplace, there were 9,200 in the Congressional workplace, 

during the 110th Congress, which represented a 30 percent reduction from 109th Congress during which 13,140 hazards were identified. The Rayburn House Office Building had the highest number 

of safety and health hazards, followed by the James Madison Memorial Building and the Longworth House Office Building. 

The OOC projects that the 111th Congress will have 6,300 hazards representing a 50 percent drop since 2006. We will take a 

hard look at the long-term plan to maintain the safety and accessibility of the Capitol Complex. 

Going forward with long-term capital asset planning, we will examine some of the measures that the AOC and the OCC are taking 

to ensure that legislative branch employees and the millions of visitors to the Capitol Complex are not exposed to harm unnecessarily, 

and further, that these offices are conducting or identifying requisite training or establishing safety practices and procedures for 

Congressional employees and visitors. 

Although there has been a significant drop in hazards since the 

108th Congress, there are still significant risks to the health and 

safety of visitors and employees in the Capitol Complex. It is our 

understanding that a recent Blue Ribbon Panel convened by the 

AOC produced a final report about some of the more serious hazards on the Senate side, and that will inform how the Architect addresses similar fire issues in the Capitol and in the Cannon Office 

Building. 

The OOC report detailed serious safety violations from open 

stairwells in the Russell Senate Office Building that could create 

a dangerous smoke tunnel, perhaps preventing people from escaping if the building caught fire, or sustained explosive attacks going 

all the way to the Jefferson Building which lacks adequate exit 

stairwells. 

We want to be sure that the AOC has the plans and tools to cope 

with the challenge of modernizing the Capitol Complex consistent 

with its status as a national historic landmark. 

With the recent completion of the new 580,000 square feet of the 

Capitol Visitor Center, many issues are presented such as assuring 

that the Capitol Complex is accessible for Americans with disabilVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58490.TXT JEAN
3 

ities and that there are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent a 

fire from becoming a major calamity. 

We want to partner with the office of the AOC and OOC, with 

both of those offices, so that our Subcommittee can draw upon this 

Subcommittee’s own long, collective expertise in construction management and long-term capital asset planning to ensure that the 

U.S. Capitol Complex remains an iconic masterpiece. 

We also are concerned about issues I detailed in a letter dated 

August 18, 2010, concerning emergency preparedness and response 

training for CVC or Capitol Visitor Center workers. Their working 

conditions, employee benefits, including the possible loss of benefits, as well as reports of the CVC forbids employee contact with 

Members of Congress. 

In addition, CVC employees allegedly were instructed to flush 

the contents of a bag of white powder labeled ‘‘anthrax’’ down a toilet instead of alerting U.S. Capitol Police of its discovery. It is also 

alleged that CVC employees are subject to harmful working conditions, including uniforms inappropriate for outdoor work in summer and winter months and limitations on water consumption. 

These allegations are serious, and we expect to hear from both parties about how these issues are being resolved. 

I look forward to the testimony of officials from the Architect of 

the Capitol, the Office of Compliance, the American Institute of Architects and union officials to ensure that the U.S. Capitol Complex 

remains safe and accessible as a workplace. 

We were instructed, Mr. Ranking Member, to go ahead and that 

you would be here momentarily and, voila, you are, so I am pleased 

to ask the Ranking Member if he has any opening comments. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I will be 

brief and as usual, you and I on issues of this Subcommittee work 

very closely and I appreciate this wonderful working relationship. 

I want to thank as you did the distinguished panel for being here 

today. And really the only thing that I just want to add is obviously 

when we are talking about the Congressional workplace, the safety 

of the Congressional workplace, we have to be reminded that there 

are millions of people that go through this complex and thousands 

that work here, whether it is members of staff and others and obviously, and those of us Members of Congress, so it is not just us, 

it is also for the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of visitors. 

And I want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for putting together this hearing and for bringing together a very distinguished 

group of panelists. And I look forward to hearing from them on an 

issue that is obviously of great importance to all of us and to the 

millions of people who visit this complex. Thank you, Madam 

Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Diaz-Balart. Now let us 

proceed to the witnesses, and I will simply introduce them as they 

are called to speak. 

4 

STATEMENTS OF HON. STEPHEN T. AYERS, ARCHITECT OF 

THE CAPITOL; TAMARA E. CHRISLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE, ACCOMPANIED BY PETER 

EVELETH, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE; 

ROBERT LOVERSIDGE, JR., PRESIDENT & CEO, SCHOOLEY 

CALDWELL ASSOCIATES; WALLACE REED, JR., PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES; MEGAN BURGER, MEMBER, CVC EMPLOYEES UNION ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFSCME LOCAL 658 

Ms. NORTON. The first witness is the Architect of the Capitol, 

Stephen T. Ayers, was nominated by President Obama, confirmed 

by unanimous consent of the Senate in May of this year, and 

served in the Office of the Architect of the Capitol since 1997, was, 

prior to that, an architect working with the Voice of America both 

here and in Greece, licensed as an architect in the State of California. Welcome, Mr. Ayers. We will hear your testimony at this 

time. Would you summarize it. 

Mr. AYERS. Madam Chair and Congressman Diaz-Balart, thank 

you for inviting me here today to discuss the Architect of the Capitol’s commitment to provide a safe and healthy environment for all 

who work here and the millions of people that visit each year. With 

Congress’ support, very significant investments have been made to 

improve fire and life-safety systems in the Congressional office 

buildings. As a result, the buildings on Capitol Hill are safer today 

than ever, as evidenced by a 60 percent reduction in identified hazards since the 109th Congress. 

We are very pleased with this progress, particularly because the 

amount of square footage of facilities that we maintain significantly 

increased over the same period of time. 

While the Office of Compliance is still conducting its inspections 

of the 111th Congress, as of last week, they have identified 1,785 

findings attributable to the Architect of the Capitol. Of these 1,785 

today, we have closed 82 percent of these findings and nearly 18 

percent of them were closed during the inspections themselves. 

Along with these efforts, we have also made substantial physical 

improvements into the Capitol’s infrastructure to enhance safety. 

Since 2007, the Congress has invested more than $200 million in 

fire, life and occupational safety projects. These improvements include the extensive installation of smoke detection and fire sprinkler systems throughout our buildings. While we have made great 

progress improving safety at Congressional facilities, we realized 

that there is still work to do. Of the 1,785 Office of Compliance 

findings I mentioned earlier, the remaining 8 percent will require 

substantial time and significant resources to resolve. To address 

these, between fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2015, we plan to request more than $300 million in citation-related work and an additional $300 million in additional fire and life-safety projects to include deferred maintenance and capital renewal projects. 

Although every project we have identified is prioritized and necessary, we realize not all can be funded nor will be funded in these 

fiscally challenging times. To assist us in this prioritization effort, 

we have successfully developed and implemented a robust and balanced process to prioritize projects based on facilities’ conditions 

5 

and the level of maintenance required to ensure they remain functional and viable working environments for the Congress. 

This process uses several tools in the formulation of the project 

prioritization list, including facility condition assessments, the Capitol Complex Master Plan and its jurisdiction plans. 

Over the past year, this process has matured to include a 5-year 

capital improvements plan which examines phasing opportunities, 

project sequencing and other factors to best facilitate the timing 

and execution of major deferred maintenance and capital renewal 

projects. Tied into this overall planning process is the line item 

construction process, and during this process projects are scored 

against six criteria. These include safety and regulatory compliance, security, mission, historic preservation, economics, and energy efficiency and environmental quality. The component that provides us and the Congress with the big picture, the 20-year look 

ahead to cue up the priorities investments and projects, is the Capitol Complex Master Plan, and we have been working with the 

Congress to develop this plan and its related jurisdiction plans. 

The Master Plan assumes incremental decision making, leaving 

choices about future renewal and development to be made closer to 

the anticipated time when these decisions must be made. Essentially, master planning provides the Congress with the wholistic vision, or a blueprint, for facility-related decision making. 

The master plan and the other prioritization tools we have developed and refined over the past few years provide Congress with 

concrete, practical assessments of our infrastructure. And by using 

these tools, Congress can choose best where to make investments 

in the Capitol campus. 

Madam Chair, the level of safety and accessibility across the 

campus has never been higher and continues to improve as we 

work to complete enhancements and repairs to the facilities and 

grounds. However, work remains to be done, and we know that 

constant vigilance is required. We know our safety responsibilities 

are twofold, to provide safe facilities for all occupants and visitors 

and to provide a safe work environment for our workforce. 

And to address this second responsibility specifically, we continue to invest in our employees by providing them with the right 

tools, equipment and training to ensure they work in a safe and 

productive environment. With a 76 percent reduction in our injury 

and illness rate over the last 10 years, this places us among the 

best in the Federal Government for worker safety. 

We will continue to work with our oversight committees to address issues in a planned matter that is fiscally responsible, efficient, effective and protective of those who work and visit our 

buildings as well as maintain and protects the unique architectural 

features of these historic and iconic buildings and grounds. 

We appreciate this Subcommittee’s continued interest and support, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Ayers. 

The next witness is the executive director of the Office of Compliance, Tamara Chrisler, appointed to a 5-year term, January 2008, 

had served as a labor and employment attorney for the Federal Bureau of Prisons representing the interests of the government as 

well as administrative agencies in claims brought by employees beVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58490.TXT JEAN
6 

fore the Federal Court. Prior to this appointment, she was the 

OOC’s general counsel. 

Ms. Chrisler. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you, Madam Chairman, good afternoon 

and good afternoon, Congressman Diaz-Balart. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today concerning the Office of Compliance in 

our role in concerning safety and health, accessibility and workplace rights in the legislative branch. With me at the witness table 

to your right is Peter Eveleth general counsel of our office. Mr. 

Eveleth has statutory responsibility over safety, health and accessibility issues in the Office of Compliance, and he has joined me to 

answer any questions you may have today. 

As you mentioned when you opened the hearing, Madam Chair, 

the Office of Compliance’s most recent annual report summarizes 

the work we do with respect to workplace rights as well as safety 

and health. Most of our workplace rights efforts are performed 

quietly as the CAAmandates confidentiality while addressing these 

issues administratively. Our other areas of focus, however, are 

typically addressed more openly, like our work in safety and 

health, which includes conducting biennial inspections and responding to requests for inspection. Although our 111th Congress 

inspection has not been completed, as you mentioned, our annual 

report projected a 50 percent reduction in hazards from the 109th 

Congress inspection which was our original baseline inspection. 

This reduction is due in part to the commendable efforts of the Architect of the Capitol’s Office and other employing offices which are 

constantly working on the abatement of hazards. 

Technical assistance provided by our agency has also played a 

significant role in improving safety and health on the Hill. For instance, at the request of Congress, we conducted a comprehensive 

preinspection of the CVC before it opened in December, 2008. Because the facility was not yet occupied, remedying the identified deficiencies was more efficient, and in some instances, less expensive 

than had we waited until after it opened. 

We work closely with the AOC staff throughout this process to 

ensure that the CVC could open on time, free from safety hazards, 

and fully accessible to visitors, Members and employees with disabilities. 

We are pleased to report that all occupational health and safety 

hazards identified during this 2008 preinspection have now been 

abated. Most accessibility barriers to individuals have been removed, and the AOC is continuing to work on resolving the remainder. 

Notwithstanding, we believe some of the most significant hazards 

currently in the community are the most serious and longstanding 

fire and life safety hazards in most of our historic and iconic buildings on Capitol Hill, including the House and Senate Office Buildings, the Capitol and the Library of Congress buildings. While 

much progress has been made in increasing the level of fire safety 

in some buildings, substantial critical work remains to be undertaken. We understand and appreciate that the AOC has limited 

budgetary resources, and not all hazards can be abated overnight. 

Until the hazards can be permanently remedied, the Architect 

has instituted important interim measures to provide additional 

7 

fire safety. The AOC installed new smoke detectors and sprinklers 

within several legislative branch facilities, and we understand that 

the AOC intends to provide complete smoke detection capability in 

all legislative branch facilities. 

Separate and apart from the fire hazards, another high risk area 

is the Capitol Power Plant utility tunnels. As you know, there exists a 5-year plan to abate the hazards entirely. A great deal of 

progress has been made, thanks to the resources provided by Congress as well as the cooperative efforts of AOC staff and our OOC 

tunnels liaison. Assuming sufficient funding, that project is ontrack 

for complete and timely abatement in 2012. 

In the coming Congress, the Office of Compliance is undertaking 

a new risk-based approach to our biennial inspections to target and 

devote our inspector resources to potentially high hazard and high 

accessibility barrier areas across campus. 

First we intend to preinspect new or significantly renovated 

buildings, such as the Cannon building, which will be undergoing 

major upgrades. As we found with the CVC, we expect that identifying and correcting hazards and barriers to access before the 

building is occupied will be more efficient and in at least some instances less expensive. Second, we will also target our biennial inspection at the most dangerous workplaces and occupations. We 

are targeting these activities because now that we have completed 

three comprehensive inspections of the legislative branch, we believe it appropriate to concentrate on the highest risks. 

We intend to review compliance with selected safety and health 

procedures and programs, like fall protection, hazard communication, and lockout tag-out programs. 

During the current Congress, we have offered and provided technical assistance to employing offices in reviewing their program. 

Third, we intend to concentrate our efforts on ensuring complete 

and timely abatement by employing offices of high risk hazards, 

identified in current and previous biennial inspections. 

Finally, our cooperative work with the AOC extends to accessibility barriers in the legislative branch. 

During our biennial inspection in the next Congress, we look forward to working with the AOC to determine where the most serious barriers are present so that projects can be undertaken in priority order. 

Cost effectiveness remains a vital issue for us in our regular biennial inspections during this time of severe budget constraints. 

We know that by preventing or quickly remedying hazards can 

save workers’ lives and limbs, but it saves money too. Every workplace injury that doesn’t happen means thousands of dollars in savings on worker’s compensation, medical bills, lost productivity and 

overtime payments just to name a few. 

Indeed, between 2001 and 2007, the Library of Congress 

achieved an estimated $11 million in injury cost avoidance through 

its injury prevention efforts, hence our motto, ‘‘safety pays.’’ 

On behalf of the Office of Compliance and its board of directors, 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

this afternoon to discuss these very important issues. I, along with 

Mr. Eveleth, look forward to answering any questions you may 

have. 

8 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Ms. Chrisler. You hadn’t 

been the general counsel, you simply brought the general counsel 

with you in case there are questions. We don’t think there will be 

questions for the general counsel. The questions will be for you. If 

necessary, we will hear questions from someone else. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. The next witness is the President and CEO of 

Schooley Caldwell associates, Robert Loversidge, Jr. He is a practicing architect, an expert in the field of historic preservation, restoration and innovation. Mr. Loversidge has experience working 

with historic buildings in a number of States. I welcome him to 

offer his testimony at this time. 

Mr. LOVERSIDGE. Chairman Norton, Ranking Member DiazBalart, thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding safety, 

accessibility and historic preservation in our Nation’s Capitol. I am 

here at the behest of the American Institute of Architects, which 

has been the leading professional membership association for licensed architects since 1857. At my firm, I have had the great fortune to work at four State capitals, the Supreme Court in Ohio and 

numerous Federal, State and local courthouses, all historic buildings with characteristics and issues similar to those at the national 

Capitol Complex. 

These historic buildings were completed long before modern life 

safety codes, OSHA regulations, electronic technologies and access 

for people with disabilities were part of our architectural vocabulary. Many were built before air conditioning, elevators, automobiles, computers, iPods, the internet, and even restrooms. Nevertheless as you mentioned Madam Chair in your opening remarks, 

these buildings are important, as iconic symbols of the function and 

permanence of our government, as workplaces for government employees and visitors, and as sources for national, State and local 

civic pride. 

When Ohio’s National Historic Landmark Statehouse was designed in 1838, it contained all of State government in 53 rooms. 

When we began our master plan in 1988, the same space was occupied by 317 rooms. I don’t have to show you photographs to show 

you what the before conditions were like. 

Today, after completion of an award winning restoration, renovation and addition project, the Ohio Statehouse serves as a model 

capitol for the future. It has been sensitively restored. While President Lincoln would recognize the building he visited in 1861 as 

President-elect, the building is fully sprinklered and life safety 

code-compliant, it is fully accessible to people with disabilities, it 

has the most comprehensive closed-circuit television Internet 

streaming and communication system designed to date by Sony. 

It has state-of-the-art energy efficient heating and cooling systems. And it has all of the functionality of a modern State capitol 

building, hearing rooms, gathering spaces adequate staff workspaces, museum and visitors facilities, security systems and so 

forth. 

From an architectural point of view, the issues that you are 

studying regarding workplace safety and accessibility boil down to 

two related topics, life safety code compliance, and access for people 

with disabilities. Although the code books are very extensive and 

9 

complex, the most difficult problems we encountered in monumental buildings are, one, providing adequate and safe means of 

egress, two, fire separation, and, three, smoke control. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act celebrated its 20th anniversary this year. We have always taken the position that all functional spaces in a public building should be made accessible to as 

many people with as many disabilities as possible. In our 170-year 

old Statehouse, I set a personal design goal of making all of the 

spaces accessible, and we made it once we finally figured out how 

to insert a wheelchair lift into the corner of a small public gallery 

in the House chamber. One technique we found particularly helpful 

is to assemble a committee of people with a variety of disabilities 

to advise us during the design phase and to test the final result 

afterwards. 

The bottom line here is that we do not believe that architectural 

accessibility, full functionality, and historic preservation are mutually exclusive. 

One key to a great project is to make 100-year design decisions. 

While all of the equipment that we place into our buildings may 

not last that long, we try to place ductwork, piping, conduit, runs 

in places where they will seem appropriate decades later. For example, in our State capitol, we have 4- to 6-foot thick solid stone 

interior walls and brick groin vaulted ceilings, no place to hide 

ductwork or air handling equipment. Our solution was to carve 

pathways into the masonry walls for ducts but to place the fans in 

a basement plinth area where they can be easily replaced when 

they become obsolete. 

All of this works better, of course, if there is a long-range vision 

or master plan for the facility. A master plan allows stakeholders 

and designers to collaborate regarding priorities phasing and budget issues and it gives the legislative body a clear path forward to 

accurately anticipate funding needs. The master plan also provides 

a basis for communication so the building occupants can stay informed and have realistic expectations. 

At the Minnesota capital where we are currently restoring the 

second largest marble dome in the world, the construction manager 

issues a weekly electronic update to everyone. 

In Utah, we had the great luxury of having the entire building 

to work on at once. It was a seismic reinforcement project, and we 

simply couldn’t do it in an occupied building, so the State built two 

new adjacent buildings for expansion space and the occupants had 

to move there temporarily. 

While vacating the entire building rarely works because of lack 

of equivalent alternate facilities successful phasing of projects by 

area can work. We did this successfully in Ohio and Kansas. Critical things to consider are phasing the to respect life safety requirements and phasing to allow continuous operations of building systems like electricity, heating and air conditioning and fire alarms. 

Finally, I would like to address the biggest challenge to the success of these projects, which is, frankly, not architectural engineering designability, but rather creating the political will to succeed. 

The Capitol is a working essential government building occupied by 

important people who have issues other than facility modernization 

on their minds. 

10 

I have to tell you the most successful projects to improve the 

workplace are the direct result of strong consensus-based political 

will. I don’t know exactly how this consensus can be accomplished 

here in Washington, D.C., but I can tell you that it is important 

part of all successful historic preservation master plan and renovation projects. 

One of our most insightful clients, the late Chief Justice of the 

Supreme Court of Ohio, Thomas J. Moyer, advised us over and over 

during the design of the Ohio Judicial Center, to design for the institution, not for its current occupants. 

One more quick story about political will. I distinctly remember 

telling Ohio Governor, now Senator George Voinovich, as he was 

moving out of his Statehouse office ahead of our renovation that he 

would have to be reelected in order to move back. He won reelection at the time with 72 percent of the vote. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Committee for its hard 

work in addressing these complex issues and I look forward to answering any questions the Committee may have. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you Mr. Loversidge. 

Wallace Reed, Jr., is President of the American Federation of 

State County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, local 626. 

Mr. Reed has worked at the Botanic Gardens for 21 years, and is 

the president of AFSCME 626 since 2005. 

Welcome, Mr. Reed. 

Mr. REED. Thank you very much Madam Chairwoman, Mr. 

Ranking Member, for the opportunity to speak today. I want to 

concentrate on two sections of the Office of Compliance 2009 annual report, the State of Health and Safety and the State of Workplace Rights. 

I want to applaud Mr. Ayers. Under his leadership there has 

been an improvement in the state of health and safety since I 

started working in 1989. There has been and continues to be an 

emphasis on workplace safety. The preinspection processes have 

been very successful and some AOC jurisdictions have very 

proactive safety committees. In my opinion, the average AOC employee is much more safety conscious than they were 5 years ago. 

In the Botanic Garden, for example, safety is discussed on a regular basis and discussed intently. However, recently there have 

been reports that have funneled to me of employees being discouraged from reporting workplace injuries or accidents because it 

might jeopardize a group workplace safety award. There have been 

other reports that employees are being threatened with discipline 

during safety regulations. I hope these reports are isolated incidents and not a new trend. The union does not want a potential 

award to be an incentive not to report accidents or health and safety violations. 

The 2009 Office of Compliance fiscal year 2009 report points out 

that approximately 25 percent of the hazards were listed as RAC 

1 or RAC 2 hazards, meaning high risk hazards. These hazards left 

unabated can pose a serious danger for lawmakers, visitors and 

employees. It is worth pointing out that even though there has 

been a substantial reduction in the number of hazards found in the 

Congressional workplace, the high risk hazards continue to be 

about 25 percent each year. The union would like to work with 

11 

AOC management to determine where these high risk hazards continue at such a high percentage rate and explore different ways to 

reduce these high risk hazards. 

I would also like to comment on three recommendations put forth 

in the December 2008 section 102(b), subsection II, Safety and 

Health Compliance Tools. Specifically, there are three recommendations, there is recommendation 1, to provide investigative 

subpoena authority for OSHA claims; recommendation 2 would require safety and health record-keeping; and recommendation 3, 

allow the Office of Compliance to protect employees from retaliation for reporting OSHA violations. 

All three of these recommendations are very important to the 

union, but I am especially interested in allowing the Office of Compliance to protect employees from retaliation for reporting OSHA 

violations. AOC employees want the same protections and rights 

that have been extended to the private sector and the executive 

branch. We do not want to be treated like second class Federal employees. Without these protections, the lowest graded and the lowest paid AOC employees can be left to shoulder the financial burden of litigating reprisal charges without the support of the general 

counsel’s investigative process. 

As president of the local, I have personal experience where many 

cases stalled in mediation because, in my opinion, the AOC knows 

the employee bringing the charges will have the financial burden 

and expense to hire an attorney if they want to investigate and 

pursue a retaliation claim after mediation ends. This lack of protection has a chilling effect on the number of valid cases of retaliation 

AOC employees might be able to bring to light and resolve. Most 

of the employees do not have the resources to pursue their claims 

after mediation ends. 

I also would like under workplace rights to applaud two major 

employment laws passed by the Congress in fiscal year 2009, the 

one broadening the Family and Medical Leave Act to extend rights 

and protection for covered military members. We can never do too 

much for the brave men and women of the Armed Forces who protect our freedoms. We also applaud the law banning genetic information discrimination that was made applicable to the CAA. We in 

the Congressional workplace want the same protections as private 

and other public sector employees enjoy. 

The union also urges Congress to approve the regulations adopted by the Office of Compliance board of directors that would grant 

Congressional employees all the statutory rights of the Veterans 

Employment Opportunities Act of 1998. 

Finally, the union would ask that Congress please review and reconsider all provisions of Federal law, including regulations relating to terms and conditions of employment including hiring, promotion, demotion, termination, salary, wages, overtime, compensation, benefits, work assignments, reassignments, grievance and disciplinary procedures, protection from discrimination in personal actions, occupational health and safety and family and medical and 

other leave of employees pertaining to the Congressional workplace 

to determine if the laws and regulations that, at one time, were determined to be inapplicable to the legislative branch can now be 

made applicable. 

12 

In closing, I would like to thank Madam Chairwoman and the 

Ranking Member, Mr. Diaz-Balart for this opportunity. I would be 

happy to answer any questions at this time. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Reed. 

Megan Burger is a member of AFSCME Local 658, Council 26 of 

the CVC Employees Union Organizing Committee. The employees 

of the CVC have this month voted to unionize and to join the 

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, 

Local 658. 

Welcome, Ms. Burger. 

Ms. BURGER. Thank you Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Ranking 

Member, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Megan 

Burger, and I am the president of AFSCME Local 658 on Capitol 

Hill. 

I represent 138 people who work as tour guides and visitor assistants at the Capitol, who, as you say, just voted with a 93 percent voter turnout to allow AFSCME to represent them. On their 

behalf, I thank you for providing us this opportunity to testify. I 

would also like to mention that I have a colleague here to help answer questions if needed. 

I am here to provide information on issues concerning safety in 

our workplace, a subject that was raised in the Chairwoman’s letter to the Architect in mid August. I have provided a written statement to the Subcommittee that addresses a range of issues in some 

detail, which I will summarize today. 

Before proceeding, I would like to make clear that none of these 

issues affect the high level of safety and security that the Visitor 

Center affords to official business and tourists on a daily basis. The 

safety record of the CVC is outstanding, due to the expert experience and watchfulness of the guides, visitors’ assistance and Capitol Police. 

Guides and VAs have a close working relationship with the police 

going all the way back to the first officially appointed guides who 

were actually a part of the Capitol Police’s workforce in 1876. We 

are proud to be told by the USCP that they rely upon our experience to help them identify potential problems before trouble can 

begin. Our guides have worked alongside Capitol Police through 

harrowing events in the past such as the attack on their officers 

in 1998, the 9/11 evacuation and the anthrax crisis of 2001. 

Year after year, each of us shepherds hundreds of guests every 

day safely through the Capitol adapting to hazards and disrupting 

as they arise. When we say ‘‘visitor safety,’’ we know what we are 

talking about. 

In June of 2010, there was an incident in the CVC Exhibition 

Hall that I am sure the Members are aware of. One of our VAs discovered a clear plastic bag containing white powder and labeled anthrax. Following the established procedure for discovery of suspicious items, the VA radioed a member of Visitor Services Management asking for a manager to come immediately to his location 

and suggesting the manager should bring the USCP as well. The 

manager elected to don gloves and dispose of the bag in a restroom 

toilet. 

As parts of these facts appeared in newspapers, some readers asserted to reporters that the incident revealed a lack of training on 

13 

the part of VAs and guides. This frankly stings a little bit, since 

the VA did his job perfectly, and no guide was involved in the incident at all. 

Far more important than our injured pride is the fact that the 

incident was indeed a symptom of a deeper problem. There have 

been others, managers not responding to emergency radio calls, 

managers directing fire doors to be propped open, managers not 

giving attending physician’s teams enough information to find injured persons in the CVC, and groups of seniors left to feel their 

way off theater stairs in the dark. 

On many occasions over the past 22 months, VAs and guides 

have recognized these and similar hazards, responded to them, and 

maintained visitor safety. Unfortunately, all the reported conditions to their managers, the conditions went uncorrected. We now 

believe this was due to a problem with the focus of our new management team. 

As background, let me explain that starting in 1970, a board consisting of both Sergeant at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol 

directed the Capitol Guide Service. Internal management was very 

simple and focused entirely on being good hosts and leaving the 

right impressions with visitors. A senior guide at a central radio 

operations post ran the whole organization, and it was very 

straightforward and successful. 

In November, 2008, to facilitate CVC operation, the guide service 

and the board were dissolved. The previous head of the guides had 

retired and a 3-tier visitor services office in the CVC composed of 

12 people replaced him. In the CVC direction over the radio was 

conducted ad hoc by many or all of the 12 managers. Soon thereafter, we began to notice many managers being called off the radio 

net to attend meetings or training or to take care of administrative 

and logical tasks. 

At times there would be no manager response on the radio at all, 

even to urgent calls. We also noticed manager follow-up on safety 

and other concerns became increasingly sporadic and was finally 

replaced with a barrier of denial. 

The managers team focus seemed to shift away from the members need for good hosts to care for their visitors toward something 

else. I am happy to report that since mid August, we have noticed 

some positive signs following Mr. Ayers’ appointment, and the organizational adjustments within the CVC. With considerable help 

from AFSCME, we have succeeded in establishing our new local, 

and we are pleased to see our managers addressing one change 

after another as days tick down to the locals official certification. 

We now believe our managers are fully engaged and making 

progress in these areas. 

We hope these steps signal a return to focusing on being good 

hosts and preserving safety for the Members’ guests. 

There remains a catalogue of concerns listed in my written statement, which I hope may be considered an unfortunate legacy from 

a period that has now passed. The guides and VAs as AFSCME 

658 stand ready to team with our managers to get this done. We 

know that we already share with them a love of country and a passion for sharing its story with the Members’ constituents and visitors from around the world. 

14 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Ms. Burger. Let me begin 

with Ms. Chrisler. 

Ms. Chrisler, how would you characterize the AOC’s performance, let’s say, in the last 2 years during this Congress in evading 

hazards, fair, good, poor, excellent? Choose one of those. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Well, given the list that I have been provided by 

you, I would choose excellent. The work that the Architect of the 

Capitol and our office have done collaboratively has been, I think, 

one of the largest, outside of the efforts of the Members’ offices and 

other employing offices, the largest factor in the success of the reduction of the hazards—— 

Ms. NORTON. What has been the largest factor, please? 

Ms. CHRISLER. The collaborative efforts of the Office of Compliance and the Architect of the Capitol’s office, so the work that the 

AOC has done with our cooperative efforts has been the largest factor, I believe, in the reduction of the hazards. I would like to share 

with you that the—— 

Ms. NORTON. What kind of work is that? Do you advise the AOC 

directly after your report is issued or before your report is issued? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Right. Let me start by saying, Madam Chairwoman, that the Congressional Accountability Act is very specific 

in the distinction of work that is done within the Office of Compliance. We have a safety and health component, as you are well 

aware, and that authority is given with the specification to our 

general counsel. And that is why Mr. Eveleth sits at the table with 

me today. As the executive director, of course, I do oversee all of 

the programs under the Congressional Accountability Act. 

However, our general counsel is specifically authorized under the 

Congressional Accountability Act to address these issues and he 

works with the Architect of the Capitol’s office on a day-to-day 

basis on these specific issues. And I would welcome the opportunity 

to allow him to share some of his vast knowledge in this area with 

you as well. 

With your approval—— 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Ayers, how often are visitors injured in the 

Capitol Complex? 

Mr. AYERS. I am sorry, Madam Chair could you repeat the question? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, how often are visitors injured in the Capitol 

Complex? 

Mr. AYERS. I think the question is how often are visitors injured 

in the Capitol Complex. I don’t know that we have, anyone has 

overarching statistics on the number of visitors that are injured. 

What I do see is a number of tort claims per year. So if someone 

falls and is injured, they may submit a tort claim. 

Ms. NORTON. How many such claims? 

Mr. AYERS. I would say there are less than 10 a year. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, don’t you think that there should be—let me 

ask the entire panel whether there should be safety and health 

record-keeping in the Capitol Complex the way we have it in the 

private sector? 

Mr. AYERS. Well, from my perspective, the Architect has been 

keeping records on injuries and illnesses, near mishaps for over 10 

15 

years. We have an extensive, and I would call, OSHA-compliant 

record keeping program. 

Ms. NORTON. You just said you didn’t have any record of for example visitors injured in the Capitol Complex. Now you just say 

you have been keeping a record of injuries in the Capitol Complex. 

Mr. AYERS. I am speaking of record-keeping for employees under 

my supervision, 2,600 employees that are AOC employees we 

have—— 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, well, so you know about employees being injured, but if some of my constituents come in here, you don’t know 

anything about their being injured. 

Mr. AYERS. I don’t. I think the Capitol Police may keep such 

records if they call the police. 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Chrisler, who should keep such records? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Madam Chairwoman, as it has been testified 

today, one of the recommendations in our annual, I am sorry, our 

Congressional Report under section 102(b) of the Congressional Accountability Act includes recommendations from our board of directors with respect to record-keeping provisions. That requirement is 

not a requirement under the Congressional Accountability Act for 

agencies to keep such records, records of workplace injuries. 

Our board of directors has made the recommendation, although 

there are some agencies that do keep records of these instances. It 

is not a requirement. All agencies don’t, and as the Congressional 

Accountability Act is written now, none of the agency—— 

Ms. NORTON. I know that, Ms. Chrisler. You recommend that 

records be kept of all injuries whether employees, visitors, et 

cetera, is that right? 

Ms. CHRISLER. The recommendation as it has been reported, I believe, is for employees, injuries of employees. 

Ms. NORTON. So how is how is the AOC going to comply with the 

standards of workplace safety and prevent—sorry, prevent the tort 

claims if we don’t even know, have no record of injuries of visitors, 

but only of our own employees? 

How many visitors—Mr. Ayers, how many visitors come to the, 

let’s say the Capitol alone? 

Mr. AYERS. I would say approximately 2–1/2 million per year. 

Ms. NORTON. So that is 2–1/2 million right there. I am not even 

talking about the Supreme Court, Library of Congress and the rest 

of those. So we could have, for all you know, dozens of injuries of 

visitors, and all you know is whether we get sued whether somebody has the prescience to go and find a lawyer. 

What kind of after-the-fact approach to preventing accidents is 

that? 

And Ms. Chrisler, you say you don’t even recommend that we 

keep a record of injuries of visitors as well as employees? 

Ms. CHRISLER. That is not part of the recommendation, Madam 

Chairwoman—— 

Ms. NORTON. Suppose somebody falls victim of one of the hazards 

you yourself discovered, but that victim is a visitor, and not an employee? Shouldn’t that visitor’s hazard or accident be as reportable 

as if that very same accident had involved an employee? 

16 

Ms. CHRISLER. As the Congressional Accountability Act applies 

the Occupational Safety and Health Act to the legislative branch, 

the OSHA Act itself does not speak—— 

Ms. NORTON. Of course, you say apply the OSHA safety—so you 

said even that doesn’t apply. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Right. The board of directors of the Office of Compliance can only make recommendations for record-keeping provisions for what the Congressional Accountability Act covers. 

Ms. NORTON. I don’t agree with you at all. 

I had an occasion to look very closely, and was very impressed 

with the very substantial powers you have. Now, how is Congress 

going to know that there is an issue if OOC doesn’t tell the Congress? Your statute certainly allows you to recommend to Congress 

that it may want to look at or to consider at least knowing whether 

or not our own constituents get hurt in the Capitol complex. 

Ms. CHRISLER. The OSHA law itself, Madam Chairwoman—— 

Ms. NORTON. I understand precisely what the OSHA law does. 

I am myself a lawyer just like you. 

Sorry, I conceded that we were talking that you wanted at least 

OSHA law to be applied. 

I am now speaking as a Member of Congress. There are 440 of 

us in the House and 100 of us in the Senate. I assure you that 

more people come to this House who are our constituents than are 

employees of the House or Senate. 

I am now trying to imagine what would happen if there were a 

major accident involving, let us say, a number of visitors. And then 

the press would run forward to say, well, how many visitors get injured? So I am asking you, and I certainly believe your statute allows you to make recommendations—— 

Ms. CHRISLER. That is absolutely right. 

Ms. NORTON. —whether you would look into, since, apparently, 

you have confined yourself, I understand that, to OSHA, whether 

you would consider alerting the Congress to the fact that we do not 

know how many visitors are injured here every year. And these 

visitors, I hasten to tell you, are more likely to be constituents of 

Members of Congress than they are of any other visitors. Yes, visitors come internationally; visitors come from around the world. But 

you can bet your bottom dollar that most of the visitors who come 

here are constituents. 

Now, if you want to see some Member of Congress get angry, 

let’s let a bunch of visitors from her district get hurt in the Capitol 

and let her propound a set of questions and hear what—don’t ask 

me about visitors; all I know is about employees. 

I am here saying that, if anything, we were very late in applying 

the laws that apply to everybody else to the Congress; I am suggesting that perhaps the Congress ought to consider going above 

and beyond when you consider who we are and who the visitors are 

likely to be. 

So I would ask you only, Ms. Chrisler, if you would consider looking into that issue and reporting to us in 30 days what your consideration would be. 

Ms. CHRISLER. I would be delighted to raise that with our board 

of directors. 

Ms. NORTON. I very much appreciate it. 

17 

Mr. Loversidge, I am an aficionado of historic preservation. After 

all, I represent the Nation’s Capital, which is full of historic buildings. I live in an historic house on Capitol Hill. I can’t do a thing 

to the facade, and I wouldn’t want to. 

But the whole District is protected. So I have some understanding of the importance of your work. I was interested in the 

part of your testimony that talked about, as you said, a great 

project means 100-year design decisions. What in the world is 100- 

year design? Does that mean that somebody sitting here now, as, 

for example, I am with respect to a new headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security, while it is going to be a state-ofthe-art building; 100 years from now, it might be there, because we 

are building it as a platinum building. Does that mean I ought to 

be thinking about that building 100 years hence, or what does that 

mean, please? 

Mr. LOVERSIDGE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

What I mean by that is that we should be looking at the long 

view when we select materials, when we design modifications to 

buildings. When you design a new Homeland Security building, we 

should be looking at building something that is a public investment 

over a very long period of time. 

But acknowledging that, a lot the things that we put into a 

building we know aren’t going to last a hundred years. We know 

the lights and some of the electronic equipment and so forth won’t 

last that long. But if we make long-term decisions, when we cut 

into the building, we are cutting into the building for a purpose 

and putting that hole in a place where we think we are going to 

be able to use it for a long time. The example that I used was duct 

work, for instance. We need large volumes to move large volumes 

of air around to air condition a space. We know the air conditioning 

equipment is not going to last a hundred years. But if we put that 

someplace where we can get to it and easily replace it, the pathway 

lasts a hundred years. It is that sort of thing. It is really taking 

care and thinking twice. Measure once, cut twice. 

Ms. NORTON. The way we ought to be thinking about energy, for 

example. What in the long term should we be doing? I don’t know 

whose testimony it was that said that the building that was most 

in violation was this building, Rayburn, and that second—third 

was Longworth. What was second? Do you recall? 

Mr. AYERS. The Madison Building, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. These are two of the newer buildings, Mr. 

Loversidge. We haven’t been thinking very far ahead when it came 

to those buildings. You would have expected violations and hazards—at least, I would have, speaking as a lay person—more in the 

likes of Cannon and the older buildings, the old Library, or yes, 

Longworth. Can you give me any insights on that? 

Mr. LOVERSIDGE. Madam Chair, I think we are coming out of a 

period of neglect with regards to these sorts of issues, energy to 

even life safety, and to long-term decisions. I think that after 

World War II, there was so much demand to build things; we found 

ways do them quicker and cheaper, and kind of not worry too much 

about tomorrow, let’s get it done for today. And I think that in the 

last decade or so, we are starting to come out of that. We are realizing our resources are limited. We are realizing that economic reVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58490.TXT JEAN
18 

sources are very limited, and that we better spend our money well 

and look for the future. 

So I think we are coming out of that. And I think some of these 

buildings you just mentioned are subject to that period when we 

didn’t have the civic pride and we didn’t worry so much about tomorrow. 

Ms. NORTON. Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. So it means, as 

we all suspect when we look at our older buildings, Library of Congress, Cannon and Longworth, that for a number of reasons, they 

are better built, were built with greater care. Does that make the 

upkeep of those buildings any easier, given the fact that these 

newer buildings are the ones that have the violations? 

Mr. LOVERSIDGE. I think if we invest in maintaining buildings, 

then they don’t cost more to maintain. The materials are permanent or more permanent sometimes, but we still have to watch over 

them; we have to plan for expenditures. And government I think 

is much better at building things than it is at maintaining them 

in terms of appropriations and so forth. 

Nobody likes to spend money on cleaning the plumbing out. But 

building a new building is kind of a dramatic thing to do. So it is 

very important that we look at the long term. Many of these violations, once they are resolved, can be resolved permanently. 

Ms. NORTON. Say that again. 

Mr. LOVERSIDGE. Many of the violations that we are talking 

about here, if they are building code violations and that sort of 

thing, once we have a mind to fix them, we can fix it in a permanent fashion, or at least in a long-range fashion. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Reed, it was disconcerting to hear about employees being discouraged from reporting workplace accidents on 

the one hand, and there seemed to be a whistleblower prize for reporting them on the other. Is that a conflict of interest that may— 

you say—I don’t know what the evidence is—but you say workers 

at least have told you that they are discouraged from reporting 

these incidents because of the prizes or awards. Are these awards 

given to individuals or to the workplace itself? 

Mr. REED. In some cases, it is both. In some cases, it appears 

that if there are no reportable accidents in a jurisdiction that a 

group of employees are given an award. And there are other instances where individual employees are given awards. 

Ms. NORTON. I hate to come out against awards, but do you see 

some inherent conflict because people are trying their best to be as 

best they can? 

Mr. REED. Absolutely. This morning I was talking with two of my 

stewards about this issue specifically, knowing that I was going to 

testify here. One of my stewards says, it is absolutely a conflict of 

interest. What we would like to see is some other program maybe 

instituted that would reward employees, yes, for safe work practices, but not at the expense of discouraging other employees for reporting workplace accidents that could impact—the point that was 

brought to me is if this accident isn’t reported or this violation isn’t 

reported, then someone else could also be injured because the violation was not reported. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, it is very dangerous. 

19 

Mr. REED. Exactly. Exactly. So yes, we do believe there is an inherent conflict of interest in using awards and safety in that kind 

of a context. 

Ms. NORTON. The best kind of whistleblower is the one who just 

gets up and says what they saw. And we have had great problems 

in this Congress just protecting those whistleblowers. And I am 

sure it was with great and good will that encouraged employees to 

get together and do the best they can, and working together, they 

will make a safer workplace. But if you measure what is most valuable to the workplace, it is certainly having someone say, ‘‘I see a 

problem here; let’s deal with it right away.’’ 

Mr. REED. I absolutely agree with you. We think the best program would be for maybe awards not to be used in this manner 

and employees applauded actually for reporting accidents. And the 

individual award maybe is more important than a zero-time-lost 

kind of an approach, or no reportable accidents in this kind of a 

period. I agree with you; the conflict of interest is apparent there. 

Ms. NORTON. Do you know whether is this notion about workplace safety awards throughout the Capitol Complex? 

Mr. REED. It happens in certain jurisdictions. In my particular 

jurisdiction, we do not have them, but I know in other jurisdictions—— 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Ayers, which jurisdictions have these awards? 

Is it at the initiation of particular workplaces or does your, for example, entire workplace have or not have these awards? 

Mr. AYERS. Madam Chair, we believe that an effective safety program and injury and illness reduction program requires both the 

carrot and the stick. And we have both of those in our policies and 

procedures. And if you look at our injury and illness rate, over 10 

years, it has dropped 76 percent. 

Ms. NORTON. The what, sir? 

Mr. AYERS. That tells me we are doing the right thing. 

Ms. NORTON. Your what? 

Mr. AYERS. Our injury and illness rate has dropped 76 percent 

over 10 years. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Ayers, that doesn’t tell me anything. 

Mr. AYERS. It is the number of employees that are hurt working 

on the job that has been reduced 76 percent in 10 years. 

Ms. NORTON. And I am pleased at that. But the notion that 

someone sees and prevents—yes, they are not injured. Few people 

are injured on the job. Congratulations. That doesn’t mean that 

there are not workplace hazards on the job. I mean, the correlation 

you assume is anything but exact. 

I don’t know why there are less reportable injuries. I don’t even 

know why there are less—I have no idea about whether employees 

would report these workplace hazards. 

So let me put my question again. Are these workplace safety 

awards characteristic of the AOC, the Office of the Architect of the 

Capitol? Do you have them in your various divisions? 

Mr. AYERS. We certainly award employees for safe work practices. Absolutely. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Individual employees or divisions? 

Mr. AYERS. Both. 

20 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Chrisler, I would ask the OOC to look at—and 

we will give you 6 months to do this—we use time frames in this 

Committee because, otherwise, you don’t get back timely reports. 

The conflict of interest we see and that some of the workers report 

through Mr. Reed perhaps does not play out given the fact that the 

employees get together. 

Given the pressure that—now, here is a union president who 

works for solidarity as his very livelihood, and yet he says that 

there is a conflict of interest, knowing full well that that may mean 

that a division among some employees may not get an award. I 

don’t know what it means to get an award. But if the union is willing to presume what I think would be the presumption of most people, then I would think that the issue would at least be worthy of 

investigation. 

We are interested in only one thing: up front reporting, up front 

vigilance, so that you can prevent accidents. I have never heard before of this whole notion of, as a group, let’s prevent them. First 

blush, I like that, because one worker can help another to know not 

to do that. 

But Mr. Reed testifies that the opposite is also the case; you can 

get pressure not to report. I don’t know if that was supervisors or 

if it was other workers. I presume it could be either. 

Mr. Reed, do you know whether it was either? 

Mr. REED. Very good observation. Yes, we believe it works from 

both sides, whether a comment dropped by a supervisor is meant 

to be relayed to the rest of the employees, or the employees themselves discouraging the injured employee from reporting because it 

could jeopardize the group award, per se. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, Ms. Chrisler, this testimony has special credibility because he is obviously testifying as a representative for 

whom, on the one hand, having a group award would be of some 

benefit. Obviously, it would be of some benefit for the individual 

worker as well. 

But the notion of assuming that something that is apparent 

throughout the workplace does not have a conflict of interest would 

bother us. So we will give you 6 months, and staff will write what 

that period means. You will get a letter within a week so that you 

can advise us on whether or not you think that these workplace 

safety awards—I can tell you that the Congress only deals with 

whistleblowers as individuals. We have just had—not with—when 

we have everybody else before us with all the agencies, huge discussions about whistleblowing. Never heard of this thing about the 

whole group. 

Just had a hearing on Metro here where the National Transportation Safety Board testified about practices, apparently, not in 

subways and rapid rail, but in all other forms of transportation 

where they have nonpunitive reporting. That is the best idea I 

have ever heard of. Nonpunitive reporting practices, which is a 

version of whistleblowing that may be at its very best. Where, 

without punishment, unless there is some deliberate violation, 

somebody with great malice or intention, you come forward and report the violation, even if it involves yourself. And we do that in 

common carriers. 

21 

As far as I am concerned, we ought to have the same kind of 

standards for the Capitol as we have for common carriers, because 

it would be a huge embarrassment to Members of Congress to have 

reports of mishaps, particularly of visitors here, not to mention our 

own staff. 

Ms. Chrisler, I am very pleased at what you report about the cooperation between your general counsel and Mr. Ayers. And such 

cooperation has been apparently very, very beneficial in producing 

this very impressive reduction in violations. Let me ask you about 

whether or not there is another potential conflict of interest here. 

Is the Architect of the Capitol the code official for the Capitol who 

can grant variances for strict codes and compliance in historic 

buildings and the like? Isn’t he his own code official? 

Ms. CHRISLER. The way that the Congressional Accountability 

Act is written, our board of directors acts as the entity who has the 

authority to grant variances. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, that is very good news. So he isn’t his own code 

official? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Not with respect to that. 

Ms. NORTON. At least as to granting variances. 

Ms. CHRISLER. That is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Have you at the AOC or your board of directors encountered any disagreement or areas of disagreement concerning 

what constitutes code compliance? Or if you do, how do you work 

them out? 

Ms. CHRISLER. We have monthly meetings at the Office of Compliance with the Office of the Architect of the Capitol to discuss a 

number—— 

Ms. NORTON. You have monthly meetings? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Have monthly meetings. And we have open discussions. When we find a violation, we notify the employing office 

of the violation. They have an opportunity to contest that finding. 

And we provide for open dialogue and communication. We work 

very collaboratively with the employing offices, including the Architect of the Capitol. 

Ms. NORTON. You made three recommendations: provide investigative subpoena authority for OSHA claims; require safety and 

health—require safety and health record keeping; and allow the 

OOC to protect employees from retaliation for reporting OSHA violations. 

Mr. Ayers, I recognize that you are not the final judge of this, 

but would you have any disagreement with those recommendations 

yourself as a professional? 

Mr. AYERS. Well, I certainly can’t speak to the law. I am not an 

attorney. But I can speak to, from my perspective, I gather all of 

the injury and illness records already, have done so for over 10 

years. We present those—— 

Ms. NORTON. So since you gather the safety and health records, 

you don’t have any problem with reporting them. 

Mr. AYERS. We briefed the Office of Compliance twice on all 

these issues. 

Ms. NORTON. So this is just a question, Ms. Chrisler, of reporting 

them, just as we would know about the private workplace or—— 

22 

Ms. CHRISLER. I am sorry, would you repeat the question, 

Madam Chair? 

Ms. NORTON. You said require safety and health record keeping. 

That is OSHA record keeping? That is what the private sector does. 

Ms. CHRISLER. That is right. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Ayers just testified that he does it anyway. 

Ms. CHRISLER. The requirement under OSHA also is they provide 

the information on a regular basis. And that is something that—— 

Ms. NORTON. Do they report it? 

Ms. CHRISLER. We have been given that information, as Mr. 

Ayers testified. 

Ms. NORTON. I am sorry, the OSHA records, are they public? In 

other words, the safety and health records in a given private workplace, are they public? Can somebody find them out? 

Ms. CHRISLER. I am not so sure about that. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr.— is it Eveleth? 

Mr. EVELETH. Eveleth, yes. 

Mr. AYERS. Madam Chair, I think I can answer that question. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Ayers, yes. 

Mr. AYERS. Anyone who has a lost-time injury anywhere is reported through the Department of Labor Workers Compensation 

Program. OSHA is part of the Department of Labor. They talk to 

each other. It is reported on OSHA’s Web site. You can find mine. 

You can find the House of Representatives’. You can find them all 

on OSHA’s Web site. 

Ms. NORTON. So, Ms. Chrisler, he says you can find his reports 

already on OSHA’s Web site. 

Mr. AYERS. Our injury and illness rates. 

Mr. EVELETH. If I may, there are different kinds of records that 

are required to be given to OSHA. That is to say, OSHA gets information as to the nature of the injury, the causes, and a lot of other 

information is required. And that information is given on a regular 

basis to OSHA. So OSHA is in a position then to see to it, where 

are these injuries occurring? What are the causes of these things? 

And that is what the Office of Compliance is recommending is 

the very same type of records would be provided to our office, 

which then enables us to focus upon those areas which are causing 

the most injuries or illnesses so that we can dedicate our resources 

to those areas. And that is why we are asking for that. 

We do manage to get workers comp stuff because that is published. But that doesn’t tell you the kind of information that we 

think that we need. And that is why our board is recommending 

that particular measure. 

Ms. NORTON. So you see the difference, Mr. Ayers, between what 

you do and what Mr. Eveleth recommends—or sorry, the board of 

directors recommends? Do you have any personal or professional— 

I realize it may not be your decision to be made—but any personal 

or professional objection to reporting the same way? 

Mr. AYERS. No, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Just let me say, for the record, we were very sanctimonious here in the Congress when we said we were going to 

make sure that we use the same laws and rules and regulations 

here that you use in your lives, American citizens. So I would think 

that, at the very least, we ought to do that. And yet is it Mr. Reed 

23 

who said—Mr. Reed, I was concerned, when you ask Congress to 

please review and reconsider all of the provisions of Federal laws. 

And then you name virtually every provision, some of which, 

most of which I thought already applied to the legislative branch 

and its various offices. Terms and conditions of employment, hiring, demotion, da-da da-da da-da. What does this mean, your list? 

Mr. REED. My list is included—as union president, I am involved 

in very many different things, contract negotiations, changes in 

terms and conditions. Recently, for example, it is in my written testimony, we found out that Congress has allowed the Architect of 

the Capitol to not follow the same law of the normal schedule for 

Federal employees should be Monday through Friday at least 8 

hours a day. That is an exemption in 5 U.S.C. for the Architect of 

the Capitol, to not follow that government-wide regulation that applies to just about every other Federal employee under the sun. 

And that is just one example. I am sure there are others. You 

know, those are some of the things that we have discovered that 

they do not. Not every law of the land applies to the employees of 

the Architect of the Capitol. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Ayers, that is a breathtaking example. Breathtaking. Many of my colleagues would not hesitate to take to the 

floor of the House if they discovered such an employer. Lo and behold that employer is us, I guess. Could I ask you whether there 

are employees of the Capitol working other than the normal 8 

hours per day who are being paid straight time? 

Mr. AYERS. I can assure you, Madam Chair, that is not the case. 

If someone works more than 8 and a half hours a day, they are 

paid overtime. Absolutely. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Reed? 

Mr. REED. What we are talking about is weekend work in particular. All right. Employees are being asked to cover weekends as 

part of their regular schedule at not overtime pay. And that is a 

direct—— 

Ms. NORTON. Would that mean time and half pay for weekends? 

Mr. REED. Normally it would be. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, what are they—for weekends, it is straight 

pay? 

Mr. REED. Well, in some of the schedules that are being proposed 

for Architect employees, particularly employees at the Botanic Garden, we are being asked to work regular schedules that include 

Saturday, for example. 

Ms. NORTON. Would that employee be working in other words a 

5-day work week, but his 5-day work week included Saturday and 

Sunday or something? 

Mr. REED. His 5-day work week would—at present time, our 5- 

day work weeks are normally Monday through Friday, all right, 

which mean Saturday becomes a time and a half day. Proposed 

schedules that are being proposed to us are saying, your regular 

schedule now will be Tuesday through Saturday, Saturday being a 

regular workday, which under the normal circumstance should be 

an overtime day. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, staff informs me that the Fair Labor Standards Act indicates you can’t work more than 8 hours on a given 

day. I am going to have to look into that. So you mean, if your 8 

24 

hours included Sunday, that is not considered—you know, there is 

every incentive to make the workday Wednesday through Sunday. 

Mr. REED. Well, can I comment on that? 

Ms. NORTON. Please. 

Mr. REED. The Architect’s policy basically allows the Architect to 

create almost any work schedule that fits their needs, which is, in 

my opinion, a direct violation of what the average government employee does. I mean, the law clearly states that employees normally—shall normally work a Monday through Friday work week, 

at least 8 hours per day. Again we are exempted in 5 U.S.C. from 

that particular provision. And the Architect’s policy literally allows 

the Architect to create almost any work schedule that is needed to 

serve the Congress. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Ayers, would you like to respond? 

Mr. AYERS. Well, certainly, Madam Chair. 

As you know, we work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Our Visitor Center is open on Saturdays. Our Botanic Garden is open on 

the weekends. We must be able to schedule our employees to include regular weekend work. Every fire department, every police 

station, every visitor services operation, every restaurant, every 

employer does that. If we had to pay overtime—and we do pay 

overtime for anything that is over 8 and a half hours a day—but 

if we had to pay overtime for every Saturday and every Sunday, 

we just couldn’t sustain that kind of fee. So we stagger our employees’ work schedules, fully compliant with the law—— 

Ms. NORTON. Is the staggering done on a voluntary basis? 

Mr. AYERS. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t. We have employees at the power plant, for example, that have to work 12-hour 

shifts. And they may have 3 days on, 4 days off, just like firefighters often do. But in order to work on weekends, we have to 

have Tuesday through Saturday shifts or Wednesday through Sunday shifts. We also work three shifts per day. 

Ms. NORTON. You know what, I could not be more unsympathetic. Don’t you think that throughout the private sector, that is 

also the case? 

Mr. AYERS. Absolutely. 

Ms. NORTON. The reason I am not particularly sympathetic to 

management here is that the Congress really beat itself on the 

breast that it was, in fact, complying in the same ways that the 

private sector complies. So you are giving me the same kind of argument that is given—or at least that the private sector would love 

to give. So what I think I am going to ask staff to do, because they 

do inform me that there may be other Federal agencies that have 

Saturday shifts. The Federal Government was supposed to be 

under the same rules. It was only us in the Capitol who left ourselves outside. 

I am going to have to look at what—and I am not going to ask 

the OOC do this, I am going to ask my own staff to do this—look 

at what State and local governments do. Because what Mr. Ayers 

said about 3 days on and 4 days off is really a trade-off. That is 

not the very same thing when you talked about fire departments. 

I think the Congress is going—not any of you at this table—going 

to have to come to grips with whether it wants to hold itself out 

as living under the same laws as everybody else or not. Because 

25 

I don’t like these discoveries that make us look like hypocrites 

when, in fact, we have differences in something as critical to the 

average employee as pay and overtime and the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Let me go—so I am going to take a look at that before I decide 

that Congress should look at whether any changes should be made. 

I understand the expense. Talk to the private sector about the expense. 

Or if the private sector talks to the Labor Department about the 

expense, they will get the Bronx cheer: So? This is a law that is 

been on the books since the 1930’s for egregious, the worst kind of 

violations. It is one of the things we are the most proud of. 

We are told that Americans work themselves to death, by the 

way. We are told that we work longer hours here than in Europe, 

for example. If we are going to do it, we are going to get paid for 

it. 

Ms. Burger, what role, if any, did the OOC play in addressing 

the workplace safety and training issue that you complained of? 

Did the OOC have any role in that? 

Ms. BURGER. Sure. To my understanding, they contacted several 

of our employees and interviewed them quite extensively on workplace issues, ranging from inappropriate uniforms in all climates, 

whether outside, shuttle drivers, guides hiking the Capitol Dome, 

things such as visitors assaulting staff, and various sundry other 

things. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Ayers, is there a new director of the Capitol 

Visitor Center? 

Mr. AYERS. We have an interim director in place, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. When will there be a new director? 

Mr. AYERS. We expect to begin the recruitment process the 

month of October. That process will easily take 3 to 6 months to 

find someone. 

Ms. NORTON. You haven’t even begun it yet? 

Mr. AYERS. No, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Why not? Last director left some time ago, several 

months ago, didn’t she? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. So we are working on making some adjustments 

to the position description and the advertising process to be sure 

we get the right person. 

Ms. NORTON. That is a good thing to do, yes. What are the processes for resolving the complaints of the kind that our Capitol Visitor Center employees or guides brought? What processes are in a 

place for resolving those? 

Mr. AYERS. I think, most importantly, Madam Chair, the key to 

resolving any dispute, whether it is a workplace dispute or any 

other kind of dispute, is just good, frank, open communication between employee and supervisor. And there is no doubt in my mind 

that that kind of open and frank communication is taking place 

now in the Capitol Visitor Center and will continue to take place 

in the Capitol Visitor Center. 

And, I think, Ms. Burger had mentioned that she has seen some 

improvements in that arena, and that people are respectful of one 

another and taking care of problems. I think it is, quite frankly, as 

simple as that. 

26 

Ms. NORTON. Well, Ms. Burger, is it as simple as that? Does open 

communication work to resolve the kind of complaints that you 

brought to me and others? 

Ms. BURGER. I think it will definitely take a culture shift. 

Ms. NORTON. Where did this culture come from? We didn’t hear 

these complaints before. You had guides for a long time. We didn’t 

hear that you had the wrong clothes outdoors and indoors. Is that 

the first time that occurred was when they got to be the Visitor 

Center, or were you not outdoors before? How come these things 

popped up all of a sudden? 

Ms. BURGER. Maybe improper planning. That might be one observation. 

Ms. NORTON. Did you have the proper uniforms before? 

Ms. BURGER. Oh, yes, to answer your first question, yes, yes, we 

did work outside. We had a handful of outdoor posts that we were 

required to work in rain, sleet, sun or snow. 

Ms. NORTON. So all of a sudden, you couldn’t wear the same 

kinds of uniforms you wore before? 

Ms. BURGER. That is correct. The tour guides who were under 

the Senate, and then when we moved to the AOC, we were told to 

turn in our winter coats—— 

Ms. NORTON. Were they winter coats that were uniform coats? 

Ms. BURGER. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Why? 

Ms. BURGER. That is a good question. 

Ms. NORTON. Didn’t someone ask, why, it is cold out here? And 

surely, if you asked that question, somebody will respond. 

Ms. BURGER. I know that visitors assistants who now work outside are given a very light windbreaker. And I know that they are 

allowed to wear layers of clothing under it. But these windbreakers, they are not waterproof. They are also not warm at all. 

Ms. NORTON. So now what do they wear? This complaint has 

been resolved, has it not? 

Ms. BURGER. No. 

Ms. NORTON. Why hasn’t this complaint been resolved, Mr. 

Ayers? It is going to get cold again soon. 

Mr. AYERS. I believe that employees that work outside are issued 

winter parkas. I am not familiar with anyone that works outside 

that doesn’t have a winter parka. 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Burger? 

Mr. AYERS. I do recognize, Madam Chair, if I could, that the uniforms that were provided, in my opinion, were not of good quality. 

So we have fixed that problem. We have engaged employees and 

asked them what are the new uniform pieces and garments and 

things that you need to be successful in your job? We have listened 

to them. We have completely revamped the uniform program. And 

we are in the process today of delivering those new uniforms to employees. 

Ms. NORTON. You are going to have brand new warm uniforms, 

Ms. Burger. Is that your understanding? 

Ms. BURGER. We do not have brand new warm uniforms. We 

have been in the CVC for 2 and half years. And of course, last winter going through one of the biggest winters that we have had in 

decades, if not almost a century, and I know that—— 

27 

Ms. NORTON. But no, Mr. Ayers would have to concede that there 

was a problem then. But he says that he has engaged you for new 

warm uniforms coming. I take it coming. 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Coming. Are you aware of that? 

Ms. BURGER. We have been told that we will get—the visitors assistants will get outdoor gear. I believe this outdoor gear, is it rainproof? Is it waterproof? I am not sure that it is. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Ayers, is it waterproof? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, you just said there was good open communication. And I have had to set up a dialogue to make sure this 

matter was understood with Ms. Burger here. 

Perhaps there needs to be more communication with the Architect himself. I do wish there would be communication. That was 

shocking to hear. I wish there would be communication on this 

issue. And I wish you would report to us within 2 weeks on what 

the uniforms are and what the rules are with respect to uniforms 

in cold weather and in warm weather, and what the requirements 

are with respect to—this is 14 days—with respect to water. Is it 

your view that water can now be taken with a guide outdoors, for 

example? 

Ms. BURGER. Yes. Since we have announced that we have been 

organizing in June 2010, which was also around the confirmation 

time of Mr. Ayers, we have been allowed to take water outside. 

Never before that. Water fountains are not—— 

Ms. NORTON. You were told specifically? Was there written a directive, no water with you on the outside on those 97-degree days 

or whatever we had? 

Ms. BURGER. Upper management specifically told us we were not 

allowed to take water outside before June 2010. And we would be 

written up if so, if we were spotted. Now, that doesn’t mean visitors assistants didn’t sneak water outside for good reason. But that 

was the case. Additionally, water fountains are not accessible to all 

posts. We have a post, it is called shuttle. There are three shuttles 

that drive around the Capitol main complex. And anyway, they are 

outside all day typically. Some shifts aren’t. But there are many 

that are. 

Visitor assistants also—let’s see, they have to leave their post to 

refill their water. I know that the Capitol Police, you know, for example, they have coolers of water that they are allowed to—you 

know, they don’t have to leave their post to go refill their water 

bottle. 

And I think it would be best for our image and also the image 

of the CVC if we also didn’t have to leave our post to go fill our 

water bottle. 

Ms. NORTON. You agree, Mr. Ayers? 

Mr. AYERS. I agree completely. 

Ms. NORTON. That was pretty Draconian. 

Mr. AYERS. Inexplicable, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, sir. One of the most disturbing of the allegations was the instruction to flush anthrax. Have you engaged, in 

fact, finding with respect to these allegations? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, ma’am. 

28 

Ms. NORTON. What were your findings? 

Mr. AYERS. Well, we found that no one was directed to flush the 

bag of powder. But an employee—a supervisor, quite frankly, took 

matters into his own hands and did, as you say, actually picked up 

a bag and flushed it down the toilet. And I think that, too, Madam 

Chair, is inexplicable. 

But I think it is an important wake-up call for me, I think most 

importantly, because we do so much training and so much training 

on this issue specifically, that when someone gets under a tense 

situation and they don’t follow their training tells me that that 

training may not be as effective as we want. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, first of all, do you think it was a question of 

training, Ms. Burger? 

Of course, this would have been management training. Didn’t we 

understand this was a management employee? 

Mr. AYERS. This was a supervisor, and clearly had been trained 

not to do that. The process of what to do when you find a suspicious package, this employee was trained specifically on that; did 

not follow his training and obviously is being held accountable for 

that. 

Ms. NORTON. Is there going to be a written report with respect 

to the allegations made by the CVC employees, some of them rather serious? 

Mr. EVELETH. May I answer that? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EVELETH. As you know, your question initially was initially 

was, is there an avenue for employees to have these kinds of questions be addressed. And yes, under the Congressional Accountability Act, through the OSHA provisions, the employees have come 

to our office on all these issues that have been outlined here today. 

We have conducted an investigation. We are still in that process. 

We have brought in an occupational doctor to advise us. We have 

interviewed employees. We have interviewed management. And so 

we will be issuing—when those investigations are completed, which 

I hope will not be too far in the distant future—in the near future, 

we will issue a report. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Yes, that was very important for you to say. So I take it, Ms. 

Burger, that your members have been in touch with the AOC, 

which is the appropriate body? 

Ms. BURGER. I am sorry, what was it? Could you repeat the question? 

Ms. NORTON. With respect to the allegations brought to my attention and the attention of other Members of Congress, I assume 

that your members have been in touch with the AOC—I mean, the 

OOC? 

Ms. BURGER. Oh, yes, very much so. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, one of the most serious allegations, and I 

would like anyone who has any information on this, was that employees were instructed or told that they should not be in touch 

with their Member of Congress. So, please, any of you who has any 

information or opinion on that, would you please speak up? 

29 

Mr. AYERS. I am happy to start that, Madam Chair. You know, 

from my perspective, employees are always welcome to speak to 

their Member of Congress. 

But I also think it is important for employees and management 

to work together collaboratively to communicate with one another, 

to respect one another. And if an employee has an issue or has a 

suggestion or has a comment, I think the first line of defense is to 

bring that to your supervisor and bring that to your manager, 

bring it to me. 

It is interesting that while Ms. Burger is a new union representative, Mr. Reed and I have met quarterly for quite some time. Because it is important to me to stay close and stay in contact with 

what is going on with the many unions that represent our employees. And he and I—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I couldn’t agree with you more. Although, of 

course, I have got—I couldn’t agree with you more. And if someone, 

let us say from the District of Columbia, and there are employees 

who work in the AOC, came to me with a complaint, the first thing 

I would ask them is, have you in fact reported this to the appropriate authority? 

But that wasn’t my question. I wouldn’t say to that constituent, 

who do you think you are coming to your Congresswoman to let her 

know about this? First of all, it may be an employee who doesn’t 

know who the employee should go to. 

So, as a Member, I am interested in whether or not the very admirable policy of making sure people report in their own workplace 

is seen as at odds with speaking to your own Member of Congress. 

Mr. Reed? 

Mr. REED. I would like to comment on that particular statement. 

AFSCME Local 626 has basically only been in existence 10 years. 

We have a group of employees that have been here for longer than 

that. And during my 21-year career here, it was not uncommon for 

employees to go to their Congresspersons for help in employment 

matters. 

And in a lot of cases, Congresspeople have gotten involved in 

helping employees. It happens today. 

I know we tell employees to go to the union first, but a lot of 

times, they don’t come to the union first. That is not their first avenue. 

A lot of employees will take the direct approach, especially the 

employees, Madam Chair, that work for you all. All right. They feel 

some bond. If they clean your office or if they work in your office, 

they feel some bond there. 

And in a lot of cases, we don’t hear about it until after they have 

already come to you or another Member asking for their assistance. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Ayers, has the AOC given the impression that 

the employee should go to you first and not speak to the Member 

first? 

Mr. AYERS. Certainly not, Madam Chair. That should not be the 

case. That is not my intention. That is not my management style. 

And that is not what should be projected throughout this organization. 

Ms. NORTON. Let me just say this for the record: It is impossible 

for employees who see their Member of Congress every day to forVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Mar 21, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58490.TXT JEAN
30 

bear and not want to speak to them. People come to see or call 

their Member of Congress about every conceivable employer. And 

all we do, because we don’t know the other side, is we make what 

we call an inquiry. 

Now, we would be very, very concerned if there were any notion 

of retaliation for speaking to your Member. You heard Mr. Reed’s 

testimony. I think it is almost the natural thing to do, to think, oh, 

my goodness, I know this Member. It could be, in this case, from 

the region. That is I don’t know how many Members in this region, 

but that could be upwards of 25 different people, and maybe more 

if you include the Senate. 

No, it does no harm to what you desire to have the inquiry made. 

Members are very sophisticated. They are not going to make a 

judgment based on the report of a single employee. They are going 

to ask a question. So it would be very, very important to the Subcommittee that no impression be left about what you are supposed 

to do. You can go to Mr. Reed. For that matter, you can go to the 

AOC. 

Isn’t that true, Ms. Chrisler? 

Couldn’t they go to the AOC without coming to you, Mr. Reed? 

Mr. REED. Absolutely. And that is the case. Like I said, there are 

a lot of employees that do not come to the union first. We do find 

out about it after they go to the Office of Compliance. 

Ms. NORTON. Don’t choose a remedy—if you have, for example, 

a complaint, let’s say a discrimination, Mr. Reed may be able to 

settle that. But the law is real clear that an employment discrimination case can go straight to the arbiter of employment discrimination cases. You don’t have to give him the opportunity. And Mr. 

Ayers would love the opportunity and is going to be given the opportunity, because the Member is not going to prejudge the case. 

No Member of this Congress would ever prejudge. They would 

simply pass on the concern. 

And I have no doubt, Mr. Ayers, that if we pass it on to you that 

it would be treated with fairness. I would ask that you make it 

clear to the employees of the AOC that an employee who happens 

to speak with his Member should be treated no differently because 

he has a First Amendment right to speak to his Member just like 

anybody else does. 

I wanted to ask you about the Blue Ribbon Panel, which you 

noted in your—I am sorry, the Blue Ribbon Panel was in Ms. 

Chrisler’s testimony—was it in Ms. Chrisler’s testimony—which 

issued its final report already. What are your initial thoughts on 

its recommendations? Is it public, by the way? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Madam Chair, we are still reviewing the report. 

Ms. NORTON. Are you going to make it public? 

Ms. CHRISLER. The report is not ours to make public. I don’t 

know if it is a public report or not. 

Ms. NORTON. Whose is it? Who appointed the Blue Ribbon Panel? 

Ms. CHRISLER. The Senate Rules Committee. 

Ms. NORTON. I see. So do you have any initial thoughts on—since 

we are having a hearing and some of the most egregious problems 

were in the Senate, do you have any initial thoughts on that? 

Ms. CHRISLER. We are actually still in the midst of reviewing the 

report from the panel. 

31 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Burger, you mentioned the signage. I would 

tell you, when I go to the Capitol Visitor Center I need a guide. 

We just had a hearing over there today, CVC, House CVC, Room 

210. I know it is us. But since you mentioned that the signage of 

the new CVC is problematic, maybe it is not just us. Could I ask 

you what you mean by problematic and whether you have any suggestions as to what might be done in that new mammoth building? 

I believe it is three times the size of the Capitol. 

Ms. BURGER. Sure. It is a beautiful building. 

You know, we enjoy answering folks’ questions and helping them 

out if they need directions, whether it is a member of congressional 

staff, a Member, a visitor. 

One area that we see some concern is that there is an area of 

the Capitol—it is right after the visitors leave the theaters; it is 

right where the escalators take visitors into the Capitol, guide 

takes them into the Capitol—there is no signage. When there is not 

a police officer there, sometimes at the end of the day, it is very 

easy for visitors to wander in that direction. There are also a couple other places in the Capitol that could use some signage simply 

stating, you know, Do Not Enter. You know, These are private corridors; Members only, things like that. 

Ms. NORTON. Yeah, I think, Mr. Ayers, that the signage would— 

it is true if you can get to a certain place, there would be a big 

sign. I think that the CVC would benefit from having interim, 

maybe movable signs somewhere along the way, ‘‘you are headed 

toward.’’ You have got to pretty much get pretty close to know 

where you are going. And such a large building, it becomes very 

difficult. I was in the Ronald Reagan Building today. That is another mammoth building. You have to keep asking which way you 

are going. And there are not always people there. I just ask anybody who looks like he doesn’t have a coat on. Maybe he lives here. 

But I did note that there were more signs along the way in the 

Ronald Reagan Building. And I am now speaking as a person who 

is giving only the impression of one person. But it seems to me that 

now that we have—what is it, more than a year—let me see, this 

wonderful center, which is a great favorite of mine, is what, is it 

2 years old now? 

Mr. AYERS. About a year-and-a-half, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. It would be good to do a survey of people coming 

and going from the CVC. Do we have such a survey? Do you have 

suggestions as to how we could make your visit more beneficial? 

And list a bunch of things that people could just cross off that 

might be helpful now that we have this new center, and it has been 

up for enough time to perhaps gather some information. And I 

would ask you to consider that and to consider making such a survey available to Members as well so that they may offer suggestions. Are Members’ offices included in your work, Mr. Ayers, in 

terms of the rules, the regulations, the requirements? Members’ individual offices? 

Mr. AYERS. To some degree, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. But not to every degree? What would be the difference between the requirements for safety and fire prevention in 

a Member’s office and let us say other offices? 

Mr. AYERS. There wouldn’t be any difference. 

32 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I want to thank each and every one of you 

for what has really been enlightening testimony for me. We very 

much appreciate that many of the problems that had been documented in the OOC report appear to be being worked out in just 

the best way, with the kind of communication Mr. Ayers has so 

marketed here today, just the kind of communication that he and 

OOC says has brought the kind of results we were after. 

We are pleased that Ms. Burger is working closely with you, Mr. 

Ayers. I believe that when workers are represented, there will be 

a vehicle, a natural vehicle for that kind of communication that, 

Mr. Ayers, you say you desire. Because that is what happens when 

there is somebody who is represented, who represents the workers, 

who can bring the matter straight to the attention. The worker 

doesn’t have to one by one wonder how management will receive 

an issue. 

So I am pleased to see that the workers have found a way 

through their own organization to relate to the issues. This doesn’t 

keep them from coming to a Member of Congress or from approaching Mr. Ayers on their own, just as Mr. Reed says occurs in his 

own years of work as a member of the union. Thank you very 

much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

33 


Insert offset folio 5 here 58490.005
34 


Insert offset folio 6 here 58490.006
35 


Insert offset folio 7 here 58490.007
36 


Insert offset folio 8 here 58490.008
37 


Insert offset folio 9 here 58490.009
38 


Insert offset folio 10 here 58490.010
39 


Insert offset folio 11 here 58490.011
40 


Insert offset folio 12 here 58490.012
41 


Insert offset folio 13 here 58490.013
42 


Insert offset folio 14 here 58490.014
43 


Insert offset folio 15 here 58490.015
44 


Insert offset folio 16 here 58490.016
45 


Insert offset folio 17 here 58490.017
46 


Insert offset folio 18 here 58490.018
47 


Insert offset folio 19 here 58490.019
48 


Insert offset folio 20 here 58490.020
49 


Insert offset folio 21 here 58490.021
50 


Insert offset folio 22 here 58490.022
51 


Insert offset folio 23 here 58490.023
52 


Insert offset folio 24 here 58490.024
53 


Insert offset folio 25 here 58490.025
54 


Insert offset folio 26 here 58490.026
55 


Insert offset folio 27 here 58490.027
56 


Insert offset folio 28 here 58490.028
57 


Insert offset folio 29 here 58490.029
58 


Insert offset folio 30 here 58490.030
59 


Insert offset folio 31 here 58490.031
60 


Insert offset folio 32 here 58490.032
61 


Insert offset folio 33 here 58490.033
62 


Insert offset folio 34 here 58490.034
63 


Insert offset folio 35 here 58490.035
64 


Insert offset folio 36 here 58490.036
65 


Insert offset folio 37 here 58490.037
66 


Insert offset folio 38 here 58490.038
67 


Insert offset folio 39 here 58490.039
68 


Insert offset folio 40 here 58490.040
69 


Insert offset folio 41 here 58490.041
70 

Æ