LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2010 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida, Chair 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

MICHAEL STEPHENS, Staff Assistant 

PART 2 

FISCAL YEAR 2010 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2010—Part 2 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2010 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida, Chair 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

MICHAEL STEPHENS, Staff Assistant 

PART 2 

FISCAL YEAR 2010 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

50–439 WASHINGTON : 2009 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New 

Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

BEVERLY PHETO, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2010 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2009. 

U.S. CAPITOL POLICE 

WITNESSES 

PHILLIP D. MORSE, SR., CHIEF OF POLICE, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE 

DANIEL NICHOLS, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE 

GLORIA JARMON, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good afternoon. Welcome to the first 

budget hearing for the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on appropriations. We will, over the course of the next 3 weeks, be proceeding with five more sessions with other congressional agencies, 

and our hope is to move to a markup of the bill in the early part 

of June. Chairman Obey and leadership are strongly committed to 

producing signed bills before the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1. I personally am fully supportive of that goal, and intend 

to do everything in my power to avoid being in a continuing resolution next year. Famous last words. 

This afternoon we will cover both the Capitol Police regular 2010 

request and the 2009 supplemental request for the radio system 

upgrade. Each of these requests presents serious issues for the 

Members in a very challenging fiscal climate. We are going to have 

to look very closely at the new radio request. 

Chief, we have a number of questions for you to burrow down 

into your request. This is a proposal that has been considerably refined over the course of the last year, at the committee’s direction. 

The final system’s designs as well as cost and procurement strategies will have to be fully discussed this afternoon. 

Both GAO’s and our own investigative staff review of the radio 

upgrade indicate that the new system is needed, and that the cost 

estimates are now much improved. We have literally gone from $35 

million, without very much of a plan or good direction in terms of 

the best way to go, to almost $100 million, but with a much clearer 

direction and a more well-developed plan, which we will have an 

opportunity to question you about. 

The immediate question to the committee is the issue of timing. 

And that is the need for the new radio system, is it sufficiently urgent that it needs to be part of the supplemental, or is it more appropriate that it remain in the 2010 request as originally proposed? 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
2 

Your 2010 request, excluding the radios, is also pretty chal- lenging. At $338 million, your budget for core Capitol Police operations is $32 million, or about 11 percent above the 2009 enacted 

level. Just speaking for myself, I don’t really see how we are going 

to do that, realistically. This is a challenging fiscal environment, 

and we are going to really continue to have to go with the got-tohaves, not the would-like-to-haves. 

The most important proposal in the 2010 request is for approval 

to add 137 new positions. That would increase the force to 2,369 

FTEs. I think there is strong evidence that the force needs additional officers. There also seem to be significant problems with how 

current staff are deployed. 

This committee is going to scrub the 2010 request very thoroughly, starting with a review of perennial issues such as overtime, 

personnel utilization and personnel planning. 

We look forward to discussing these issues with you today and 

working with you, as always, to produce the best bill possible to 

make sure that we can live within the resources we have and allow 

you to protect the Capitol visitors and employees who spend time 

here every day. 

I want to remind the Members that while they may ask the Chief 

questions at any time, I would like to concentrate in the beginning 

part of the question period on the supplemental radio request, and 

then move to the 2010 request. 

Mr. Aderholt, I yield to you for any remarks you may have. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to be 

here and to be on this subcommittee. I look forward to working 

very closely with you and I think in a bipartisan manner. I know 

the history of this committee has operated in a very bipartisan 

way, a tradition, and so I look very much forward to continuing 

that. 

Excluding the Senate items with a $640 million increase, or 14.5 

percent increase, we have our work cut out for us over the next few 

months as we go through the hearing process and mark up the 

House bill. I agree with you that we will not be able to sustain 

such a large increase in 2010, and that we are going to have to 

work with agencies to ensure that we are providing their essential 

needs. 

That being said, I would like to join you in welcoming Chief 

Morse and Assistant Chief Nichols here this afternoon. 

Chief, I commend you on the service that you perform here at the 

Capitol and this institution. 

And also, Ms. Jarmon, good to have you here as well. Thank you 

for being here. 

I would certainly be remiss if I didn’t just take a moment and 

say thanks to all the officers, sworn and civilian, that do their job 

on a day-to-day basis to keep this place safe—keep the Members 

safe, staff, and, of course, the visitors that are here day to day visiting or whatever the case may be, whether they are here for business, or whether they are here for just sightseeing tours. 

This being my first time serving on this subcommittee, I am taking the time to try to learn the issues and go through them systemVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
3 

atically. I would like to go on record saying that I do support the 

need for an improved Capitol Police radio system. I have been 

brought up to speed on the situation of what it has been in the past 

and understand the need for that. 

As with most emergency response equipment, I understand the 

need for an upgrade, as the current system is over 20 years old. 

Two years ago, under Mr. Wamp’s encouragement and your support, $10 million was successfully added to the supplemental to 

start up the cost for the upgrade. And I understand there has been 

much discussion this past year on the appropriate level of funding 

needed to successfully implement this project. 

So I look forward to hearing your testimony today and look forward to working with you in the future and in the coming weeks 

and months as we work on these issues. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt. 

Do any other Members wish to make any remarks at this time? 

If not, Chief, we have your statement and it will be entered into 

the record at this time. Please proceed with a 5-minute summary. 

Welcome to the committee. 

OPENING STATEMENT—CHIEF MORSE

Chief MORSE. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Aderholt, and members of the committee. Again, I am honored to be here to present 

my testimony to you. With me today, as you have acknowledged, 

is Assistant Chief Nichols. Our Chief of Operations is to my right 

and, to my left, my Chief Administrative Officer, Gloria Jarmon. 

Over the past several years, the Department has undergone 

many changes. While many of these things were necessary to move 

the Department forward, I believe that our focus for the next fiscal 

year will be one of leveling out our operational and administrative 

activities. My direction to my management team is to focus on institutionalizing standard and repeatable business practices, finding 

efficiencies, and addressing longstanding deficiencies to meet the 

Department’s core mission set. 

PROGRESS ON GAO AND OIG RECOMMENDATIONS

I would like to take just a few minutes of your time to highlight 

some of our accomplishments this past year. The GAO and the Office of Inspector General have made over 169 recommendations 

since 2005, and they were intended to improve the Department’s 

operations, and most of these are geared toward our administrative 

operations. 

I am pleased to report to you today that we have, again, made 

significant progress. We have now closed over half of all these recommendations, and this is despite the additional 40 recommendations in this past year alone. We currently have just 85 of the 169 

still open, and we are in the process of implementing corrective actions to close these in the very near future. 

Recently we closed 16 OIG recommendations dealing with property management and the memorial fund, hiring standards, and 

the student loan repayment program, and we are also anticipating 

closing many GAO recommendations in the coming months. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
4 

We believe we are beginning to get ahead of the curve on improving our administrative operations, and while we realize we have a 

lot more work ahead of us, we anticipate more improvements as 

the year proceeds. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ADVANCES

Some of the best progress that we have made in the past year 

has been in the financial management arena. In order to achieve 

these results, we focused on the hiring of a chief financial officer, 

a deputy chief financial officer, a budget officer, a deputy procurement officer, as well as several other well qualified employees in 

professional positions within the Office of Financial Management. 

I would like to recognize them because most of them are sitting behind me. 

The professional administration oversight that has come from 

these individuals, as well as many others of the professional and 

technical civilians in our department, has enabled us to begin to institutionalize an administrative operation in the U.S. Capitol Police 

that will be as responsive, accountable, and transparent as any 

Federal agency. 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS WITHIN PAST YEAR

I would like to just go over some of the Department’s accomplishments and enhancements this year. The Department filed fiscal 

year 2008 financial statements in time for a complete independent 

audit, which resulted in the Department receiving a clean opinion 

on our financial statements for the first time in our Department’s 

history. We recently received reaccreditation from the Commission 

on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies after undergoing 

an extensive on-site evaluation to review the documentation that 

verifies that we have maintained compliance with standards over 

a 3-year accreditation process. 

We issued our updated Strategic Plan and our Strategic Human 

Capital Plan, which will improve our ability to link our human resources programs to our strategic goals, and also enable us to 

measure our staffing needs and progress with much more efficiency 

and in an effective manner. 

We implemented effective business practices and internal controls into our financial, human resources, facilities, and information 

technology operations. We reconciled our financial management 

and property management systems and performed a complete physical inventory. 

We aligned our salary and benefit data with the National Finance Center; we revised our budget justification to incorporate 

strategic objectives, accomplishments, and schedules consistent 

with executive and other legislative branch agency budgets. 

So we took our homework very seriously, Madam Chair, and we 

have a great team. We have made tremendous progress in all 

areas, both administrative and operationally, and I want to thank 

my employees for that. 

At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

have. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Chief Morse. 

[Chief Morse’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
5 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 50439A.001
6 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 50439A.002
7 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 50439A.003
8 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 50439A.004
9 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 50439A.005
10 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 50439A.006
11 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 50439A.007
12 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 50439A.008
13 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 50439A.009
14 

SHARED RADIO SYSTEM

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I know I have quite a few questions, 

and we are going to spend the majority of this hearing on the Capitol Police budget, and we will probably take about 20 or 30 minutes or so to do GPO. 

The request for the upgrade of the radio system has been in front 

of this committee for a couple of years now, and originally my concern was that when you first made your presentation, it was one 

I felt was very broad, very general, and I didn’t have enough confidence that the $35 million request was all that we would ever see. 

And especially given that we were in the middle of trying to finish 

up the CVC and deal with a number of years of cost overruns and 

timing overruns, I felt it was important for us to make sure we had 

an absolute handle on the costs and the plans for this upgrade. So 

that is why we had the S&I staff of the Appropriations Committee 

work with you. And I think we are in a much stronger position 

now, and clearly as we move forward with these plans, while the 

amount of the cost of the upgrade has gone up, it is more clear 

what the needs are, and I think you have the opportunity to implement a more effective system. 

One open question that is still there is whether a shared system 

working with another agency or law enforcement agency would be 

beneficial both in terms of system performance as well as cost. To 

my knowledge, we haven’t been able to identify a Federal agency 

system that really will work with the Capitol Police needs. So basically are we at the point where a shared system is off the table? 

Chief MORSE. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Why? 

Chief MORSE. Well, the uniqueness of what we do, the ability to 

use this system not only just for the police department’s use, but 

the legislative branch operations, the continuity of government, we 

need to be able to control the activity on this radio. We need to 

have the priority of this system. And the uniqueness of the system 

is one that only really fits us. 

The criticality is there to be able to communicate with these 

other law enforcement agencies during a critical incident situation. 

But to rely on another agency for a radio system is not something 

that we feel comfortable with or think is most appropriate for our 

mission. 

PROGRESS OF RADIO SYSTEM UPGRADE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can you just take us through where 

we are in terms of the proposed upgrade? We have a lot of new 

Members on the subcommittee, and they don’t have the history 

that some of us do. 

Chief MORSE. Where we are currently is we are in—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The need for the upgrade, what the 

urgency is, that kind of thing. 

Chief MORSE. Sure. There are really three life safety tools for a 

law enforcement agency: weapons systems, protective equipment, 

and then communications. Our communications equipment, as you 

know, is over 25 years old. It is antiquated; it is analog; it is not 

interoperable; it is not encrypted and, in many cases, has been failVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
15 

ing us both in the hardware and software area because they simply 

don’t make this type of system anymore. 

We most recently had one of our vendors call and say they could 

no longer service our dispatch equipment or technology because it 

is simply outdated. 

In the threat environment in which we work after 9/11, it certainly is critical that we be able to communicate with our partners 

in a critical incident situation, which we currently cannot do. 

The encrypted portion of this project enables us to communicate 

with each other without the outside world listening in, which would 

degrade our ability to protect Congress. We currently do not have 

a failsafe system where we could have mirror sites and alternative 

sites that are away from this location to protect the integrity of the 

communications. With all those things that we have to deal with, 

a need for a new system is critical. 

One of the reasons that we felt that through the supplemental 

it would be beneficial for us is that, really, every minute counts 

with a system like this. The system has failed us at one time when 

it completely shut down. Therefore, every month counts for us. 

The committee saw this urgency in 2007, and we certainly appreciate the funding that we got through a supplemental at that time, 

but we believe that it is the most immediate way that we can begin 

this system and complete this system in a timely manner for the 

protection of Congress and the visitors and staff, and certainly for 

the legislative branch operations. 

So that is really where we are now. We have listened carefully 

and have followed direction and been very methodical about the 

way we have gone about preparing ourselves for this system, both 

from a technical sense and an operational sense. We are currently 

in what is called an engineering design phase, where we will get 

the specifics of costs related to the internal use of this system. 

And just to bring up a point, most systems are 80 percent external. Most of our system is 80 percent internal. So there was a need 

to really test, engineer, and design within the actual buildings, 

tunnels, and garages that we work in. 

That is where we are now. With a supplemental in 2009, we 

would be able to begin to acquire some of the technology that we 

need, antennas, cabling, et cetera; and as the design phase is completed, we will then be able to begin the open competitive bidding 

for contractors for the work that is needed to complete this project. 

So that is where we are. That is the criticality of it. That is why 

we believe that the supplemental is most beneficial to this project. 

It saves time, addresses the criticality of it, and it avoids any extension of time that would be related to this that could affect cost 

as well. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

INDOOR COVERAGE

You referred a moment ago to the importance of indoor coverage. 

I know that this is the portion of the estimate that has not been 

locked down. Its estimated range—correct me if I am wrong—is between $8 million and $16 million; is that correct? 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
16 

Chief MORSE. That is the cost that may increase once the design 

engineering is completed. So I believe—and I would have to look 

at the numbers—but it is somewhere in the $20 million range for 

infrastructure, and the indoor coverage could be as much as $8 million to $16 million more, depending on the design engineering. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Just talk a little bit about the importance of the 

coverage—and you were talking about how most of the coverage is 

outdoor—but how this is a little bit different situation. Also please 

address what the importance is of the indoor coverage and what 

would be involved in a design effort that you would need. 

Chief MORSE. One of the things that we have experienced with 

our current system is what we call dead spots. It is the inability 

for the officer to be able to transmit or receive communications 

subterraneanly in some of our garage areas, tunnel systems, subways, et cetera. Part of the reason for this was the lack of cabling, 

antennas, and any design engineering study that took place in the 

past, and was associated with our current system. 

Therefore, the industry standard, if you will, is to have a percentage of coverage for any system, whether it be external or internal. But our design engineering study is working us toward establishing the highest level of coverage internally that we can possibly 

get, as both a life safety issue and certainly any operational needs 

that take place for which communication is needed. 

WORKING WITH AOC AND TIMELINE

Mr. ADERHOLT. Well, I can imagine a lot of cables have to be run 

through the Capitol Complex. Have you had a discussion with the 

Architect of the Capitol about an estimated timeline to try to get 

something like this implemented? 

Chief MORSE. The estimates that we have have been reviewed by 

our stakeholders to include the Architect of the Capitol. But specifically the NAVAIR Command, who is doing the design engineering 

study, also has experience here at the Capitol in some of the 

uniqueness of the environment in which we work and the construction. So specifically if the question is have we had conversations 

with them about the timeline, the answer is yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Have they given you sort of a ballpark figure of 

once the money is allocated, how long it would take to try to implement something like this? 

Chief MORSE. Three years for the whole project. And it is broken 

down into phases. I believe it is five phases. We are sort of in 

phase 1 and 2 right now. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. One item that tends to get overlooked when you 

are trying to understand the cost is the outyear costs for such 

things as maintenance, additional personnel, and leases. What are 

the outyear issues and costs to maintain a new system like this? 

Chief MORSE. I think as a part of the cost included for 2 years 

is about $4.5 million. Then any subsequent years would be certainly less than that because the testing and validatation would be 

completed. So it is just the maintenance of the system itself. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Phase 5. Until what time period would phase 5 

go through after it is implemented, how long after that? You said 

3 years as far as implementing the system. And this $4.5 million 

would cover how long? 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
17 

Ms. JARMON. Two years beyond. 

Chief MORSE. Two years beyond the three-year mark. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. First of all, let me thank you for your service 

and what you do for all of us. I want to thank you for taking care 

of us and all the tourists that come here. 

Let me ask you, on the new type of technology that is out there, the overall expenditures, you mentioned the possibility of $20 million and $16 million; is that correct? 

Chief MORSE. With regard to infrastructure inside the buildings. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. What is the life expectancy of that? Do we have 

any idea? 

Chief MORSE. I don’t have that answer for you. I have people 

that can give you that answer. I can give it to you for the record. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Answer that question for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

What is the life expectancy of the new radio system? 

Response. The radio system life cycle will be between 15–20 years, with appropriate preventative maintenance service and updates. 

TRAINING ON THE PROPOSED SYSTEM

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In addition to that, in terms of the resources 

needed or the cost in terms of the training that is also entailed in 

that transformation effort, do you have that? 

Chief MORSE. I just got the answer to your first question on life 

expectancy. It is probably 10 to 15 years. And then your second 

question, I am sorry? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Just in terms of the amount of resources required for training that is required in order to make that transformation. I distinctly remember a long time ago when computers 

came in, we bought a whole bunch of computers, and no one would 

use them because they weren’t trained to use them. I just wonder 

in terms of the actual training that might be required and the possible cost with that. A company can sell you stuff, and along with 

that come additional needs for training that you might have to pay. 

Chief MORSE. One of the requests that we have is for five radio 

technicians who will be familiar with that particular system, 

whichever system that may be. They would work on the system 

and would facilitate training for the employees. 

BIDDING PROCESS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. On the bid process—I gather you are starting 

work on that—would that be competitive? 

Chief MORSE. Yes, it will be. It will be open and competitive, and 

the RFP, if you will, has been very closely scrutinized by not only 

GAO, but other—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Does it have a segment on there for the training? 

Chief MORSE. That I would have to answer for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

Does the RFP for the new radio system include a segment for training? 

Response. Yes. Training documentation is required to be developed in Phase III 

of our Statement of Work with NAVAIR (currently funded through Phase II), but 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
18 

the actual training of personnel will be conducted in Phase IV before the system 

is turned over to/accepted by USCP. 

Ms. JARMON. The RFP would be let after the design and engineering is done. The design engineering is being done between now 

and December. At that point we would be working with NAVAIR, 

and there would probably be about five different RFPs. There 

would be one for the radio equipment, network equipment, antennas, indoor coverage. About 95 percent of this would be fully competitive. Five percent is the cost for the NAVAIR to work as the 

project managers. 

INTEROPERABILITY OF THE RADIO SYSTEM

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Are you looking at a system that would be able 

to communicate with Secret Service and other agencies? 

Chief MORSE. It would enable us to communicate with anyone 

with a system that we would want to bring onto our network, and 

that could be done on a consistent basis or an as-needed basis. 

Ms. JARMON. Our training cost estimate is in phase 4, which is 

about $2.6 million. Training is included in that. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. 

Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Actually that basically touched on my question. On 

the interoperability portion of what you are trying to do, all the 

other surrounding departments already have the equipment they 

need for you to interact with them? 

Chief MORSE. Yes. Most of the agencies that we interact with 

have the capability to be interoperable. There are some municipalities, for instance, Prince George’s County, who I believe is within 

about 12 to 15 months, if I recall—and they testified recently—to 

having their interoperable system for countywide interoperability. 

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

Mr. COLE. How long would it take for you to put in place what 

you want to do, from beginning to end? If you started today, how 

long would it take? 

Chief MORSE. It would take 3 years to get to where we need to 

be. 

Mr. COLE. Does it make any sense appropriating the money over 

an extended time frame? Would it save any money or cost any 

more? 

Chief MORSE. We have examined that. It is certainly an option 

that we have looked at. But we have found that appropriating this 

up front, and contracting it out, and procuring the technology and 

the infrastructure that we need is the best solution to completing 

this within the cost and within the time frame that we need. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome. 

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
19 

COMMUNICATING WITH MEMBER OFFICES

I guess I am trying to understand all this. What we have here 

right now is an expert who is designing the entire system and 

wants to design and set up and bid for different parts of the system. And the system has a lifetime of 15 to 20 years. We have a 

problem of interoperability, encryption, and also communication in 

terms of internal communication among our Members and with 

other agencies. 

What I haven’t heard so far, and maybe you have said it, how 

does this all work in times of—moments of emergency where you 

need to communicate with each office? Is that part of your plan? 

Are there other mechanisms such as you have audio, then you have 

video, so that we can get all that done so we can guide people in 

buildings in and out? 

Asst. Chief NICHOLS. It is a good question because there are two 

parts to the question. One is having a robust radio system that allows us to give our officers direction in an emergency situation, because from the Central Command Center we can monitor the campus systems and know where an emerging chokepoint is; for example, in the Longworth Building. On the radio system we can give 

the direction to the officer how to relieve that chokepoint. 

With regard to connectivity to the offices—— 

Mr. HONDA. How do you know where the chokepoints are? 

Asst. Chief NICHOLS. In our budget request for fiscal year 2010, 

we have a request for cameras in critical areas in the buildings so 

we can monitor that remotely, frankly, based upon previous conversations we have had with this committee on those various concerns. So we will have a more robust internal remote monitoring 

system as opposed to having an officer there who can remotely see 

through the camera system where the problems are developing and 

then guide the officers to that location. 

Mr. HONDA. Given the current technology, will there be a way to 

include new technologies so that when you have the video, it can 

be shared—at the same time as you see it in the control center, can 

that be shared with the other folks in and around that area? 

Asst. Chief NICHOLS. If we can export that to the point that it 

doesn’t compromise security, obviously we can export those images 

to other locations, yes. 

Mr. HONDA. To other officers. That is also encrypted, but it can 

be done. Do you have that in your plan in terms of upgrading both 

the 10 to 15 years, because technology changes every 2 or 3 years? 

Asst. Chief NICHOLS. That is correct, sir. Those are actually two 

independent and separate systems. The radio system is one standalone system. The camera monitoring system is another standalone system intended to be used for emergency egress. But all of 

our systems have to be integrated for the same life safety requirements, and this allows us to have a much better big picture of a 

quicker, robust response to emergencies. We bring all of these technologies together with well-trained personnel. 

Mr. HONDA. Will that system be able to be compatible with the 

different offices? Will they use the same system or separate systems so that our emergency coordinator in each office will be able 

to have that information? 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
20 

Asst. Chief NICHOLS. We are still looking at technologies to give 

the offices specifically a more clear picture of what is going on during an emergency situation. As you know, we already have the 

Blackberry system, we have the public address systems both inside 

and outside the building now, as well as the annunciator system 

which emanates from the command center. So you have just about 

everything except for a video picture. We can look at ways to import video pictures to key areas if that becomes a requirement or 

advantage in an emergency response for the public. 

Mr. HONDA. How does that become a requirement for emergency 

response? You said if that becomes a requirement. 

Asst. Chief NICHOLS. If there is a need to export a video picture 

outside the command center. 

Mr. HONDA. But you have the capability. 

Asst. Chief NICHOLS. That is correct. We will help develop that 

capability. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The following information was provided subsequent to the Hearing. 

The USCP does not currently have this capacity, nor would its 

current budget request allow for such an upgrade. The USCP will 

examine the cost of upgrading to the capability suggested by Mr. 

Honda, and include the upgrade in a future request.] 

Mr. HONDA. In your timeline do you have what it will cost for 

the training? 

Asst. Chief NICHOLS. For the video system, sir? 

Mr. HONDA. Yes. 

Asst. Chief NICHOLS. That is included in the budget request. 

Mr. HONDA. When can we see this timeline and benchmarks—I 

suspect it is part classified, I don’t know—but where Members will 

be able to see that visually so we have a sense of that timeline, 

something that we can use as a monitor? 

Asst. Chief NICHOLS. We can certainly do that. We can give you 

a timeline with benchmarks. All of those things we can provide to 

the committee so you can see we are on track and on target. We 

are very sensitive to the needs of the community with regard—especially the people who work here who need to know because of the 

frequency of emergencies what our response is and how well suited 

we are to protect our community. 

Mr. HONDA. My time has expired. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Honda. 

Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for 

coming and for the work that you do. Madam Chair, I will just brag 

on the chief for a minute. After our last hearing on the inauguration, the chief actually did call my mother-in-law and explain why 

she wasn’t invited to the inauguration. I appreciate that. 

Chief MORSE. She was very tough, too. 

VENDORS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE RADIO SYSTEM

Mr. LATOURETTE. Is your current radio system vendor Motorola? 

Chief MORSE. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And the difficulty that you are experiencing 

not only with the age, but what police departments tell me back 

home is that Motorola is going to stop making replacement parts. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
21 

That is the problem they are having, and that is a pretty slick 

move on their part, because if you can’t make the parts, everybody 

has to get new radios and go off of this P25 system. Is that the 

problem that you are having, among others? 

Chief MORSE. The problem that we are having is that the old 

technology can’t be used like the new technology can be, regardless 

of who the vendor is. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. You were kind enough, or the Department, to 

come up with a slide presentation. If I could just direct you to slide 

12, if you have it. Before I ask you any questions about it, I just 

want to make sure. It says ‘‘procurement sensitive,’’ so is it a secret, or can I ask you specific questions about this? 

Chief MORSE. Hold on a second. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I just want to ask you about your proposed 

system. Is that okay? 

Chief MORSE. Sure. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. It says: 14 channels. The next one, 32 TX or 

RX. Are those repeaters? 

Chief MORSE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. So your proposal calls for, because of the 

unique challenges, I would suspect, of being inside, you have 32 repeaters. Do you have repeaters in place today? 

Chief MORSE. We do. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. How many do you have today? 

Chief Morse. I don’t have that offhand. I can provide it to you. 

But I can tell you that they are not all in position where they 

should be, or they are old and outdated. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. But 32 repeaters doesn’t take care of 

the unique challenges you think your Department has with the indoor coverage that you need? 

Chief MORSE. Well, there is also the aspect of cabling and locating where dead spots are for placement. So placement is critical. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I guess my question is: Do you anticipate 

growing to 16 repeaters, or do you think 32 repeaters are going to 

take care of it as long as they are placed properly? 

Chief MORSE. We think that this is sufficient to cover what we 

need for our current mission. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. The next one is subscriber units, 2,400. Are 

those individual radios? 

Chief MORSE. Yes. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. How many officers do you have at the 

Department? 

Chief MORSE. Currently we have 1,799 authorized officers. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Can I ask you why you need 2,400 radios? 

Chief MORSE. Sure. First, there are other entities within the Legislative Branch who use our system that help us; for instance, facilitate tour guides, and also they help us facilitate evacuations. 

The Architect of the Capitol and others who currently use our system, we would be able to extend this to them as well. And then we 

have the increase of Library of Congress police officers as well to 

our force. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Does your proposal call for each one of these 

subscribers to take their radio home with them? 

Chief MORSE. They would be assigned to each officer. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
22 

Mr. LATOURETTE. They would carry them with them 24/7? 

Chief MORSE. They would not carry them 24/7, but they would 

be issued a radio to use. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. I am not trying to nitpick, but I guess 

you can get from 1,700 to 2,400 with all the other people that need 

to have radios. But if the police officer isn’t taking the radio home, 

I assume not all 1,700 work at the same time. You do three shifts? 

Chief MORSE. We do. 

The issue that we are looking at is one of the reasons we need 

a critical interoperable radio situation is a crisis situation. In that 

case all of our officers would be called into work, and then we 

wouldn’t have enough radios to go around. So there is a consideration for that, as well as backup radios. 

ENCRYPTION COSTS FOR THE RADIOS

Mr. LATOURETTE. The reason I ask about the number is 

encrypting a radio is an expensive proposition, to the tune of 

maybe $1,500 a radio, plus or minus. It is not an insignificant 

number. But my question on encryption is, is it your intention to 

have all 14 channels encrypted? 

Chief MORSE. The system would be encrypted, so if you talked 

on the system, it would be encrypted, regardless of which channel. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Let me just ask you a question that police officials back home have suggested to me, and that is that their SWAT 

teams have encrypted communications, and some of their narcotics 

operations, but the traffic officers, as an example, don’t have 

encrypted because of the expense. And I wrote down you said at 

one point every minute counts. When you encrypt a transmission, 

you do miss a beat because the computer has to encrypt. Even with 

really fast computers, you lose a nanosecond or some seconds as 

you encrypt everything. Do you think there is an absolute need to 

encrypt every one of these 2,400 radios and all 14 channels, or 

have you explored making 2 or 3 of them encrypted, so that if we 

have a big problem here today, and we need to go on to say channel 

6 and conduct our work and encrypt it, we could? 

Chief MORSE. I am not technically savvy enough to answer the 

question if each one of the radios is encrypted. And I will have to 

get back to you with that. I am right now thinking that the system 

itself is encrypted; therefore, if you operate on that channel—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you have someone? 

Chief MORSE. We do have some people more technically sound 

with regard to encryption. Doug Hosea. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Why don’t you come and join us at the 

table since the questions are going to be directed at you. If you 

could state your name for the record. 

Mr. HOSEA. Doug Hosea with NAVAIR. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. You heard my question. Does the entire system 

need to be encrypted? 

Mr. HOSEA. I definitely would recommend the entire system be 

encrypted. It gives you one type of system that everybody can use, 

and whenever an officer is in need, that information is not put out 

on the street. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
23 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I get the purpose. Do you have the technology 

to encrypt 3 or 4 of the 14 channels that they are proposing that 

would permit them to have secure communications? 

Mr. HOSEA. They are also in the handheld radios and the portable radios, so they are on both ends. So you can encrypt some 

channels on the radio, but it is also on the hand-held unit itself. 

So if the handheld unit itself would have the encryption module 

built in, that is where the code plug would be loaded in, and that 

is your encryption algorithm. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. The question is: As I look at the proposal, it 

looks about $10 million is dedicated for the encryption piece. I have 

been told about $1,500 a radio. So I guess I am asking. I want the 

police to have the best radio system possible, but in these times, 

if we don’t have to encrypt every radio for every police officer who 

is directing traffic as opposed to dealing with a security threat to 

the Capitol, I am asking why should we spend that money? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The gentleman will answer the question, and then your time has expired a while ago. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you for your courtesy. 

Mr. HOSEA. The encryption side, depending on how the frequencies are laid out, it is going to depend on who gets that channel. So if an officer is on a channel and it goes down in a certain 

area, and he does not have an encrypted radio, he is not going to 

be covered by another frequency. So by doing that, you kind of promote another problem that could happen. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you so much. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. I want to thank the Chief, the Assistant Chief, and all the officers and supporting staff for all the 

work that they do. Mr. Honda and I, after we moved offices several 

years ago, started talking about Longworth, and we know there are 

also challenges in Cannon and Rayburn, as well. Heaven forbid I 

will ever be in Rayburn when called to evacuate. In Longworth, 

they have challenges with the crowding in the stairwells. 

CAMERAS TO ASSIST IN EVACUATIONS

Just for the record, do you have in your 2010 budget cameras to 

be placed in the stairwells so that you can do basically live-time 

evacuation and move people or inform officers if they need to go 

someplace? 

Asst. Chief NICHOLS. They will be placed in key areas, correct. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. And along with that, will there be annunciators 

included in the stairways, too, in case you need to tell people not 

to proceed or to move to another area? 

Asst. Chief NICHOLS. We already have the annunciators in all 

the offices that give realtime direction that can give directions verbally to everybody who is evacuating. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I am talking about annunciators available in the 

stairway to be used if I am a tourist, or somehow I am evacuating 

and not the person who has the annunciator. 

Asst. Chief NICHOLS. There is the public address system that we 

use also, and of course, all the annunciators are portable so people 

around you can hear them also. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
24 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. That is great. And thank you so much for doing 

that. It gives me peace of mind for my staff, but it also gives me 

peace of mind for all the people who are visiting here. I think it 

will, as you practice through it with drills—and I hope they are always drills—become more efficient with the system in the future. 

HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS

Madam Chair, I want to shift the conversation a little bit. We 

have talked about radios, we have talked about providing enhancements for the public when they are here to be safe, and all this 

comes out of Legislative Branch dollars. 

My St. Paul police department, St. Paul Fire, and volunteer fire 

departments are all eligible to apply for different grants and funding opportunities, especially out of Homeland Security. The Capitol 

Police have always been responsible for securing the sites for Members and for dignitaries and for people that are visiting, but after 

September 11 that responsibility increased to a whole another level 

especially for protecting the public when they were here. We have 

seen this while being here on September 11 and with the evacuation due to the plane during Mr. Reagan’s funeral. 

So I really think, Madam Chair, and I would ask all my colleagues here, if we should be rethinking the way this police department, the Nation’s police department, has been funded in the past 

when they compete with all the other services that are to be provided to Members to help us do our job. I wonder if this is the most 

effective and efficient way in order for these officers to provide the 

security that they want for us, because I have to believe they would 

have moved quicker and faster on some of these areas that we are 

discussing today had they have had the resources to do so. They 

have done admirably with the resources they have, but I think we 

need to have a discussion, perhaps with Chairman Obey, about letting them compete toe to toe for some of the grants other police departments receive. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My understanding is the only problem 

with that—and that is something that is an intriguing suggestion— 

the only concern is that it would put the Legislative Branch in the 

position of applying to the executive branch for funds for a function 

that is legislative. So there may be separation of powers issues related to that, which is why we have always taken care of our own 

funding. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. But I would just say that there is an odd transfer of funds, and I will throw this out here, and we can talk to 

other people about this some more later, but the CDC receives a 

huge chunk of change. It is a transfer point through which funds 

go to PEPFAR. PEPFAR gets its own money and then a transfer 

from the CDC to do something else. 

There are things like that riddled throughout the budgets. So I 

don’t see why Homeland Security couldn’t have a chunk of change 

that they could transfer to Legislative Branch for doing a portion— 

not all, but a portion—of what they do. Otherwise, we are going to 

continue to be hamstrung for all the other needs of Leg. Branch. 

It really puts us in a situation of having to make choices between 

safety and sometimes efficiency in doing our jobs. When this formula was first set up, that wasn’t an issue. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
25 

And so I would encourage us to look at ways of exploring the way 

this formula has come to be, and see if there is a way we can do 

it more effectively and efficiently and fairly to the other responsibilities this committee has in the future. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You do make a valid point, and I 

would be thrilled about any relief that we had off the pressure that 

we have to meet this budget. 

Mr. RYAN. Mr. RYAN. I have no questions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

RELIABILITY OF COST ESTIMATE

I want to just focus in on a couple of concerns, because my understanding is that the NAVAIR study is still 6 to 8 months from 

completion. Is that right? 

Chief MORSE. That is correct. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Still 6 to 8 months from completion. 

You are asking for these funds to be approved prior to the study 

being fully complete. Since your doing that—I mean, 2 years ago 

the cost estimate of this system was $35 million. Then last year the 

cost estimate was $61 million, which was one that I felt didn’t have 

adequate justification for it. Now we have a more refined estimate 

of $90 million to $100 million, with the additional $8 to $16 million 

that would come at the end of the process. 

Without completion of the design study, what level of confidence 

can we have that this latest cost estimate is the final one? I do not 

want us to get into a situation where, in April of 2009, we are saying it is $90 to $100 million, but 6 or 8 months from now, $150 

million or $175 million because we have unanticipated things that 

we didn’t consider. 

Why shouldn’t we wait until we have the study completed? I understand the urgency, and I understand the need, but I am concerned about unanticipated costs. And since this is a very expensive system with a lot of unanswered questions like the one that 

Mr. LaTourette asked, which was a very valid question, why 

wouldn’t waiting 6 to 8 months so we could absolutely have a real 

handle on the cost be a more prudent course of action? 

Chief MORSE. Certainly I am sensitive to that, and have been. 

That is why we have committed ourselves to excellence on our financial management side of the House, the administrative side of 

the House. That is why we have been so responsive and cooperative 

in having so many people look at this project, not only from an 

RFP, but from an engineering design phase. 

The experts tell me that this is what it will be, and this is the 

cost and timeframe that it will be. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But that is what they told you when 

it was $35 million also. We had the same conversation at the beginning of this process. 

Chief MORSE. I understand. I go back to that, and there were a 

lot of things missing there; a lot of things I didn’t know. I was only 

presenting what had been done at a very low level in 2005. And 

I think I was transparent and honest about that, that I simply 

didn’t know where this thing would end up until I could do other 

things. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
26 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But, Chief, I don’t want to characterize you as pressing for the $35 million immediately, but there 

was tremendous pressure at the time for us to appropriate the $35 

million right then. It was badly needed. It was something that was 

urgent. We had to do it. And had we done that then, we would 

have come back several more times, because once you had a fuller 

picture of what it was really going to cost, we would be in a CVC 

situation again where we would have to be appropriating unanticipated dollars for a proposal whose plan had not been completed. 

Chief MORSE. Like I said, I go back to that time and the things 

that were missing. We have committed ourselves to not only our 

agency—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But my bottom line question is: Are 

you confident that this will be the final cost, and that we don’t 

need to wait the 6 or 8 months until the study is complete? 

Chief MORSE. I am confident that with all the things we have 

done and gone through and reviewed, I am confident that what 

they are telling me is correct. It still remains, the criticality of it, 

and I know that you are aware of that and sensitive to that, so I 

appreciate all that. I do have confidence in it. I obviously have a 

great deal of concern about the criticality of it. There are things 

that we can do prior to the issuing of the overall contract that can 

get us on course. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What would waiting 6 or 8 months 

do? If we waited 6 or 8 months until the study was completed, 

when a full recommendation could be made with all the information that you need available to you, what would be the difference 

between doing this now, appropriating the dollars now in the supplemental, or waiting 6 or 8 months until we have the study completed? 

Chief MORSE. Well, we just simply don’t know what is going to 

happen in the budget cycle. We know the criticality of this, so the 

supplemental provides the funding for it. We maintain our timeline 

and our phased approach to this. It just keeps us on track, and it 

saves time, which I think everybody wants. The longer this could 

extend, the more risk we take with a failure of the system in not 

getting it off the ground, but also the more risk we take at cost and 

it rising. 

I have confidence in our plan. We have over the past 2 years 

tried to gain the committee’s confidence in the work that we are 

doing, and we just simply hope that you support us in this effort. 

And we know that you have in the past, and we appreciate everything that you have done for us. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My time has expired. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I don’t think I have anything on the radio right 

now. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I do have several other questions related to the radios. Do any other Members have questions, radiospecific questions? 

ENCRYPTION AND MAINTENANCE OVER TIME

Mr. LATOURETTE. I do. Chief, if I could maybe get the NAVAIR 

guy. One is: Does every radio need to be encrypted, if I am right 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
27 

about the cost? In particular, the 700 radios you are going to share 

with other people, I see a big difference between people engaged in 

traffic control and people engaged in making sure they will be safe 

from terrorists. If you could look at that. 

The other thing that concerns me, the $4.5 million for maintenance, I think that is great. I would just ask that you get it from 

Doug or whoever is consulting you, that we don’t find ourselves in 

a Motorola situation again. So whoever you wind up selecting as 

the vendor, it is great if you get a 2–year maintenance agreement 

and it is all paid for, but in year 5, if your vendor decides they are 

not going to make spare parts anymore because they want to sell 

everybody a P26 radio system, I think you are going to have an expense maybe we don’t need to have. 

So I think that if you could satisfy yourself that the people that 

sell you the radio system are going to fix that radio system into the 

foreseeable future. Those are my two concerns. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Madam Chair, to follow up on that. I am just 

trying to see if I understood something right. Right now you are 

looking at encrypting all channels. Do you have the flexibility of 

how many channels you choose to encrypt? 

Mr. HOSEA. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. If I am an officer with a radio, and I have an 

encrypted radio, it doesn’t make a difference how many channels 

are encrypted, one encryption descrambles whatever it is that 

comes into my radio? 

Mr. HOSEA. It depends on how you set it up. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. So is there a cost difference if I have channels, 

and I am just making up channels, say I have 2 channels, I encrypt 

one and don’t encrypt the other? 

Mr. HOSEA. No, ma’am. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Is there a cost difference to me as the officer 

standing in front of Longworth whether my unit decrypts two channels or one channel? 

Mr. HOSEA. No, ma’am, because the encryption module is built 

into the radio. There is one encryption module for the radio. It is 

not one encryption module per channel, it is one encryption module 

that slides into your radio—for your BlackBerry you have a little 

SIM card that slides in, basically it’s the same thing for the 

encryption modules. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. So are the cost savings in how many channels 

are encrypted or are the cost savings in how many units can decode 

the encryption? 

Mr. HOSEA. In how many units can decode the encryption. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. And bids are usually cheaper if I am bidding all 

the same product type versus two different product types. 

Mr. HOSEA. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I would still like to see the answer to your question, but thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Anyone else on the radios? I have three, I will ask them together and then we can move 

on to the 2010 request. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
28 

PROCUREMENT AND NAVAIR’S ROLE IN RADIO PROCUREMENT

I want to focus on procurement for a second. Can you clarify how 

you propose to handle the radio procurement process if this funding 

is approved by Congress? Will it be a fully competitive procurement 

process, open to all bidders? Will the radio procurement be a fixed 

cost or a cost plus contract? We have heard from a number of potential bidders who are concerned that the RFP will be written too 

narrowly and that that might eliminate perfectly viable options for 

meeting communication requirements. So how are you going to balance that? 

Chief MORSE. Well, first we had already heard those concerns 

about narrowness of the RFP, and that is one of the reasons we 

had so many experts, as well as GAO take a look at the RFP to 

ensure that it, in fact, is not narrow, that it has the technical and 

engineering requirements that we need to meet our mission. With 

regard to procurement, it will be an open, fair bidding process. We 

have to ensure that that happens. We have a project manager who 

is a subject matter expert in this, who has on-board procurement 

people who have the expertise in this type of complicated procurement process, and who will augment our folks in our Office of Information Systems. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And what is NAVAIR’s role? There is 

some confusion as to what NAVAIR’s role will be. 

Chief MORSE. NAVAIR will be the project manager for the overall radio project. They are our consultants or experts in this area. 

They use an integrated team concept and basically are augmenting 

our team of subject matter experts in preparing the procurement 

process, and they will carry it out. 

FENCING RADIO FUNDS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Lastly on the radios, as I said I think 

the need has been demonstrated, the urgency has been demonstrated. We have spent a lot of time working to this point. But 

it still is sticking in my craw that there are 6 to 8 months left on 

this study. And the road is littered with studies that result in costs 

for programs like this ballooning beyond what was absolutely guaranteed at one particular stage and that has been the pattern with 

this proposal. 

So my question is, if we approve all or a significant portion of 

the supplemental request, the $72 million, I think it would make 

sense to withhold most of the funds until the final cost estimate is 

completed and validated. Is that something that would be acceptable? I think we should fence off the funds that you don’t need at 

this point so that we could make sure that you will have it appropriated but that the 6 or 8 months will go by and we will know 

what the cost is. And if you already have enough money, or if we 

need to go further, then we haven’t gone further than we need to. 

Chief MORSE. Yes, it is acceptable that we do that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Chief MORSE. We want to make sure you are comfortable. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is not for my comfort. I mean, $100 

million that is only going to last us 15 to 20 years is a lot of money. 

It is very expensive. I understand that it is technology and that is 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
29 

the nature of the technology, it is an incredibly important system, 

but we want to make sure that we are being fiscally responsible 

while we are implementing the system. 

Do you want to begin on the 2010 budget request? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Go ahead. 

10-YEAR GROWTH IN FUNDING VERSUS FTE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Shifting now to fiscal year 2010, let’s 

take a look at the budget from a broader macro point of view. Your 

office supplied us with data last month showing the long-term 

growth funding for the Capitol Police, The table shows that between 2000 and 2009 total funding for the Capitol Police increased 

by $200 million, or about 170 percent after adjusting for inflation. 

And during that same period, the size of the force only increased 

by 700 FTEs, or 48 percent. In other words, the total funding for 

the force has risen at nearly double the rate of growth in the number of officers and other staff. The average cost for FTEs after inflation increased from 70,000 per officer to 137,000 per officer. Can 

you put some of those numbers in perspective, because they are 

staggering? 

Chief MORSE. Well, if we are going back to 2000, obviously we 

had some significant events here at the Capitol complex, including 

9/11, anthrax, ricin. And we also had the shootings of the police officers in 1998. So there were significant increases in the Department’s mission, not only related to the new technology for instance, 

but also the physical securities we see throughout the campus. So 

there was an associated cost related to that. There were associated 

costs related to training officers at the level they need to be with 

this type of technology, procedures and protocols that are associated with protecting the campus at such a high level. 

So the assets, the resources, the physical securities, the increasing technology and added mission that was given to us to handle 

has significantly grown our agency since 1998. 

GROWTH IN COMPENSATION

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. FTEs and compensation are not the 

same thing, they are very different measures. Can you tell us what 

the average total compensation, including overtime, was for an officer in the force last year compared to 7 years ago? 

Chief MORSE. Seven years ago, I do not have that data. I do 

know, for instance, a new recruit who would come out currently, 

after they had completed their training in their first year of service 

their salary would be about $57,000. The current average overtime 

would be about $14,000, so roughly $72,000. I don’t have the data 

from back in 2000, but I can certainly provide that to you for the 

record. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If you can. 

Chief MORSE. Yes. With increases in COLAs over the course of 

7 years, there was probably a significant increase in salary. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF ELS RECOMMENDATIONS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. I want to focus on the ELS 

study for a moment. There seems to be a level of consensus that 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
30 

we need more officers and there is also a consensus on the need 

to better manage the staff resources that you have. And I know you 

agree with that. That recommendation has been emphasized both 

in your own internal studies and then the ELS study. Can you review ELS’s findings with us briefly and the steps that the Department has taken to implement those recommendations? There is a 

real concern by our committee’s investigative staff that there has 

been very little progress made on ELS’s recommendations. We are 

aware that as of last week, the committee in the Capitol Police organization that was supposed to be implementing the recommendations hasn’t met since last October, that there is no blueprint or 

time line for implementing the recommendations, and that the Department has not even developed a list of high priority items that 

should be. If you could explain why, that would be great. 

Chief MORSE. Sure. The ELS was a manpower study not only to 

just decide you need this many officers and then your problems are 

over. We could not say the mission’s taken care of, that is just not 

how it works. The way it works is ELS is a bigger conceptual thing 

as well, where you have to ensure the utility of your officers is correct. What number of hours are they here? What missions do you 

need to have? Are they threat based? In other words, do they get 

you the bang for the buck? Are your programs correct? Is the deployment of your people correct? All those things have to be examined before you can come and simply ask for more people. We have 

done a significant amount of work with regard to ELS. And I can 

submit a list which I have submitted or have provided to S&I of 

all the different levels of change that we have made—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you have the priority list? Obviously, there are some recommendations that are more important 

than others, and there is a committee that you have. Why haven’t 

they met since last October? 

Chief MORSE. Well, the priorities are threat based. So we have 

done a significant amount of work. With regards to the committee 

not working or being together, that did not mean that we hadn’t 

done anything. We most recently met with S&I, and I apologized 

to them personally for any misconception or inappropriate information that was provided, but I think that they were given the good 

work that we have done since October and will continue to do. 

There were reasons why the implementation group, if you will, was 

not meeting and that is water under the bridge. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What were those reasons? It is not 

water under the bridge for this committee. 

Chief MORSE. Right, I understand that. I am talking about with 

respect to what we were doing. This group of people could not meet 

because they had other assignments like the conventions, the Inauguration, et cetera. That did not mean that the assistant chief was 

not giving directions to his commanders and getting ELS issues resolved or giving direction for them to be resolved. And I continue 

to sign off on the implementation of those recommendations. 

As we reported to S&I, we believe that what is left in ELS are 

the issues that will cost money. The way we prioritize it, we went 

after all the things that did not cost money that were threat-based. 

And we have done a significant amount of work in that respect. 

Most of the things that are left will cost money and as we exVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
31 

plained, we want to put that in our first development program 

where we can prioritize based on threat, based on need and based 

on budget. And that is the best area for that. So the group did not 

meet, but it wasn’t necessary for them to meet in order for us to 

still accomplish our goals, and we, in fact, did. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If you can provide to the committee 

for the record which ELS recommendations have been implemented 

up to this point and what you have remaining and a budget picture 

of what those items could cost, that would be helpful. 

CVC SECURITY

Mr. ADERHOLT. I would like to shift gears a little bit and ask 

about the CVC. It has been open for about 4 months now. One of 

the things that I was curious about was regarding any problems 

that have come on line since the CVC has been opened that you 

have encountered, because certainly it is a different way that people are processed through the Capitol and how they come in there. 

What is your initial impression after 4 months of it being open? 

Chief MORSE. I think it has been a very well-run operation. So 

I would commend everyone who has built the programs and designed the tours and the exhibits and so forth. It is a great experience. 

From the police perspective, it has been a learning experience. 

We have had to screen a significant number of people obviously as 

we have expected. The numbers were very high. We have done a 

very good job of that. We do not have long lines. Sometimes if you 

get a significant number of groups at one time you may have some 

amount of wait, but for the most part, it has been a very smooth 

operation and one that many people have come to, and we have 

been keeping track of the numbers. There have been no significant 

events there. All our emergency evacuation procedures that we 

have put into place have been working very well in our drills. The 

Architect of the Capitol, the director of the CVC, all the employees 

there are working well together and the adjustments have been 

minor. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So overall, you have not really experienced any 

significant problems? 

Chief MORSE. I have not experienced any real problems. Certainly there has been a great deal of work in trying to anticipate 

what problems we may have, but for the most part, it is a very 

smooth operation and very smooth experience as anticipated. 

CVC STAFFING REVIEW

Mr. ADERHOLT. The budget justification states that an analysis 

will be necessary to validate the current staffing levels or indicate 

the need for adjustment. When is the CVC staffing review planned 

and when will it be complete? 

Chief MORSE. Well, with respect to any staffing analysis that we 

are doing, it is not just for the CVC but overall and that is with 

respect to the study. The merger of the Library of Congress will 

certainly impact the CVC, the new visitor experience, the 

connectivity, the officers, training and such. So probably by the beginning of the next fiscal year, we will have a better idea of what 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
32 

our staffing levels are and how they are working with respect to 

the CVC. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. One thing that has been mentioned is the lack 

of signage in the CVC, that this would pose problems during evacuations. Just a question to you, is this an issue? And how do you 

think that it can be resolved or how you anticipate trying to resolve 

that? 

Chief MORSE. The more direction that you have and some have 

talked about it here from a technology standpoint. Certainly, this 

is from a signage standpoint. The more technology you have, the 

more signage you have, the better it is. 

Where we don’t have adequate signage, where we have drilled 

both live and off-line, we have anticipated where problems may 

exist and police officers are there to give clear direction. But the 

more signage that we have, the better. And certainly, all the considerations of signage and appearance and things like that have to 

be worked out. If you have areas that are difficult to get out of, it 

is nice to be able to have some level of direction. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Well I think most of the problem has been centered around evacuation areas more than anything else. 

Chief MORSE. In truth the drilling that we do, both when people 

are there and when they are not helps us decide where the best 

locations are for deployment of officers. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I think that is all right now. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Mr. Rodriguez. 

CVC SECURITY SAVINGS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Let me ask you, with the new Visitors Center, 

I presume that that has happened in terms of staffing and that 

kind of—or has it? Because I think it would be more uniform in the 

way it was structured before to require less staffing, and maybe it 

is better organized? Has it saved any money or is it just the opposite? 

Chief MORSE. Well, just going back to a little bit of history, there 

were several assumptions associated with the CVC, they were basically—we were assuming that this would happen a certain way— 

and this is what you will need to staff it, these are the hours of 

operation where people come through, et cetera. Not all the assumptions were met and when they are not, that sometimes increases the level of staffing and the results of overtime. But for the 

most part the staffing levels are—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Is it more now because of it? 

Chief MORSE. We need more staffing than we probably originally 

anticipated, but that is with the change of assumptions. And it is 

not just the CVC itself, in some respects, there were some givebacks that would come from closures of doors and et cetera and 

buildings and tunnels that were staff-led and things like that. So 

there were some give-backs and then there were some openings, 

but right now, we do experience a little higher level of overtime 

with some of the events and openings that occur in the facility. 

REDUCING OVERTIME

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In regards to—you mentioned the overtime and 

replacement of the 76 needed additional staff to replace the overVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
33 

time. Would that reduce the amount of resources much more or do 

away with some of the overtime? 

Chief MORSE. The 76 are for reducing overtime, and they would 

be deployed based on threats in the areas most needed. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I apologize, I didn’t look at that, what kind of 

savings are we looking at in doing that? 

Chief MORSE. From? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Seventy-six positions versus the overtime. 

Chief MORSE. In the first year, the net cost is about $4 million. 

NEW EMPLOYEES TO REPLACE LONG-TERM CONTRACTORS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. About $4 million. You also talk about 48 additional civilian positions, is that to replace contracts or other things 

that are out there? 

Chief MORSE. Yes it is. There are going to be 21 from that list 

that are civilian positions from the Library of Congress, and additional that are for the Office of Inspector General. There are experts in the radio, and then the other remaining numbers are new 

positions that are related to administrative needs. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And based on because I saw something on the 

contract that said to reduce the cost also, in-house staff versus contracted out? 

Chief MORSE. Right there is a cost savings versus contracting, 

and having administrative staff do that work. 

Ms. JARMON. That it is about 7 of those 48 positions. There have 

been contractor issues in the workforce for some period of time and 

these are to replace some of the longer term contractors. 

COUNTER SURVEILLANCE POSITIONS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. You mention 13 additional positions to do 

countersurveillance. Is that something we are not doing? 

Chief MORSE. No. We do have a countersurveillance program. 

The 13 are a recommendation of the ELS study and it is our effort 

to enhance our capability in that area for better coverage. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Is that immediately right now that you are looking at or long term in terms of these decisions? 

Chief MORSE. Those are long-term decisions. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. First of all, I neglected 

in my first round of questions just to tell you how much I appreciate what you do and certainly my staff does and how many wonderful compliments we get back on the professionalism and courtesy of your force with my constituents. 

COUNTERPARTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES

Second just an odd question, but what you do is obviously very 

unique, there are not a lot of police forces charged with the Capitol’s protection. Are there counterparts? You have counterparts in 

London and Paris and other great capitals who have comparable 

kinds of security concerns and threats that we would have here. 

And if so, do you have any kind of communication with them on 

best practices? 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
34 

Chief MORSE. We do, we have had many come visit us. Not only 

in the United States, but from countries overseas. And we have 

talked about the similarity and uniqueness of our job. A lot of these 

other counterparts in London for instance you have a parliament, 

the Canadian parliament looks to us for the types of security measures that we take to protect our facilities and we certainly are interested in theirs. And next month, as a matter of fact, I am expecting a visit from one of our counterparts. So we routinely talk 

and interact on similar issues. 

Mr. COLE. Do you pick up regular information just in terms of 

technology, or again, things that other people are doing? 

Chief MORSE. We do both, and they certainly have a different environment because of the nature of the threat in their countries. So 

there is more significant or immediate attention to acts that have 

already occurred in some cases, which they have to protect against. 

So we have learned a lot from them, but I think they have also 

learned a lot from us. 

Mr. COLE. I know we don’t have how much time, thank you very 

much. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. I just want to let the 

Members know and GPO as well that we are not going to have 

time to do the GPO portion of the hearing today, so we will ask 

them to come back another day. There are a number of other questions that we need to review carefully with the police. 

OVERTIME USE DURING CORE HOURS

I want to go back and focus on overtime a little bit more. 

Our S&I staff has told us that 90 percent of the overtime that 

you use is during core business hours, Monday through Friday, not 

nights, weekends and special events. Is 90 percent of overtime appropriate for core operations, not unpredictable needs? 

Chief MORSE. Yes, during the core mission hours that is when 

everything happens, that is when the demonstrations occur, it is 

when the special events occur, it is when we have joint meetings 

of Congress, the President comes, the vice president, there is a 

multitude of things that happen during the core business hours. 

FLAWED STAFFING MODEL

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can I just review a few specifics with 

you and have you respond? I understand you had the Inauguration, 

you have had some unpredictable demands, but in fiscal year 2007, 

you had 2,085 FTEs and used $2.2 million for overtime. In your 

2010 budget, you propose a staffing level of 2,369 FTEs, which is 

an increase of almost 300, and a 15 percent increase in the size of 

the force over a 3-year period. In spite of that, your 2010 request 

for overtime is $22.4 million, which is actually above the 2007 

level. So you go up 300 FTEs, a 15 percent increase in 3 years, and 

you still need the same amount of overtime. 

I would expect that you would plan for the number of officers 

and hours that you need without needing to have such a significant 

amount of overtime. We have capped overtime before in the reports 

and we can cap it in the report or in the bill. I am close to considering doing that because I am just not comfortable that you have 

planned for the amount of officer time you need. One of the ELS 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
35 

study findings is that you seem to significantly overstate the number of hours in which an individual officer is actually available to 

stand post. How are you addressing that? 

Chief MORSE. Well, the 300 increase, I guess, we need to break 

that out first. That is about 150 police officers from the Library of 

Congress and the CVC—I’m sorry, I will get it down in a second, 

so many numbers. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I know. 

Chief MORSE. I had it here in my book if you will just give me 

a second, I will see if I can find it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sure. 

Chief MORSE. But of the 300, there are Library of Congress officers, there are about 30 CVC officers and the 89 that we are requesting. So those are for increased mission sets. The officers that 

are coming over from the Library of Congress police and then the 

89 that we requested. Seventy-six of the 89 are to decrease overtime so we won’t see that benefit until it comes. 

There are missions that we have, for instance, that are not funded, that we are taking a look at because we don’t want to come to 

the committee and ask for more people when, in fact, we are about 

to use technology to decrease those numbers. That is the situation 

with our truck interdiction program, when I became chief the ability to stop trucks—as an example—was not there, it was not 

manned. It was a situation where the threat had to come to us. We 

would not have been able to anticipate it. 

Well, we staffed that, but I wouldn’t ask for more people for that 

because I know that I am getting ready to use technology to decrease the number of people that we use at the trucks interdiction 

posts and put them back into the system. That is an example of 

how a little more complicated this is and what we are doing to reduce overtime. 

We have also—based upon ELS and some of the work we have 

done since October—audited one of our programs which has actually yielded us a decrease in the number of people that we need 

and has enhanced our ability to protect the campus. So we are 

doing it from both ends. 

OVERTIME AND THE UTILITY OF OFFICERS TO STAND POSTS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But what about the specific finding 

that you are overestimating the amount of hours that one officer 

can stand post? 

Chief MORSE. Right. I will try to get the numbers right. If they 

are not right, I will correct them later. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Chief MORSE. There is a utility number which we have used 

1656, which is derived from an OPM standard. There is an ELS 

utilization number which is 1560. The ELS study is an average of 

what we do, what our people do, the availability of our people. 

They may not be like other Federal agencies’ numbers but we have 

averaged our sick leave over the past 3 years and we averaged our 

training over the past 3 years. We averaged other calculations in 

there to get our utility number. 

Now, there is another area that we are working on in our Training Services Bureau. To show you how all of this works together, 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
36 

we are cleaning up the Training Services Bureau with all the recommendations that were made from a study. As a part of that process we may derive a different training number than the one that 

currently exists because we are updating our standard training 

protocols, what is mandatory, what isn’t—certification and such. 

Therefore, the 80 hours which is averaged in there, it may be more 

and it may be less. The reason for the difference is that we were 

using our numbers and our averages, not a previous standard. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And you say for your purposes your 

numbers are more accurate? 

Chief MORSE. I think for our purposes they are more realistic for 

a utility of our police officers. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If you need all that overtime then 

there seems to be a disconnect between your predictability on the 

number of hours assigned to each officer and what realistically you 

need them for. 

Chief MORSE. Well, there are a number of variables. And the Assistant Chief, let me have the Assistant Chief just jump in here, 

because the chief of operations has the responsibility to control and 

maintain overtime. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Chief MORSE. Dan, if you want. 

Asst. Chief NICHOLS. Thanks. There are a lot of moving pieces. 

You talk about the overall FTE number, of that overall number 

there are only about a thousand officers that actually work the core 

mission, the posts that drive the overtime. What we know from 

that our posts, our current mission set exceeds our staffing level, 

that is what is driving the overtime. So obviously, if we had more 

officers we would decrease overtime because we are operating at a 

level that is higher than our current staffing level, that is one primary factor regarding overtime. Add unpredictables, special events 

and things of that nature, we don’t have enough for our mission. 

So we have to meet that through overtime because we have to meet 

the mission set. So we have to make sure we are talking about apples and apples. Those are about a thousand officers who work that 

amount of overtime. 

The other issue that we found as we started looking at our utility 

number, we were assuming the utility number was higher, which 

means we thought we were actually getting more workload out of 

every officer than we were, which means that we were not correctly 

anticipating the overtime that we would need. Then invariably— 

because we weren’t meeting that utility—we were driving more 

overtime. 

So when we drive down to a more realistic number for what our 

utility actually is, how many work hours do we actually get out of 

an officer, out of a full year of 2080, now we are starting to realize 

where we really need to be and we are driving toward that. You 

compare that by the fact that we have officers who have very significant training requirements that are even off-line more than the 

standard officer. When we are using that standardized number 

across the board we found that that wasn’t adequate. 

What we are trying to do is realize all of those functions at the 

same time. And as I said before it is like trying to repair a car you 

are driving down the road at 75 miles an hour, we can’t just turn 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
37 

things off. But we are making a very diligent effort to get to where 

we need to be and be transparent with the committees so that you 

understand the numbers. And I would admit that in the past, even 

when I came on as assistant chief, there were numbers that I 

didn’t quite understand. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Great. Mr. LaTourette. 

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

Mr. LATOURETTE. I have one question for my own educational 

purposes and a question, if the chairwoman has asked it already 

about overtime, I apologize, and just tell me to shut up and I will 

move on to an observation. Are members of your department subject to the collective bargaining agreement? 

Chief MORSE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. What union do they belong to? 

Chief MORSE. Fraternal Order of Police, we have the Teamsters 

for our civilians. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. So on the question of a person who starts as 

a new rookie officer at $57,000, that is pursuant to the terms of 

your collective bargaining agreement? 

Chief MORSE. No, the collective bargaining agreement— 

Mr. LATOURETTE. That is wages and benefits? 

Chief MORSE. They do not negotiate for benefits or pay, only 

working conditions. 

OVERTIME SAVINGS

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay, thank you very much. The question that 

the chairwoman may have asked is about 89 new officers that you 

requested. My question would be if you take $57K and then 

$14,000 average on overtime is the goal by bringing on these 89 

new officers to reduce that $14,000 average? 

Chief MORSE. Yes. The 76 is a chunk to reduce overtime. The remaining 13 is a mission enhancement to address a threat. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. So based upon the modeling that you have 

done, if these 89 new officers are approved and 70–some go to reducing overtime, you would expect to be back here in a couple of 

years and not talking about $14,000 average overtime for your officers? 

Chief MORSE. Right. We would hope that as we apply the ELS 

concept to everything that we are doing, which we are doing and 

realigning, readjusting, load leveling hours of operations change, et 

cetera that we are doing, that we will be able to incrementally increase with justification the size of the force to decrease the 

amount of the overtime that we spend, minus the unpredictable. 

CAPITOL POLICE COURTESY

Mr. LATOURETTE. The last thing is an observation. I don’t like 

to make anecdotal observations, but I continue to hear from my colleagues that the staff is kind of being not well treated by not only 

the CVC staff, but some of the officers on staff-led tours. And I 

push back to my staff and say, well, they are always nice to me. 

And they say, of course they are nice to you, you are the Congressman. But a number of examples just from the Ohio delegation that 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
38 

members of their staff, I don’t know if it has happened to mine, 

have been berated by some folks. And you are not doing it, but it 

is tough, and so just at roll call or whatever, if you could just remind anybody who might be engaged in that kind of activity that 

constituent services are an important part of what all of us do, I 

would appreciate it. 

And if I come up with a specific example I would be happy to get 

that information to you so we can call out if it is one guy that is 

just a jerk, and we will deal with that. But I continue to hear it 

and it is disquieting, because that is an important part of the excitement of coming to Washington is people are going to the Capitol. 

Chief MORSE. I appreciate that. And that is the core value of our 

police department, so if you ever have an issue, please bring it to 

my attention and I will take immediate action and correct it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Let me follow up on that since Mr. LaTourette 

has brought it up. There have been times when the same thing has 

happened with some members, maybe only a handful of them, but 

when they are taking constituent groups through the Capitol, including my constituents when my staff have carried them through. 

There have been times I think the officers have been a little bit 

heavy handed in trying to get the message across that you are not 

supposed to be here. It is sort of embarrassing in front of your constituents. If you, again, as Mr. LaTourette asked, could just remind 

them it is important to us and it reflects on us because it looks like 

our staff has done something wrong. So be mindful of that, I don’t 

know it is a problem with the entire force, I think it is probably 

you have a handful of people there that sometimes like to show 

their authority and they sometimes take it to an extreme. 

Chief MORSE. Thank you. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I was just going to say it is not bad when they 

call your mother-in-law. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Nothing has ever happened to me with the police department, it has been brought to my attention that some 

people—— 

CONDUCT OF USCP OFFICERS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Before we conclude I just want to give 

you an opportunity to comment on the story in The Washington 

Times today. The allegation is that there are 7 or so officers that 

were participating in a Facebook group that I won’t repeat, but 

that is perceived by me being a woman as hostile towards women. 

Certainly people can participate in activities of their own choosing 

on their own time, but when you are a law enforcement officer, 

there are a certain amount of those decisions that you give up your 

right to make because you need to maintain the appropriate appearance of a law enforcement officer. Their alleged participation 

in that Facebook group makes me concerned about their attitude 

or the environment for women as it exists in the Capitol Police 

force, because people don’t just leave those attitudes in Facebook 

groups, they carry them in to work and in their personal lives. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
39 

I know the article said that you have opened an investigation, 

but I just wanted to give you an opportunity to comment on that 

because it is concerning. 

Chief MORSE. It is very concerning to me to have an allegation 

like that surface about the United States Capitol Police when certainly we don’t condone any of that. As Chief, I think everybody 

knows since I have been Chief, I have held people to a very high 

standard. We have the proper rules of conduct and core values that 

our employees have embraced and followed. If there are people who 

do not embrace our core values and who do not follow the rules of 

conduct, then we deal with them very seriously and very quickly. 

The police department has opened an investigation. Once we received the anonymous letter that was provided to the Times, we 

opened an inquiry immediately in our Office of Professional Responsibility. We will investigate it vigorously. And if we find any 

misconduct, we will deal with it very swiftly and very seriously. We 

appreciate your comments and certainly the men and women of the 

Capitol Police do not condone this type of conduct either. 

ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT FROM THE CHAIR

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

As we wrap up, the homework that I will assign relates to the 

fact that you have been trying to identify for a number of years in 

the Capitol Police your optimal staffing level. And I know you have 

made progress. The purpose of that is to reduce the amount of 

overtime that you use and better secure the Capitol complex. That 

is an important goal that we need to reach because staffing costs 

are a large driver of your annual requests. And I think there is an 

outstanding concern about the amount of overtime that you need 

and with better planning, would that still be necessary? So I will 

be providing you with a set of questions for the record related to 

staffing the Department and how you plan to get to the right size 

force. And if you could provide answers to those questions no later 

than next Friday, May 1st, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. May I ask just one question? How many dispatchers do you have, do you know? 

Asst. Chief NICHOLS. I believe it is 21, but I will have to get that 

for you, sir. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. That is it, thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. With that the committee 

stands in recess until tomorrow, 2:00 p.m., when we will hear from 

the Architect of the Capitol. Thank you. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
40 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 here 50439A.010
41 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 here 50439A.011
42 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 here 50439A.012
43 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 here 50439A.013
44 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 here 50439A.014
45 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 here 50439A.015
46 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 here 50439A.016
47 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 here 50439A.017
48 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 89 here 50439A.018
49 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 here 50439A.019
50 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 here 50439A.020
51 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 here 50439A.021
52 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 here 50439A.022
53 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 here 50439A.023
54 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 here 50439A.024
55 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 here 50439A.025
56 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 here 50439A.026
57 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 here 50439A.027
58 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 here 50439A.028
59 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 here 50439A.029
60 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 here 50439A.030
61 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 here 50439A.031
62 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 here 50439A.032
63 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 104 here 50439A.033
64 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 105 here 50439A.034
65 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 106 here 50439A.035
66 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 107 here 50439A.036
67 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 108 here 50439A.037
68 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 109 here 50439A.038
69 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 110 here 50439A.039
70 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 here 50439A.040
71 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 here 50439A.041
72 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 here 50439A.042
73 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 here 50439A.043
74 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 here 50439A.044
75 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 here 50439A.045
76 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 117 here 50439A.046
77 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 118 here 50439A.047
78 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 here 50439A.048
79 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 here 50439A.049
80 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121 here 50439A.050
81 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 122 here 50439A.051
82 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 123 here 50439A.052
83 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 124 here 50439A.053
84 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 125 here 50439A.054
85 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 126 here 50439A.055
86 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 127 here 50439A.056
87 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 128 here 50439A.057
88 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 here 50439A.058
89 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 130 here 50439A.059
90 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 131 here 50439A.060
91 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 132 here 50439A.061
92 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 133 here 50439A.062
93 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 134 here 50439A.063
94 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 135 here 50439A.064
(95) 

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2009. 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

WITNESSES 

STEPHEN T. AYERS, AIA, ACTING ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

TERRIE S. ROUSE, CEO FOR VISITOR SERVICES FOR THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

OPENING REMARKS ON AOC—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good afternoon. I would like to call 

this hearing of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the House 

Committee on Appropriations to order. We have a two-part hearing 

today. First we will hear from the acting Architect on the Architect 

of the Capitol’s FY 2010 budget request. And then we will hear 

from Dr. Elmendorf on the Congressional Budget Office’s budget 

request. 

So we will begin with the exciting accomplishments that we have 

been through in the last several months. Mr. Ayers, your agency 

is requesting $645 million next year. That is a 22 percent increase, 

following on the 28 percent increase from last year that we were 

able to grant you. And those are large increases. But let me just 

say that I completely understand why you are asking for that kind 

of an increase, given the backlog of deferred maintenance and the 

programs and projects that you are responsible for. In spite of that, 

though, we are not expecting, although I am certainly hopeful, that 

we will have quite as large an allocation as we did last fiscal year. 

But I am going to continue to urge the Chairman to consider how 

much of a backlog we have, particularly in light of the Architect 

of the Capitol’s needs. We also have a big energy reduction requirement that we are very focused on moving forward on. 

I basically want to hear from you, as we always do on, what your 

top priorities are and make sure that we understand the order that 

we need to consider your top priorities and go through the got-tohaves versus the nice-to-haves, although I know increasingly we 

have fewer and fewer nice-to-haves and we have a whole lot of gotto-haves in the Architect of the Capitol’s budget. 

I know one of those is the impending renovation of the Cannon 

Building, which is 100 years old. We have a deteriorating—I am 

sure Mr. Ayers will cover it—but we have a deteriorating garage, 

and all the garages are deteriorating, but we will really risk having 

the building become unusable if we don’t start addressing the renovations of the garage. So we have some tough choices that we are 

going to have to make. 

And I also want to make sure that we go over the operating 

budget of the Capitol Visitor Center. At the end of the day, we need 

to make sure that we can preserve the legacy of the infrastructure 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
96 

that we have and make sure that it is preserved for generations 

to come. 

So with that, Mr. Aderholt, do you have any opening remarks? 

OPENING REMARKS ON AOC—CONGRESSMAN ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. I join you in welcoming Mr. Ayers. Thank you for 

being here and thank you for your work that you do as the Architect of the Capitol, and your staff. And as I have mentioned to you 

before, this subcommittee is new to me, but I have enjoyed being 

on it the last few months since the beginning of the 111th Congress. I quickly came to understand the vast challenges you have 

as Architect of the Capitol and all those that are under your leadership. So I look forward to your testimony and look forward to 

working with you. 

SPECIAL RECOGNITION

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And do you have a special introduction? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yes I do. I have my daughter with me today, 

Mary Elliott. Today, as some of you all may not know, is go to work 

with your—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Take our daughters and sons to work 

day. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And she reminded me of that last night and so 

here she is today. And in addition to that, it is her tenth birthday 

today. So she is celebrating her tenth birthday as well. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And my son is here as well, but he is 

right now wrapped up with the national championship Gator football team. It was a really difficult decision, Gators or Legislative 

Branch Subcommittee hearing. It was a tough call. So I told him 

I was a little bit hurt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. He made the right choice, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. With that, Mr. Ayers, your statement 

will be entered for the record. Please proceed with a 5-minute summary. Welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT—STEPHEN AYERS

Mr. AYERS. Thank you and happy birthday, Mary Elliott. 

Madam Chair and Congressman Aderholt, I thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today regarding our fiscal year 2010 budget 

request. And of course joining me at the table is Terrie Rouse, our 

Chief Executive Officer for Visitor Services. 

I would like to first thank the Chair and the entire subcommittee 

for the support in our 2009 budget, and that increase that the 

Chair talked about will go a long way in making the Capitol Complex safer, greener and more efficient. 

AOC ACCOMPLISHMENTS

It has been an extraordinary time here in the Capitol Building 

as we once again serve as the Nation’s stage. On December 2 we 

opened the doors to the new Capitol Visitor Center and, just 6 

weeks later, hosted the historic 56th Presidential Inauguration. As 

we worked to accommodate the inaugural, we stayed true to our 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
97 

daily mission to protect and preserve the national treasures entrusted to our care. To do this effectively, we must continually 

manage the backlog of deferred maintenance and capital renewal 

projects, and we have to put in place a process by which to 

prioritize these projects. 

Not only do we face the challenge of maintaining aging buildings, 

we also need to keep pace with new building technology as well as 

increased security requirements. We must look forward, prioritize 

and plan for the leading edge of new requirements and eliminate 

surprises in our budgets. 

FY 2010 BUDGET REQUEST AND PLANNING

Madam Chair, as you noted, we are requesting $644 million in 

fiscal year 2010, and we again utilized our overarching program development process in structuring this budget request. Throughout 

this process, we assess a project’s requirements, determine the best 

way to implement this project, prioritize all of the projects to assure that those with the greatest urgency are addressed first. 

We also took into consideration the need for fiscal restraint and 

the challenge of executing the required programs efficiently 

throughout this process. 

Our assessments continue to show that immediate and high-urgency deferred maintenance and capital renewal projects will increase dramatically over time. If these conditions are not addressed, they will continue to deteriorate to the point where they 

can and will impact congressional operations. 

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES

We are also aggressively working to reduce the Capitol Complex’s 

overall energy consumption and environmental footprint. In fiscal 

year 2008, energy conservation efforts resulted in reducing the 

Congress’ energy consumption by 10.7 percent, exceeding the fiscal 

year 2008 goal of 9 percent. This is the third year in a row that 

Congress has met their energy reduction goals. While this is significant in the Capitol Complex, the hard work is yet to come on 

our energy reduction goals. 

To better identify and evaluate energy-saving opportunities, we 

use energy audits. We are also implementing energy savings performance contracts, which we continue, and we continue to purchase renewable energy credits. In addition, we are installing energy meters across the Capitol Complex to better measure energy 

consumption. Because the Capitol power plant plays a critical role 

in our long-term strategy, we are continually working to improve 

and upgrade operations there. We anticipate achieving a fuel ratio 

of 75 percent natural gas and 25 percent coal for this fiscal year. 

This significant decrease in coal use compared to fiscal year 2008 

will reduce carbon dioxide levels by 6,700 tons. 

FY 2010 OPERATIONS BUDGET REQUEST

Our 2010 annual operating budget request for $423 million provides funding for continuing the routine activities of operating and 

maintaining the infrastructure which supports the Congress and 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
98 

other leg branch agencies. This request also focuses on management and caring for the AOC workforce, our greatest asset. 

Another asset in our portfolio is the Capitol Visitor Center. And 

as you know, in 2010, construction costs are no longer part of the 

CVC budget. We are requesting $24.6 million for CVC operations 

and administration. Since December 2nd, we have successfully welcomed guests to the Capitol. And to date, more than 800,000 visitors have enjoyed the CVC’s amenities and exhibits since we 

opened the doors on December 2nd. 

We are committed to being good stewards of the Capitol Complex, and in that regard we have accomplished much and had many 

successes this last year. Our achievements are directly attributable 

to the talented and dedicated professionals that make up our team. 

It is really an honor for me to work alongside them day in and day 

out. 

That concludes my statement, Madam Chair. Ms. Rouse and I 

are happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may have. 

[Mr. Ayers’ prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
99 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 50439A.065
100 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 50439A.066
101 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 50439A.067
102 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 50439A.068
103 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 50439A.069
104 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 50439A.070
105 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 50439A.071
106 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 50439A.072
107 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 50439A.073
108 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 50439A.074
109 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 50439A.075
110 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 50439A.076
111 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 50439A.077
112 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 50439A.078
113 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 50439A.079
114 

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Ayers. 

Based on your statement and what we allocated for you last year, 

I know we went a significant way into the backlog of deferred 

maintenance projects. And I also know that there is a lot more to 

do. And I know our infrastructure challenges are significant and 

every year more are added, more is added to that list. So it is really important that we start to try and shrink the list. 

What is the long-term solution to this problem? I know you gave 

us that bow wave chart that suggests a much larger base budget 

is needed. If you receive a large boost in your base funding, would 

you be able to execute it without causing construction fatigue? How 

much should we really be funding you to chew off those priorities? 

Mr. AYERS. Well, if you recall that bow wave chart, in the middle 

of that chart is a gray bar. That gray bar represents an investment 

in maintenance or deferred maintenance and capital renewal 

projects. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That would be above the line and 

below the line? 

Mr. AYERS. Correct. And I must admit, in the legislative branch 

our work in our budgeting process is unique. In most facility management organizations, we really don’t submit projects line by line 

for deferred maintenance and capital renewal work. It is simply 

one number; this is your maintenance budget. Typically that number is 2 to 4 percent of your plant value. 

Today, we invest less than 1 percent in our plant value. So that 

bar, you will see, gets us up to—we budgeted at the 2 percent and 

escalated that for inflation over time. So we think that is the right 

number. That has been studied ad nauseam by the Federal Facilities Council and others. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Would your budget request get you 

there? The budget request that you submitted now, would that get 

you to 2 percent? 

Mr. AYERS. No, it would not. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Where would it get you? 

Mr. AYERS. I don’t know the percentage, but I will get that for 

the record. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. Regarding deferred maintenance and capitol renewal, if funding at 2 to 

4 percent of the plant value is the industry-recommended standard, what percentage 

is reflected in the AOC’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget request? At what pace should Congress be funding the AOC? What do we need to get there, taking into account items 

such as construction fatigue and ability to execute? 

Response. The AOC’s Fiscal Year 2010 Line Item Construction Program request 

includes $105.56 million in Deferred Maintenance (DM) and $20.09 million in Capital Renewal (CR). This total of $125.65 million in Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal is less than two percent of the replacement value of the facilities that 

the AOC maintains. 

The AOC has implemented a robust planning and investment Program Development Process that includes the Facility Condition Assessments, Capitol Complex 

Master Plan, the Five-Year Capital Improvements Plan, and the Line Item Construction Program prioritization process. The AOC has completed Facility Condition 

Assessments on nearly all major facilities. These Facility Condition Assessments 

catalog the existing condition of each facility, assign an urgency rating based on the 

required timing for repair or replacement, and provide an initial cost estimate. The 

AOC’s Capitol Complex Master Plan and the Five-Year Capital Improvements Plan 

provide overarching roadmaps for successful future planning. Currently, the Capitol 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
115 

Complex Master Plan is in various states of stakeholder review, and the Five-Year 

Capital Improvements Plan is in draft. These tools will enable the AOC to plan 

timely construction efforts, and develop appropriate and cost effective solutions, 

while preventing system breakdowns and outages. 

In addition, the AOC is performing a comprehensive study to develop reinvestment strategies under various funding and cost scenarios. As part of this study, the 

AOC is re-examining execution capability and construction fatigue to ensure that 

the AOC continues to request integrated budgets that maximize facility maintenance while minimizing the impact to Congress, staff, and the public. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I interrupted you. I am sorry. 

Mr. AYERS. That was it. Let me add, if I could, obviously it takes 

funding to do that, and we are considering lots of options. You will 

see in our legislative proposals we are trying to find some unique 

ways to get money to return back to the Architect’s Office; for example, when we lease facilities to others, which we have a couple 

of those, we are looking for flexibilities to get that money to return 

to us. 

We have considered fee-for-service kind of operations. I don’t 

think that will work in the Congress. We are looking at a variety 

of public-private partnerships to leverage that. There is certainly 

some viability there, but I think we all know the cost of money in 

entering into those agreements is significant. In the long term, obviously, you pay far more than you would with appropriated dollars 

up front. 

CAPITOL COMPLEX—STATUS UPDATE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can you just walk us through the current condition of the Capitol Complex? What facilities are in the 

most dire straits, and what are in particularly good shape, and how 

are we prioritizing the backlog? 

Mr. AYERS. Sure. One of the great tools that we put in place to 

do that in recent months is, what we call, a Facility Condition 

Index, and this comes out of the body of research on facilities as 

well. That is the ratio of the amount of deferred maintenance compared to the replacement value of your building. And that equation 

gives you a number, that number equates to a chart that you will 

see there: The buildings are in poor, fair or good or excellent condition. We have included that chart in our budget binder. 

The worst facilities you will see on that chart are the the Summer House Grotto on Capitol grounds. You will see the East and 

West House Underground Garages. You have to do no more than 

walk into those buildings to understand how deteriorated they are. 

The Cannon Building, that group of buildings is towards the poor 

end of the scale. Obviously the newer buildings are on the better 

end of that scale. 

CANNON BUILDING RENOVATION

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What is the plan for the Cannon 

Building renovation? Your budget calls for design funding of the 

renovations of Cannon, right? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes it does. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And what year would the Cannon renovations begin if we stay on the track of the plan? 

Mr. AYERS. Let me clarify that. Actually we have requested $5 

million in our 2010 budget for the planning process. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
116 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. 

Mr. AYERS. After that we will go into the design process. We 

have not requested money for that. I think that is a really important lesson learned from the Capitol Visitor Center is that the success of any job like that is going to lie on how well your plan is 

laid out and how well you have defined the scope of the project up 

front. So I think it is really important that we spend the time and 

money up front to do that. After that we go into the design process, 

and ultimately we think construction would start no earlier than 

2014 and likely last 4 to 5 years. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. That is just for Cannon. My 

time has expired. Mr. Aderholt. 

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

Mr. ADERHOLT. I want to follow up with the Cannon Office House 

Office Building question. I think it is labeled as a high-urgency renewal design project. What goes into those decisions as far as making it a high-urgency designation? 

Mr. AYERS. As we prioritize projects, we look at project importance. That is made up of energy conservation measures, mission 

and statutory requirements, life-safety and code requirements. 

Then we also look at the condition of the building. That condition 

comprises the dollar value of deferred maintenance. Deferred maintenance is something that is already broken but is yet to be fixed. 

So Cannon Building, for example, has about $40 million in deferred maintenance and another $90 million in capital renewal, 

which means if you don’t invest in that capital renewal within 2 

years it becomes—it breaks and becomes deferred maintenance. So 

basically the dollar value of things that are broken and things that 

are about to break goes in to determine whether it is an immediate 

requirement, high urgency, medium urgency or low urgency. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I have always been in the Longworth Building so 

I have never actually been in—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am in Cannon. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What are the main concerns? Do you have Member complaints about things or is it just more of the structural aspect of the building that you are concerned about? 

Mr. AYERS. We don’t have many Member complaints other than 

maybe the windows are leaky and drafty and inefficient. But other 

than that we don’t have significant Member complaints. Our staff 

does a really good job at keeping the building looking good. It is 

really the work behind the scenes and the infrastructure behind 

the scenes that has not been renovated in 70 years or 80 years. The 

mechanical systems, the roof drains, the plumbing and electrical 

systems throughout the building are really what need to be repaired. Similarly, the exterior stone is in serious need of repair as 

well. 

BARTHOLDI PARK

Mr. ADERHOLT. One last question, I just want to touch base with 

you about the Bartholdi Park. What is the current situation there 

with the fountain, and what do we expect to see on that and when 

that will be completed? 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
117 

Mr. AYERS. The fountain, of course, has been removed and taken 

to a foundry to be repaired and restored. And I get, regularly, photographic updates from the founder, and that renewal process is 

moving along apace. We are currently repairing the concrete basin 

of the fountain now and expect that work to be done in about 1 

year. Then the fountain comes back. So I think it is about 18 

months before it is all up and back in operation. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So in 18 months, or about approximately 2 years, 

it should be functioBartholdining again? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Great. That is all I have. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Cole. 

BUILDING INFESTATIONS

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just from the sublime to 

the distasteful, can you give me an update on the rodent population? I just know, we moved from Cannon to Rayburn, and I 

thought the rodent situation would get better than it has. So I am 

just curious what we do and are not doing in that regard. 

Mr. AYERS. I must admit I am completely unaware there is a rodent problem. Is that what you said? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you mean rats? 

Mr. COLE. Yes. Rats and mice. We found six in our office so far. 

That seemed to be an unusually high level. 

Mr. AYERS. I would agree. That is an unusually high level, certainly, and it is our responsibility for pest control and rodent control as well, and obviously we are going to have to redouble our efforts there. 

Mr. COLE. So far it has been good. They have hung around the 

staff office. We have preserved the inner sanctum pretty well. But 

we would like a visit with you about that item. No further questions. 

CVC OPERATIONS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just a couple of things I wanted to 

ask you about. First of all, I am thrilled that there is not a request 

for funds for construction of the Capitol Visitor Center, that we actually are done funding the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center and we stuck to the $621 million figure. So that was really exciting. 

On the operational side of the Capitol Visitor Center, you have 

asked—and, Ms. Rouse, you will probably need to speak to this. 

Capitol Visitor Center operations in 09 were funded at roughly $19 

million, and now you are requesting $24.5 million for the same purpose. I know that now you are dealing with a full year of operations, but we want to make sure that you are aiming for the right 

funding level. 

How much of your increase is tied to the annualization of your 

request and how much is for new items? 

Ms. ROUSE. We are going from about 19—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And what are the new items? 

Ms. ROUSE. About 19 million for fiscal year 2009, to 24 million 

for fiscal year 2010. Most of the new items are for additional staffing. Staffing is the biggest portion of our budget, as you can imagVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
118 

ine. We know from this year, that getting the number of Visitor Assistants and Guides in place is key and being able to handle the 

call volume is key. So we want to be able to get our position in 

place where we have enough people, 20 additional people for Visitor Services; 15 Visitor Assistants, 5 Guides. We have learned the 

value of having our staff right there on the floor, able to help Members. That has worked out a lot better. We are calling them our 

ambassadors, and we learned a lot from people recently on that 

topic. 

As it relates to special events, the demand for the bookings of our 

rooms is unbelievable, so there will be additional staff back there. 

It sometimes goes from 8 until 11 o’clock at night. The Gift Shop 

generates extremely robust activity for us. There needs to be additional people there to manage that. Of course with that comes our 

typical IT and AV needs and financial, so we want to be able to 

be in a better position to staff those. 

CVC STAFFING

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The 25 additional FTEs, the 15 Visitor Assistants and 5 Guides, how did you settle on that being the 

right number of people and does that count the people that we 

talked about you hiring to shore up the staff-led tour process? 

Ms. ROUSE. The congressional liaison type FTE is a number outside of those numbers, that we are able to put in our temporary 

numbers. We did a little self-analysis. We are still trying to work 

up to the 99 Visitor Assistants we have now. The demand is overwhelming. We saw, last year, 1.4 million visitors here at the Capitol. We will reach 1 million in about 2 or 3 weeks. So we know 

that effort is amazing and the demand is there. We believe we will 

be fine with that number. We always have a little cushion for temporary, seasonal work. 

STAFF-LED TOURS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And then the only other item I wanted to cover with you is staff-led tours. I understand you were able 

to accommodate all the staff-led tour requests during the spring 

break Cherry Blossom Festival period. Can you walk us through 

the changes that you have made based on the private office meeting that we had with the bipartisan House Administration and Leg 

Branch leadership? 

Ms. ROUSE. We were able to fortunately accommodate almost all 

of those requests that were made in that meeting. We put additional people on the floor, additional hours; created a separate line 

for staff-led tours when people came up. We were also able to have 

our staff have side conversations with people during staff-led tours. 

The dedicated ticket line worked extremely well. We also were able 

to facilitate more on the phones. We put through more resources 

at answering the telephone. We continue to get 400 calls a day 

from Members’ offices. So we were able to add two additional telephone lines. We are going to readjust our call center ideas for next 

year. 

So all of those activities worked, what we were able to do is simply put more people in front of staff-led tours to help them do what 

they had to do. We saw about 11,000 staff-led tour participants 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
119 

over that 2-week spring vacation period, with roughly 200,000 people. So we were able to incorporate just about everything, and it 

was very helpful. 

STAFF-LED TOUR CALLING CAPACITY

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In terms of the changes that you 

made to accommodate staff-led tours based on the concerns that 

were raised dealing with Members’ offices and the difficulty that 

Members have had in getting someone on the phone when they 

call, how have you been dealing with those concerns? 

Ms. ROUSE. We have two additional telephone lines in place. We 

are going to have to address the need for more of a call center activity as we go through the next year because the call volume is 

still very heavy. So we are able to at least try to get back to people 

through more resources added. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. People shouldn’t have to listen to a 

ringing phone or get a voice mail. What happens when you don’t 

have someone, when you don’t have enough people to handle the 

call volume? 

Ms. ROUSE. What happens is the calls go into voice mail and 

someone has to return calls. With the two additional telephone 

lines we put in place on Tuesday, that is happening a little less 

now. We are able to answer more calls. And we have been able to 

work with the House Office Call Center and may be able to adapt 

some of their software to our needs as well. Our call volume is extremely high. And some of that will begin to—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you have an average wait time? 

Ms. ROUSE. For the phone, no, I don’t. But I can get that for you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can you find out what that is? 

Ms. ROUSE. Sure. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. What is the average customer wait time when calling the CVC’s Visitor 

Services Office? 

Response. As of the week of April 20, 2009, when a new system was installed to 

measure call times, the wait time before a call was answered by an operator was 

11 seconds. The average wait of a caller before he/she abandoned the call (did not 

wait for voice mail) was 37 seconds. The CVC Visitor Service’s staff is continuing 

to test and adjust the system as necessary to meet all call demand in a timely and 

responsive manner. 

ADVANCE RESERVATION SYSTEM

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I know you have requested funding to 

make improvements to the advance reservation system. Is that 

funding to address the concerns raised by Members that the system 

is very slow and that it is difficult to use and not compatible with 

some of the upgrades to Firefox and Internet Explorer? 

Mr. AYERS. Firefox and Internet Explorer we have already done. 

We have had that done. The modifications to the advance reservation system is an accumulation of comments since last October. So 

we gathered a number of those and that will be upgraded. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you gentlemen have anything else? 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
120 

STAFF-LED TOUR IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. ADERHOLT. Let me add from our last meeting we had, 

Madam Chair mentioned with the bipartisan leadership of the 

House Administration and Appropriations, we had voiced concerns 

about that. And I will say that during the spring break it seemed 

like things were moving much more fluid with the tours. I was up 

here for a couple of days during the break to get some school 

groups in and it seems to be going a lot more smoothly, so I think 

you all are on the right track as far as addressing those issues. 

Ms. ROUSE. Thank you. We appreciate it. We had our highest 

day ever this past Monday, April 20, 2009, so it was quite robust. 

We definitely know people are interested in being here. So thank 

you. 

UTILITY TUNNEL UPDATE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The only other thing I wanted to ask 

you about was the utility tunnel progress, the abatement of the asbestos. How is that going? Where are you? My understanding is 

you are ahead of schedule. 

Mr. AYERS. We are ahead of schedule and we are under budget. We are down to what we think is a total program cost of $186 million. And if you recall, we started out at $295 million and we are 

significantly under that. It has been a great year for that project. 

We have completed asbestos abatement in the Y tunnel, the V tunnel, the G tunnel and the B tunnel. We are significantly through 

the R tunnel as well, and we will have that done this year. I am 

sorry, we will have it done within a year from now. 

The other issue in the tunnels was the delaminating concrete, 

and we have made significant progress there, over halfway done, 

eliminating those hazards in the Y tunnel, and more than one-third 

done in the R tunnel. All of the exposed piping that was previously 

exposed has now been insulated. We have got a great team in place 

that is effectively managing that project. 

PRAISE FOR THE ACTING ARCHITECT

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. I don’t have any other 

questions at this point. Let me just tell you, Mr. Ayers, that it is 

an absolute pleasure to work with you and to work with the employees in your agency. We have been through an evolutionary 

process since the committee was reestablished. We struggled at the 

beginning with the bringing-in-for-a-landing process of the CVC. I 

really want to commend you and your staff, who I think have come 

a long way since the days of Alan Hartman, no offense to Alan 

Hartman, but I think there has been dramatic improvements at the 

Architect of the Capitol. And you have been incredibly responsive 

to the membership. The Members that I talk to really feel like you 

are doing an excellent job. And I do as well, so I want to commend 

you. 

GREENING OF THE CAPITOL

Mr. ADERHOLT. I would like to follow up on one question about 

the greening of the Capitol and your work there. And I know that 

a lot of it is being done on the House and, of course, the Capitol 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
121 

and the CVC. But it is not campus-wide; is that correct? There are 

portions of the Capitol Complex that are not really under this energy independence? Is that correct and what is the—— 

Mr. AYERS. No, sir. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So it is the entire Complex? 

Mr. AYERS. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

established objectives of reducing energy intensity by 3 percent per 

year for 10 years, and that law is applicable not only to executive 

branch but also to leg branch agencies. So it is applicable to every 

building on Capitol Hill, and every building on the Hill is actively 

working to reduce energy consumption as well as reduce their carbon footprint. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT FOR AOC

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Mr. Ayers, I am going to 

assign you some homework, which is traditional in the Legislative 

Branch Subcommittee, as you know. We have noted the work of the 

Architect of the Capitol, what you have been doing and have done 

to make the Capitol Complex a more energy efficient and environmentally responsible place. That is under the Speaker’s leadership, 

and we appreciate that effort. 

Supporting that work has been one of the key accomplishments 

of this subcommittee since it was reestablished in 2007. And in line 

with that, if you can give us a brief report by Monday, May 4th, 

describing your efforts in this regard at the Capitol Power Plant. 

The report should describe what actions have already been taken 

to make the plant a more energy efficient and environmentally responsible operation, and also discuss how your fiscal year 2010 request furthers the achievements of these ends, including a detailed 

explanation of your plan for shifting the Power Plant fuel mix away 

from coal. And if you could also include a brief description of the 

strategic review being done on the future of the Power Plant, with 

a summary of the various options being explored. 

Mr. AYERS. I would be happy to do that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you for your time. And we appreciate it and look forward to continuing to work with you. 

Ms. ROUSE. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
122 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 50439A.080
123 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 50439A.081
124 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 50439A.082
125 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 50439A.083
126 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 50439A.084
(127) 

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2009. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

WITNESS 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Dr. Elmendorf, you are up. 

We are going to turn to the Congressional Budget Office’s fiscal 

year 2010 budget request. The Office is requesting $46 million next 

year, which is about a 5 percent increase over fiscal year 2009. 

Leave it to the Congressional Budget Office to be fiscally responsible and frugal. It is not surprising at all. It is actually the smallest requested increase of any Legislative Branch agency this year, 

in spite of the clearly growing demands that you have on CBO’s already well-utilized resources. And I really want to express our appreciation, Dr. Elmendorf. The Members really are well served by 

your employees. It is an incredibly valuable service that you provide. Getting that analysis is extremely important. And we appreciate your restraint as well. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. We had a chance to visit a little bit earlier in the 

day, and thank you for coming by. I appreciated having a chance 

to visit with you personally. And I look forward to your testimony, 

so thank you for being here. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Congratulations on your new position. 

And your statement will be entered into the record. You can proceed with a 5-minute summary. 

OPENING STATEMENT—DR. ELMENDORF

Mr. ELMENDORF. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Ranking 

Member Aderholt, Representative Cole, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today about CBO’s budget request for fiscal year 

2010. 

Let me begin by noting that today CBO is celebrating Take Your 

Children to Work Day. The unusually young-appearing aides behind me are my daughters Laura and Caroline. The children of 

CBO came to see what their parents do for work. And one of the 

things—— 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I have my daughter as well. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I had my son too, but he is with the 

Gators. He threw Mom over. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I like the chance to bring them to see one of the 

things I do, which is to have the chance to testify to Congress. As 

you know, I became CBO Director just 3 months ago. And I am 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
128 

honored to have this position and to be making the case today for 

CBO’s proposed budget. 

CBO MISSION OVERVIEW

Let me begin by briefly reviewing our mission as was laid down 

by Congress more than 30 years ago and continues today. And I 

will focus on the ways in which the demands we face are evolving 

and how our budget is designed to meet those evolving demands. 

Since CBO’s launch in 1975, our mission is to provide Members 

of the Congress and their staffs the information you need to make 

effective budget and economic policy. And we are committed to providing information that is objective, representing not our personal 

opinions, but the consensus and diversity of views of experts from 

around the country; information that is insightful, applying the 

best new evidence and innovative ideas as well as the lessons of 

experience; information that is timely, responding as quickly as 

possible to the needs of Congress; and information that is clearly 

presented and explained so that policymakers and analysts understand the basis for our findings and have the opportunity to question our assumptions. 

CBO STAFF

In providing this information, CBO’s most important asset has 

always been its staff. We are about 240 people, mostly with PhD.’s 

in economics or master’s degrees in public policy. I was an analyst 

at CBO about 15 years ago, and both that experience and my current experience, two characteristics of the CBO staff that impressed me most: 

First is their very high level of knowledge, knowledge of the research literature in relevant fields, knowledge of cutting-edge analytic techniques, and knowledge of the institutional aspects of public tax and spending programs. 

The second striking characteristic of CBO staff is their commitment to public service. Like many other congressional staff, CBO 

analysts are not paid as much as they might be in private-sector 

jobs requiring comparable qualifications or intensity of work. But 

CBO staffers believe, passionately, that determined efforts on our 

part can help you to make a better world. In a cynical age, it can 

be difficult to say that with a straight face. But it is a very real 

belief at CBO. 

We have operated with about 235 staff members for the past decade. And CBO seems to be only a little undersized since its founding more than 30 years ago. Last year, my predecessor director, 

Peter Orszag, proposed to you a 2-year plan to increase the CBO 

staff from 235 to about 260, an increase of 10 percent. Peter quantified the increasing number of testimonies and the formal cost estimates prepared by CBO and described the growing amount of informal communications between Hill staff and CBO staff. He argued in particular that CBO needed to increase significantly its capacity to analyze policy changes regarding health-care delivery and 

financing. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
129 

BUDGET PRIORITIES

We are very grateful that you and your colleagues approved the 

first leg of that increase, and our budget for next year requests additional funding to move closer to that goal. Because of the Continuing Resolution this year, however, we were not able to begin 

hiring when we had hoped, and we don’t want to rush the process 

and end up with the wrong people. So our budget for next year requests 254 FTEs rather than the 260 envisioned a year ago. 

The analysts we have hired in the health area are playing a critical role in our current work on health reform. Reforming such a 

large and complex part of our economy is a daunting challenge for 

policymakers, and predicting the effects of a particular reform is a 

daunting challenge for us. 

Despite the extensive analyses we have done in the past few 

years, current proposals require us to build new models and develop assumptions that affects the behavior we have not addressed 

before. 

In addition, Members are increasingly exploring alternative policy changes with us on an informal basis. And we encourage that, 

but it increases our workload. Moreover, many relevant committees 

justifiably want their questions answered quickly. As a result, all 

the health analysts we have already hired are working flat out to 

meet the demands we face. And still, we are always adding to the 

crucial list of questions that we should be analyzing. Therefore, our 

budget includes funding for additional staff members in the health 

area. 

FINANCIAL AND HOUSING MARKETS

Our budget also asks for funding for additional staff to analyze 

the financial system and housing market. The financial crisis and 

the government’s responses to it have greatly boosted the demand 

for CBO’s work. The legislation authorizing the TARP requires 

CBO to review the administration’s reporting on the TARP. In addition, our budget projections must include assessments of the cost 

of the TARP, of dealing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and of 

the dramatically expanded activities of the FDIC and Federal Reserve. More generally, our assessment of the impact and costs from 

alternative financial and housing policies requires us to monitor 

and model the financial system to a degree we have not done before. 

Beyond the health and financial areas, we are also requesting 

several additional staff in the editorial and IT functions, which are 

critical to our ability to produce and disseminate our findings in reports and testimonies and so on. As we expand analytic staff, we 

need to expand the support functions as well. I should mention, 

too, that additional people will need some place to sit, as Peter 

Orszag discussed last year. We have begun discussions with your 

staff about how to accommodate those needs. 

I want to emphasize that CBO has also been responding to rising 

demands in some areas by shifting staffing positions away from 

topics that have become less central for the Congress. However, our 

scope for doing so is limited by the breadth of Congress’ needs. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
130 

In addition to the topics I have already mentioned, in just the 

few months that I have been director, CBO has testified twice 

about the effects of legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions, 

and embarked in estimating the impacts of new climate and energy 

proposals of significantly greater scope and complexity than the 

Lieberman-Warner bill we analyzed last year. 

The national defense area, we put the finishing touches on studies examining missile defenses, modernization of the Army’s combat forces, shipbuilding for the Navy and Coast Guard, and the 

next generation of fighter planes. We repeatedly updated our outlook for the economy and for Federal spending and revenues to incorporate rapidly changing economic conditions and the effect of 

the massive fiscal stimulus package and, of course, worked in many 

other areas as well. 

In closing, let me just thank the members of the subcommittee 

for your strong support of CBO’s work in the past. Your support 

of our budget request for next year would help us continue to do 

our job to the high standard that you and we expect. 

Thank you. My colleagues and I are happy to answer any questions that you have. 

[Dr. Elmendorf’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
131 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 50439A.085
132 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 50439A.086
133 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 50439A.087
134 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 50439A.088
135 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 50439A.089
136 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 50439A.090
137 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 50439A.091
138 

TARP RESPONSIBILITIES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much Dr. Elmendorf. 

You covered the questions that I had pretty thoroughly in your remarks. But just a couple of things. One of the things I wanted to 

ask you about is your responsibilities under TARP and how you are 

dealing with those challenges, and the FTEs that you are asking 

for I assume are in part related to your expanded responsibilities 

there. What work are you doing now or do you plan to do in the 

coming year on all of those issues surrounding TARP, the state of 

the economy, the financial situation, the housing crisis, et cetera? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Several—I think of several pieces of our work 

in those areas. One is in our estimate of budget revenues and outlays and surplus, we need to estimate the cost of all of the financial 

entanglements that the Federal Government has now taken on. For 

the TARP legislation, that means under the law we need to estimate the expected losses over time, discounting the future returns 

from selling off some of these assets by the risk involved in them. 

So we do a risk-adjusted present value calculation. This is a very 

complicated bit of financial calculations. I can’t do it. Many people 

trained in economics can’t do it. There are people with specific 

training in financial issues who can do it. We have a few of those 

on staff. When the TARP came along and we needed to do much 

more right away, we turned to a consulting firm to help us with 

the immediate crunch, but that is a very cost-ineffective way to 

proceed over the longer run. So that was a short-term contract to 

get us through that crucial period. But now we are trying to hire 

additional people to do that. 

And it is not just the TARP. We also estimate the cost of the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We have to think 

about the much greater activities that the FDIC is taking on and 

the outlays and later premium collections that will come with that; 

and the much greater activities of the Federal Reserve, and the expansion of their balance sheet to such a high level and the effect 

that that might have on the amount of money that they pay over 

to the Treasury. So there are all of these estimates that are around 

the cost in the Federal budget. 

But we also are analyzing the effects of alternative policy. This 

is one of the first testimonies I gave in my first week as director. 

It was to assess some of the options for financial stabilization. That 

sort of analysis requires us to follow developments in the financial 

system, have more institutional understanding of the financial system and the various pieces that CBO has needed in the past. And 

we have hired several people who will be starting in the next 

month or 2 to help us do a better job of that. 

And the same thing with housing policy. We spent time estimating the cost of some of the housing proposals, but also not just 

the Federal budget cost, but the question about what that would 

do to the housing market and the broader economy, and we are 

working on that as well. 

I think beyond that, beyond the immediate crisis, there are the 

questions you will confront about how to restructure Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac for the future; what sort of housing support the 

Federal Government should and should not be providing over time; 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
139 

more generally, what our housing policy should be. So I think we, 

like you, look to beyond the crisis and being able to set in place 

a more robust system going forward. 

DIVERSITY CHALLENGES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

And then the only other question I had was, if you could—and 

we talked about it in my office when you came earlier—how are 

you dealing with the challenges that your office perennially faces 

to deal with diversity? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. That is a very important topic for us in all of 

the hiring and promoting that we do. At the level, I think, of initial 

hiring, we work very hard to be sure that when we are looking for 

people, we are looking not just in perhaps traditional places, but 

we are looking very broadly. And everybody who we hire, the person doing the hiring has to report on the interviews they have conducted. And we in the central office, our Human Resources people, 

look at that list and we are sure people have, in fact, cast a wide 

enough net and are interviewing people that seem to reflect roughly the demographic composition of the pool from which that person 

might be hired. That demographic composition of the pools we hire 

from differs, depending on who we are trying to hire and what particular areas of expertise. But the system we use for that is, I 

think, very appropriately demanding on people doing that direct 

hiring. 

There is also the very important question of how we promote and 

how we hire someone from inside and someone from the outside for 

more senior positions. And, again, we take great pains to cast a 

wide net. In addition to publicizing job openings in all of the places 

that we can think of, we reach out directly, personally, to our panel 

of economic advisers and our panel of health advisers. For the senior appointments that I have been responsible for, I have called a 

large number of people I know with expertise in various areas for 

suggestions of people, and that is partly for people with talents of 

certain sorts and partly to be sure we are looking for the most diversity we can. And we are also doing our part, or more than our 

part, to try to build more diverse pools in the future. 

We have an extensive internship program. And we try very hard 

to have a diverse group of people in that we hope that more of 

them will go on to become economists or to get masters’ degrees in 

public policy. I am actually scheduled to go out this summer to the 

American Economic Association’s minority program, which is held 

in California, to talk with them. These are students who, again, are 

at a point where they might or might not go on to become professionals of the sort that we could hire. And I think we think—it is 

not something that I started at CBO, although I am enthusiastic 

about doing it—we think that by showing people how much fun we 

think it is to have the jobs we have, a few more of them will be 

persuaded to go and do that. And we are not—this is not a task 

that we have completed or a task that we will complete on my 

watch. But it is a task that we will pursue very aggressively. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That question was asked in the spirit 

of Taking Our Daughters to Work Day. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
140 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I don’t think my daughters have been sold that 

they want to come to Washington, unfortunately. But we are working on it. 

NEW FTES

Mr. ADERHOLT. In regard to FTEs, you mentioned that you want 

to make sure you get the right ones to fill those roles. Did you say 

that, as of right now, that you have not hired any of those at this 

point? Or, would you please clarify what you were saying about 

FTEs. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Last year in our budget we requested 250—you 

all approved, Congress approved, 250 FTEs for this year. But because of the Continuing Resolution, those weren’t made available 

to us until just a couple of months ago, well into the fiscal year, 

so we couldn’t begin hiring for them. And we have high standards 

for whom we will hire. So when we started to look—and we are 

looking very vigorously now, but we don’t think we can bring on 

board that full number of the right people on this time frame. 

So our sense is that for this year, we are more likely to have 

about 242 FTEs rather than the 250 we hoped to have, just because of the slow start because of the Continuing Resolution. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And making sure you get the right person in 

there. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Absolutely. And we need people with a lot of 

skills, as I said. And then we also need to teach them and train 

them, people who come out of master’s programs or Ph.D. programs, who have a lot of skills, but still won’t know everything 

about how we do our job. So we need to make sure that we pair 

our latest hires with more experienced people as they learn the 

ropes. So it is also a matter of how many people we can effectively 

bring on board at once. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Cole. 

SALARY DIFFERENCES

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, thanks for the great 

job you do. Frankly, we always get wonderful service. But we are 

clearly now asking you to do a lot of things that you haven’t done 

in the past. And I am going to focus first on this personnel issue, 

the problems that you have outlined in getting the right people. 

What are the issues in terms of salary differentials in terms of 

what you can pay versus bringing people with different skill sets 

in and people that have high market value potentially in the private sector? Are you comfortable you are going to be able to pay 

people what you want to get the people you need? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. No, I am not comfortable. I think we will manage. But it is a problem. Naturally the topics that are of great interest to you, and thus to us, are also of interest to other people 

in the world. So as we try to hire in health care and in finance, 

we are competing against very strong demands from elsewhere in 

the policy world and elsewhere in the world more broadly. 

Finance is a particular issue. I spent a number of years with the 

Federal Reserve Board, which pays higher salaries than we can 

pay at CBO. And that was something that the Federal Reserve 

adopted to try to capture more of the top financially trained people. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
141 

Now, the collapse of many financial institutions has this very, 

very small silver lining for us, which is there are more people looking for jobs. So one of the people we have hired, is starting very 

shortly, was working for a private firm, and the firm is reducing 

its size. But notwithstanding that, we are paying him a fraction of 

what he can make other places. I think he is coming for the challenge of being in the policy world. But it does make me nervous to 

rely on that. 

We try to run an agency that people want to work in. We have 

surveyed the people who work at CBO. They seem mostly happy, 

despite the demands we put on them. And the areas they are concerned about, training and communications, we are working hard 

to address. So we think we are doing everything we can to make 

the place as appealing to work. And obviously people recognize it 

to be a very important role in public policy, and that is the ultimate trump card in the hiring. But I do worry about salaries. 

I think I just was handed a relevant note here which says the 

top 10 university economics departments are paying new Ph.D.s 

$134,000. That is a lot more than we can pay new people. It doesn’t 

have to be hedge—it is not just the hedge funds. It is some other 

government agencies, like the Fed, and it is some of the academic 

institutions as well. 

Mr. COLE. What is the salary differential between what you are 

able to offer and what you just cited? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. We would pay new people a little less than 

$100,000. 

TARP ISSUES

Mr. COLE. I may be dragging into areas that you don’t want to 

go, just because I want to talk a little bit about the analysis of the 

TARP program. Probably the most questions I got from my home 

town meeting is enormous confusion between TARP, stimulus, omnibus, budget. And let’s just start with the simplest one which I 

think is the most fundamental one. 

TARP is effectively a purchase of either stock or assets, mostly 

stock right now, and preferred versus common, as I understand so 

far. So, one, is there a handy way you can get us the information 

of what we have actually bought, institution by institution? That 

is, where we have done preferred. I guess we are in the debate now 

as to whether we are going to do common or not. And what return? 

That is another thing that always astonishes my constituents is 

that we actually own something and we actually get a stream of 

income back off what we bought, like obviously more traditional 

budgeting aspects on the thing like the budget or like the stimulus. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, we can provide you with information about 

at least some of the assets that are involved. The assets in the 

TARP we know. The Federal budget has been mostly historically 

on a cash basis. And that has in one way the virtue of transparency. As the government moves into more financial activities, 

buying more assets, cash calculations are less relevant. Unfortunately, the alternative calculations are much less transparent. And 

it is an important mission of ours. 

We are in the process of hiring a senior finance adviser, actually 

a very distinguished finance expert, who we just about signed up 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
142 

to come join us for a while. And she and I have discussed the crucial importance of educating Members of Congress and their staffs 

about the sorts of calculations that we do, what underlies them, 

how we come up with the numbers we come up with. Right now 

we estimate that of the $700 billion that can be laid out under the 

TARP, that the cost, the ultimate cost will be about half that, and 

in some sense that half of that money will end up being—the government will end up receiving through this stream of income or by 

selling assets in the end. 

TOXIC ASSETS

Mr. COLE. Do you have any professional opinion on—in one of 

the big debates we had concerning TARP was the last administration’s request was we are going to buy toxic assets. They got into 

it and figured out they really didn’t have the personnel to do that 

and manage it. And Congress, I think rightly, made the decision 

to at least empower both the last administration and this administration to look at stock purchases as opposed to—which I actually 

felt much more comfortable with, because at the end of the day the 

assets are worth something. We get to sort of be first in line if we 

own stock, and I would rather people that actually bought the junk 

or toxic in the first place manage it, as opposed to us. And I am 

always—there are only two times we have taken this process, and 

that is usually when we buy something and when we sell something. So I am much more comfortable owning stock that I can 

price and I can decide where it is going to go, as to opposed to trying to manage something thousands of miles away. 

Do you think we made a good decision collectively as a Congress 

in creating that option? Because the administration, again both of 

them, appear to have fallen back toward where Congress wanted 

to go as opposed to what the original proposals were. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So, CBO does not make policy recommendations. So I can’t endorse or refute that. There were some writings 

a year or so ago by a private economist named Douglas W. Elmendorf that encouraged—— 

[Laughter.] 

But I think the challenge that—I think it is extremely challenging to know how to proceed. We don’t have any experience in 

this country like this, certainly not since the Depression. Other 

countries have been through banking or financial crises but with 

very different banking and financial systems. 

So, unlike, if you get back to the fiscal stimulus, where we have 

never done anything on the scale that you all have voted to do— 

we have done things that are like it, but smaller—the financial 

side really is quite different. And the savings and loan bailout, for 

example, that was really all about how to sell off assets that the 

government took on sort of automatically through the FDIC resolution process. 

The question that you are confronting now is how to absorb assets, in a way, to free up the banking system. And I think, in some 

ways, the crucial question is how much of that needs to happen 

and at what level will the private financial system be able to regain its footing so as to provide support for the rest of the economy. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
143 

I think everybody in the policy world has been very clear that 

there is no justification providing help for the financial system for 

the sake of the financial system. The question is all about the 

international experience in which crippled financial systems lead to 

economies that are in the ditch for potentially a very long time. 

And trying to decide how much has to happen, how much of the 

TARP should happen, how big the Federal Reserve balance sheet 

should be, how much subsidies should be provided through Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac to support housing—those are questions that 

analysts don’t really have answers to. 

And I think most analysts who look carefully at this think that 

you will all ultimately put more money in the financial system 

than you have so far, because the problems are not becoming resolved or are not being resolved at the current level. That is not 

a recommendation. That is just, I think, the consensus prediction 

of people who have studied this carefully, is that more money will 

be needed. That is going to raise the stakes on this question of just 

how to do it. 

PAY BACK DEBT

Mr. COLE. There is already quite an emerging and, for a layman, 

somewhat confusing debate that is starting to emerge as to whether—let me put it this way. There has been a lot of controversy 

about some institutions being ready now to sort of return the 

money, pay us off, get us out of their business, which is enormously 

popular, I think, amongst—this is a business I certainly don’t want 

to be in, and my constituents certainly don’t want me in it. 

Do you have any—can you give us the pros and cons? I am not 

trying to draw you into that policy place where you can’t go. But 

the merits over whether or not we should—hey, if somebody wants 

to write the check, fine, we are done, versus the administration has 

advanced a position that they want to be careful that they are not 

coming back, that they are afraid they will suck too much liquidity 

out of the system and effectively defeat what we are trying to do. 

Number one, should we have the option—or what is the merit of 

the option of us retaining that option, in other words? I am a little 

more comfortable, I guess, with private people. If they want to 

write the check back, believe me, I am happy to take the money 

back institution by institution where we can get out of that business as quickly as we can get out of that business. I think that is, 

frankly, where most people, no matter which side of the issue, are 

most comfortable being. 

So do you see any merit in just saying, ‘‘Look, any time you are 

ready to pay back, we are ready to take the money,’’ versus saying, 

‘‘No, we don’t want the money now, we are afraid you are going to 

overpay or pay too soon’’? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think the principal argument for letting people pay it off is that it helps to distinguish the banks that are 

thriving from the banks that are crippled, and that a lot of the 

problems of the financial system over the last year and more has 

been the uncertainty about who is holding the bag, who is really 

in trouble and who isn’t. 

And one of the accomplishments of many of these proposals for 

dealing with the trouble is to actually bring the information to 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
144 

light. That is the point of the stress test, as well. So letting people 

pay off who are in healthy shape does distinguish them from those 

institutions that are sick. And there is a value in that. 

I think the counterargument is that banks will be too eager to 

pay it off in an effort to prove they are okay, perhaps in an effort 

to get out from under the constraints that the Congress is imposing 

as quid pro quos for the money. In that sense, the banks will pay 

it back before they are really ready to do enough new lending, 

which is what we want to have happen to spur the economy. 

Mr. COLE. Should we be making that decision, or should the 

bank be making that decision? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Cole, you are on round three of 

5 minutes. 

Mr. COLE. Okay. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think it is an appropriate question for policymakers to take up themselves. 

Mr. COLE. One last question, Madam Chair. 

Do you know of instances where we literally have refused to take 

the money back when somebody wanted to write us a check? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I don’t know of that. We can check. I don’t 

know. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The gentleman’s time having long 

since expired, thank you very much. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Any other questions? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I just would say thank you for bringing your 

daughters here today. We were glad to have them here. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Thank you very much, sir. 

ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT FROM THE CHAIR

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Welcome to the Legislative Branch 

Subcommittee. We are, in the spirit of tradition, going to assign 

you some homework as well. With your expanded responsibilities 

for the TARP program, you obviously have additional demands for 

your services due to the turmoil in the financial sector and the 

housing sector and the overall economy. 

So if you could by Monday, May 4th, give us a brief report on 

how your office is addressing those new responsibilities while still 

responding to your existing workload. And if you could highlight in 

the report how the additional FTEs that you have requested in fiscal year 2010 will facilitate your efforts in this regard. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, I will. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

And with that, thank you very much, and the committee stands 

in recess until Tuesday, April 28th, at 1:00 p.m., when we will consider the Office of Compliance’s FY 2010 budget request, as well as 

GAO and GPO. Thank you. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
145 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 50439A.092
146 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 50439A.093
147 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 50439A.094
148 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 50439A.095
149 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 50439A.096

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(151) 

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2009. 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE (GPO) 

WITNESS 

ROBERT C. TAPELLA, PUBLIC PRINTER OF THE UNITED STATES 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would like to call this meeting of the 

Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations to order. 

This is our third budget hearing for fiscal year 2010. Today we 

will hear from the Government Printing Office; the Government 

Accountability Office; and the Office of Compliance, OOC. I think 

of them in acronyms now, which is really not good. 

We will hear first from Bob Tapella, the Public Printer, who will 

be GPO’s only witness. GPO is requesting $166 million next year, 

which is a $26 million or 18 percent increase over fiscal year 2009. 

This is an increase that is due almost entirely to a request in the 

revolving fund for investment in GPO’s technology and physical infrastructure. 

The fiscal year 2009 bill provided you with a pretty significant 

boost, one which allowed you to absorb the congressional printing 

shortfall, so although I know your needs are great, an 18 percent 

increase will be virtually impossible to sustain. So I look forward 

to hearing from you about your priorities, as we discussed in my 

office, and what your absolute must-haves are versus the ‘‘I would 

like to have these.’’ 

Your statement has been received, and we will enter it for the 

record. 

Mr. Aderholt do you have any remarks? 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you for being here today and giving us testimony. We 

want to welcome the Public Printer. We very much enjoyed our 

tour a few days ago, and it was a great experience to have a chance 

to visit. It was my first time over there. The Chair, I think maybe 

she has been before. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No, it was my first time, too. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. It was a great time to see what goes on over 

there and so much of the work that takes place we on a daily basis. 

I am glad to have my wife, who is visiting with us for a few minutes today, Caroline. I am glad she was able to join us today for 

a little bit as well. 

Anyway, we look forward to your testimony and also to discuss 

your 2010 budget request. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
152 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Your statement will be entered into 

the record, and you can proceed with a 5-minute summary. 

OPENING STATEMENT—MR. TAPELLA

Mr. TAPELLA. Thank you. Madam Chair, Mr. Aderholt and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate you inviting me to be here 

today to discuss GPO’s appropriations request for fiscal year 2010. 

I have submitted my prepared statement for the record, and with 

your permission, I have just a few brief remarks. 

First, Madam Chair, Mr. Aderholt, thank you for taking the time 

out of your busy schedules to visit GPO and see first hand the 

great work of the dedicated men and women that serve you every 

day. It is the first time in my memory that our appropriators have 

paid us a visit. We were delighted to have you come by and look 

forward to having you visit again. 

And to the other members of the Subcommittee, I extend a very 

warm welcome to please come to GPO and see what we do. 

Second, I want to thank you all for your support for GPO’s appropriation for fiscal year 2009. This funding eliminates the shortfall 

in congressional printing and binding, allows us to undertake a 

number of valuable projects supporting electronic information dissemination to depository libraries and other users, bring FDsys 

closer to completion, repair our roof, and begin to renovate our elevators. 

Third, now that the shortfall has been repaid, for fiscal year 2010 

we are able to request a reduction in the appropriations for congressional printing and binding of approximately $3.5 million. For 

the salaries and expenses of the Superintendent of Documents, we 

are seeking a modest increase of $2.2 million to continue transforming the Federal Depository Library Program into a predominantly electronic basis. For our revolving fund, we are seeking an 

increase of $18.5 million to complete the development of FDsys and 

carry out a number of critically important IT infrastructure 

projects. 

And quite frankly, Madam Chair, Mr. Aderholt, if a picture is 

worth 1,000 words, I sure hope a site visit to our factory is worth 

$13.6 million for necessary building maintenance and repairs. 

Now I understand there will be limitations on what the Subcommittee can recommend for us. And so I will be happy to discuss 

our priorities for this funding with you today. 

And finally, as I have discussed earlier with many of you, the 

GPO, like many other agencies and businesses these days, is facing 

a very different business climate this year, in our case a direct result from a significant reduction in the demand for passports from 

the Department of State. We are tightening our belts, evaluating 

all costs and proposed projects, and taking all available measures 

to ensure we stay within our budget. I won’t kid you, though; this 

is going to be a really tough year for us. With your understanding 

and support, our objective is to complete this year on a sound financial basis. 

Madam Chair, Mr. Aderholt, members of the Subcommittee, this 

concludes my opening remarks, and I would be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

[Mr. Tapella’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
153 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 50439A.097
154 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 50439A.098
155 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 50439A.099
156 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 50439A.100
157 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 50439A.101
158 

TOP PRIORITIES FOR GPO

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

If you could, take us through some of your top-priority items so 

that we know when we are trying to modify your budget request 

what those are. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Okay, top priorities: FDsys, the Federal Digital System, there is an $8 million request for that in the revolving 

fund. 

The composition system replacement project, $2 million we are 

requesting, and that is the composition system that we use to prepare all congressional material. 

The third item that is a high priority is what we call GBIS, 

which is the GPO Business Information System, our Oracle applications, which is all of our back-office functions, and for that we 

are requesting $3 million. The smallest item we are asking for is $200,000 for an R22 

phaseout, which is an air-conditioning refrigerant, and the EPA is 

requiring us to phase it out of use. And finally, for our building, about $3 million in elevator repairs. 

If only these priorities were funded, along with our request for 

CP&B and the S&E, our increase over fiscal year 2009 would be 

7 percent. And so that is my must-have list. 

FINANCIAL SITUATION

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Thank you. 

Talk to us a little bit about the passport production situation. I 

know only a small portion of your budget comes from appropriated 

dollars, and most comes from services that you provide to other 

Federal agencies. And the trend, as I have observed since we reconstituted this Subcommittee, is that your finances have, until this 

year, improved dramatically, to the point where you were actually 

making a profit, which I tried to appropriate. It is extremely enticing to have an agency that is turning a profit. 

But as you very rightly warned me, there are years like the one 

that we are in now, where you maybe aren’t going to turn a profit 

and have a downturn. So if you can walk us through the various 

sources that you get funding from and how you deal with the ebb 

and flow of that. Are you going to run in the black in spite of the 

drop in passport production? And what happens if you don’t? 

Mr. TAPELLA. First of all, for fiscal year 2009, we set GPO’s budget at $1,020,000,000. That was based on estimates on what we 

thought congressional work was going to be, on estimates given to 

us by the State Department of the number of passports they were 

going to require, and on past history from the printing we do for 

Federal agencies, which we call printing procurement. At that 

budget level, we were anticipating $2 million in retained earnings. 

We use the terminology ‘‘retained earnings’’ not ‘‘profits’’ because 

we are also actually not a business. We are a wholly-owned Government entity. 

IMPACT ON BUDGET

In fiscal year 2008, our retained earnings were $46 million. That 

was after we returned $51 million to the State Department in the 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
159 

form of over-recovery, and obviously, we follow the law that says, 

if we are charging for a specific item, we only use that money for 

that item. And we ran into a situation in fiscal year 2008 where 

we produced 24.5 million passports for the State Department. 

Going into fiscal year 2009, the State Department gave us an estimate in the 17–18 million range. We budgeted for 16.5 million 

passports, but just before Christmas, they changed the number to 

10.5 million passports this year. So that means that we are facing 

a $36 million operating gap at GPO. 

As we look at our actual budget, this is the first month where 

we are facing a deficit. For fiscal year 2009, as of the close of 

March 2009, we had a net operating loss of $4.4 million. That compared last year to a net operating income of $65,861,000. 

We are looking at everything we are doing. It is my anticipation 

that we will be in the black at the end of the year, but it is going 

to be really tough. In fact, next week, I am gathering all of the senior managers of GPO together, and we are spending a complete day 

going through everyone’s budgets and making certain of the things 

that we can remove or hold off on. 

And it sort of answers the question earlier which you resolved 

last year in the budget about the retained earnings and what happens when there is a shortfall in the Congressional Printing and 

Binding Appropriation. It means that we don’t have available cash 

in the revolving fund. Fortunately, we do have cash in the revolving fund, and that helps tide us over when lean years occur. 

EEO AND DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Last year we talked about the number 

of EEO and discrimination complaints that GPO had pending at 

that time. And in your weekly reports, I continue to see those complaints being filed. While, in some cases, there may not have been 

as many, you consistently, at least you seem to be one of the only, 

if not the only, agency that has as many EEO complaints as you 

do. So what steps are you taking to address the environment that 

exists at GPO that is resulting in these complaints? 

Mr. TAPELLA. At the end of last month, we had a total of 49 complaints filed for the fiscal year to date. Of those, 21 were from a 

group of employees in our Digital Production Center. I actually 

don’t believe those 21 are really any EEO issue. It is a management issue. And we are very seriously addressing a management 

issue that came to our attention through that process. 

During all of fiscal year 2008, we had a total of 45 complaints 

filed. So if we discount the DPC case of 21, we are on par with 

where we were last year at this time. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So there has not been a reduction. 

Mr. TAPELLA. There has not been a reduction. 

Now what we have done is, in our strategic plan, and in every 

manager’s performance plan, EEO is now one of the issues in 

which every single manager and supervisor is being rated on. We 

have stepped up the number of classes and the training, including 

frontline supervisor training, and we are requiring all the frontline 

supervisors to take training in discrimination and EEO practices, 

and we have been going as full-steam-ahead as we can trying to 

bring it to the attention of folks. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
160 

EEO GOALS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Before I turn to Mr. Aderholt, because 

I was stalling until you came back, are you certain that you are 

doing enough right now to make sure that GPO, throughout GPO, 

that you have an environment that is, a work environment, that 

is free from discrimination or discriminatory conduct? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Let me put it this way, I believe that having a 

workplace free of discriminatory practices is important. I have 

made it paramount to those folks that report to me, and I have requested that we work our way through the chain of command. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is that a long way of saying, no, not 

yet, but you are working it on? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Yes, I think so. 

We are running an agency of 2,351 people in a factory environment with a long history. And through the last few years, when we 

have done the transformation of GPO, I think we have made some 

significant changes, and I think we are seeing some results of those 

changes. 

But I don’t think it can change overnight. I wish it could, but I 

don’t think it is going to happen. But we do have a plan. We are 

working towards that plan. We have made it a priority. And I will 

continue while I am Public Printer to make it a priority. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

REPRESENTATION FUND

It is my understanding there is an authorization to use $5,000 

in a revolving fund for representation and reception allowances. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Could you tell the committee a little bit about 

what that is used for? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Most Government agencies are not allowed to use 

appropriated dollars for entertainment purposes unless specifically 

authorized by law. And so there are what are called representation 

and reception allowances. 

In GPO’s case, it is not appropriated money. What we have is an 

authorization to use revolving fund money for the same purposes. 

Now, unlike most other Federal agencies out there, we operate 

more like a business, and so we have to market our products and 

services. We actually have 450 agency customers and over 5,000 individual agency addresses of folks that we do business with on a 

daily basis. Last year, we procured about 135,000 individual print 

jobs from the private sector on behalf of Federal agencies. 

So we use that fund the same way that a business would use a 

typical sales and entertaining fund, which is building relationships 

with our customers, both here on the Hill as well as throughout all 

Federal agencies. And up to this point, the fund has been $5,000. 

I, personally, don’t think it is enough. And I personally—myself 

and my predecessor—have been footing bills beyond the $5,000 to 

make certain that GPO can continue its business. And that is part 

of the reason why the turnaround has been so successful, because 

we have been building relationships with our customers. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
161 

The biggest functions that we typically do are a Fourth of July 

celebration on the rooftop where people can watch the fireworks; 

and a second one during the holiday season, an open house. We 

also regularly invite folks in to see the Creative Services Department and other activities at GPO, and to even pay for the coffee 

and bottled water comes out of the rep fund. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You need to invite your oversight 

committee to the July Fourth event. 

Mr. TAPELLA. In fact, we have. Every Member of Congress has 

been invited to the Fourth of July, as have all of the staff on our 

oversight and appropriations committees. And you are cordially invited for this coming July Fourth. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Good point. I was thinking the same thing. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Last year we had three or four Members attend. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So, with this revolving fund, you said the $5,000 

you think is not sufficient. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Correct, it is not sufficient. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What do you think would be more in line? I am 

not holding you to a certain number. 

Mr. TAPELLA. What I can tell you is, last year, last calendar year, I spent just over $25,000 in what would be rep fund activities, and 

the first $5,000 came out of the rep fund, and the remaining 

$20,000 came out of my pocket. 

My predecessor did about the same and actually more. He had 

significantly deeper pockets than I do. And so I am not sure what 

a reasonable number is for Congress. If we could get it up to at 

least $7,500, that would be a big help to the next Public Printer, 

so that we can continue to do the things that we do. 

INCREASE IN CONGRESSIONAL RECORD VOLUME

Mr. ADERHOLT. In your statement, you indicate that there is a 

projected increase in volume for the daily Congressional Record. 

With the availability of the Web access, what contributes to this 

added increase in the volume of the daily Congressional Record? 

Mr. TAPELLA. I don’t have an answer for you on that. Are you 

talking about the dollar increase or the volume increase? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. The volume. 

Mr. TAPELLA. I misunderstood. It is not the quantities that we 

are producing. It is the size of each edition. Historically, at the beginning of the new Congress, Congress talks a lot more. More bills 

are introduced. That makes a larger volume for the particular editions. The number of printed copies of those editions is actually reducing on a fairly regular basis. There is a trendline on that. And 

we use historical data to make that determination. 

ELECTRONIC ACCESS

Mr. ADERHOLT. Where are you on the, as far as on the Web access right now? I always see the printed copies, but tell us a little 

about what your plans are on that. 

Mr. TAPELLA. First of all, when it comes to the Congressional 

Record, the printed Congressional Record is delivered to the Chambers typically at 9:00 a.m., at the beginning of each legislative day. 

The electronic version is typically available at 6:00 a.m. on the 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
162 

Web. And we are in the process of the migration from the former 

GPO Access, which we began in 1994, to what today we have, 

which is called the Federal Digital System, FDsys. And we released 

that in beta in January. We publicly released it on February 4th. 

Electronically it is available, and it is available before the printed copies are available to you. It is searchable. And with the 

FDsys, and I am sorry, when you were over for the tour, we didn’t 

have a chance to spend some time showing FDsys. It is now searchable in ways that it had never been searchable before, by Member, 

by subject heading, by types of bills. It is incredible. And we did 

a lot of work with Congress, user groups in Congress and the library community to make certain it is as robust as possible. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. First off, it is good to know that you are starting 

to monitor the tapering down of the number of journals that you 

are printing. They are great to take on the airplane and to read 

while I am in the Cloak Room, where I don’t have Internet access, 

so it is nice to be able to have them, but we don’t need a gazillion 

copies of them. And that is not how we are going to store things 

if we want to go back and look at them in the future. Just as you 

can read a newspaper online and miss things, going through the 

Record two different ways, you can catch different things. 

EMPLOYEE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

But I am going to switch gears on you here. The Washington 

Post had an editorial yesterday, perhaps you saw it; maybe you 

were busy trying to figure out if the pig that was loose was swine 

flu or something else. So let me highlight what it talked about. It 

said that, in 4 years, there are 600,000 Federal jobs, close to onethird of the government, that will need to be filled. And currently, 

one-quarter of the Federal Government is under the age of 40, compared to one-half of the private sector. So to put it another way, 

three-quarters of the government workforce is over the age of 40. 

And you know, loss of institutional memory, loss of expertise, 

things like that can all be a result. Can you tell me what is going 

on in your area and the Government Printing Office? And if you 

are concerned about this, what you are doing for recruitment, and 

what you are doing to bring on the next generation of people who 

will serve the public in a very trusted way—that is keeping the 

records? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Thank you for the question. 

It is actually an issue that is of concern to me. At present, we 

are roughly, if we take our entire workforce, which is just under 

2,400 employees, we have roughly, I am using slightly different 

numbers than age 40, but we have roughly a quarter of our employees are age-eligible for retirement, and that is really what I am 

concerned about are those that could walk out tomorrow as opposed 

to somebody between the ages of say 40 and 55 or 50, depending 

on which formula you use. 

And I am particularly concerned because, in our back-office functions, for example finance, more than one-third of our employees 

are age-eligible to retire. And that is part of the reason why one 

of my priorities, a top priority, is funding our back-office Oracle 

project, because it is our general ledger, fixed assets, accounts reVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
163 

ceivable, accounts payable, project accounting, work-in-process billing, everything that allows us to function on a daily basis. And that 

is why that is one of my priorities. 

Moving into our plant and the facility there, we are looking at 

the transformation of GPO from running those large console Web 

presses, which are the same things that newspapers are running, 

to digital equipment that will allow us, as we have folks retire, not 

necessarily need to replace them and instead take that head count 

and use it in other areas of the GPO. And one of the areas, in fact, 

in Library Services and Content Management, nearly half of our 

employees are age-eligible to retire, and those are the folks that 

work for the Superintendent of Documents operation. 

We are out recruiting. We have spent time. We have started 

what is called a Leadership Development Program, and it is a 2– 

year rotational program. We are bringing in the best and brightest, 

not necessarily young people, but from a mix outside the government, inside the government and inside GPO, to make certain that 

we have some folks that are prepared to step into leadership roles. 

We have been doing college recruiting. This past year, I have visited I think seven or eight college campuses to work in the process 

of recruiting candidates to come to work for the government. We 

have also stepped up, and one of the major changes I made as Public Printer is I created a new office, and it is the Office of the Chief 

Management Officer. So I have three people that report to me, the 

chief operating officer, who handles all of our revenue units, so it 

is the production and the sales that we do; I have a chief of staff, 

who handles all of the administrative and executive offices of GPO; 

and I created a chief management officer, who owns human capital, 

everything dealing with employees. And we have done a concerted 

effort to make certain that we are working in that area. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Well, you kind of answered my question, so you 

gave me the one quarter over all. What if you put in age, I don’t 

want to make up an age, obviously you can go down, you can go 

down another level, where are you overall? 

Mr. TAPELLA. I am sorry, I would have to get you that information because I don’t have that at the top of my head. I have been 

focusing primarily on those that are age-eligible to retire. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Because you have to put that fire out first. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Because I have to put that fire out first, absolutely. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. What I hear on your statistics, you are actually 

more mature than the average of what currently is in the Washington Post, which is one-third of the government. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Yes, and I think that is GPO historically has been 

a very good place to work. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. 

I think, Madam Chair, workforce issues and retention is something that this committee, maybe later on, should take a look at. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My understanding is that article, correct me if I am wrong, was about government-wide, it is definitely 

a problem. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. We are the institutional memory of the government for our branch. So it is important that we stay intact. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you for raising it. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
164 

Mr. LaTourette. I am sorry, no, forgive me, Mr. Cole. He was 

here first. 

Mr. COLE. We have this problem frequently. 

STATUTORY PRINTING REQUIREMENTS

First of all, thank you for the great job you do. The quality of 

the product we get in our office is very high. I am an old historian, 

so I love what you do. The records you create across time are really 

valuable, not just for the body today but for other people down the 

road. 

How much of the printing that you do is required printing that 

we have statutorily laid on you? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Well, any printing that we do for Congress, we do 

because Congress has requested it. When we look at the statutes, 

Title 44 lists out some very specific things that GPO does print on 

behalf of Congress. 

Beyond that, I would have to go and figure out—— 

Mr. COLE. Is it a very substantial percentage? I am just curious 

about how much we do do that. And I guess a follow-up question, 

which may be easier, do you think we ask for too much? Are there 

things we should be reviewing and say, well, do we really still need 

that any more? 

COST OF PRINTING

Mr. TAPELLA. To be honest, sir, I don’t know how to answer that 

question. You know, we are printing just shy of $100 million worth of product for you. One of the things that is interesting is, if you look at 

the congressional printing and binding costs from 10 years ago, 

even 20 years ago, it has been relatively flat. And that is because 

we have been introducing new technologies to try to get rid of some 

of the costs of meeting your needs. And we are sort of, our entire 

industry is at a crossroads right now. And the question is, what 

still should remain in print, and what should be in electronic retrieval systems? 

And one of the things that is interesting, and a lot of the folks 

don’t understand, when it comes to printing, those extra copies are 

the least expensive copies. It is that first-copy cost. So producing 

that very first copy, if you only printed one, would be X amount 

of dollars. As soon as you start producing multiple copies, the cost 

per unit drops significantly. 

One of the reasons a top priority is the composition replacement 

engine or composition replacement system for the work that we do 

for Congress is to try to drive out some of those costs. We have a 

concept of operations, and we are moving forward on that process 

so that what we are trying to do is reduce that first copy cost. 

As to what should remain in print or what shouldn’t, I leave that 

to our number one customer for the House of Representatives, the 

Clerk of the House. And so Ms. Miller puts in the requests, and 

we produce the documents, as do, obviously, committees. I would 

leave it to you folks to make a decision on what should remain in 

print or what shouldn’t. 

Mr. COLE. Just to that point, just to get it into the record, I know 

you do 820 copies of the House and Senate Journal. The people in 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
165 

my office love those things. They really don’t want that to go electronically. They tab them, and they do all sorts of things with them 

and keep them, and they don’t disappear into binders, at least in 

our office, over time, so, again, thanks for what you do. It is a great 

work product. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome. 

Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I am the only one left. 

And just a question of clarification, Mr. Cole was here before I 

was, but we were all here when the gavel dropped. And so I just 

need to know, because Mr. Dicks does this to me all the time with 

Mr. Cole. Is it like a State of the Union thing where I get here at 

4 o’clock in the afternoon for a 9 o’clock speech? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is order of arrival when you come 

in the room. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Call me. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is how I have always done it. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I will follow any rule. I just want to know 

what the rule is. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Even though we have accommodation 

of Members as the meeting progresses, whoever is left here, still 

it is order of arrival. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you for being here. 

And just to Mr. Aderholt’s question about the volume business, 

I have often thought we should have a cap-and-trade system for 

Members in terms of minutes on the floor. You get like 600 minutes of time, and if you are from Texas you can trade those, things 

of that nature. 

ESTIMATING PASSPORT PRODUCTION

I just wanted to know, the money that you make from passports, 

do you engage in a dialogue with the State Department? I know 

you said 24 million and then 17, and they dropped it to 10. Is there 

a discussion, or are you just a receiver of an order that says, no, 

we don’t need 7; we need 10? 

Mr. TAPELLA. We are in discussion with them fairly regularly. In 

fact, we have working groups with the State Department. They are 

obviously a very large and very important customer. 

Over the last year, there have been a number of changes in the 

management within Consular Services that are responsible for 

passports. Just within the past 12 months, there have been two assistant secretaries of State; there have been three deputy assistant 

secretaries of State; there have been at least two managing directors of passport operations; and two just below that. So, yes, we try 

to work with them. They try to forecast. 

Now what is interesting when it relates to the passport, I don’t 

think anyone was out there predicting the economic conditions that 

we are today facing and what occurred at the end of the year. And 

you know, if people don’t have enough money to pay their mortgages, they are probably not getting a passport to take that luxury 

trip to Europe or the Caribbean. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
166 

OTHER TRAVEL DOCUMENTS

Mr. LATOURETTE. Here is why I asked the question. You said 

only 24 million before and only 10 this year. This is not your problem. This is the State Department’s problem. We have the second 

part of the Western Hemisphere rule traveling the ships taking 

them to places this year in June. They were wholly unprepared for 

phase one, which just dealt with air and sea travel. Now they are 

going to do land crossings to Canada and Mexico. And my question 

is, did you chat with them about, hey guys, maybe you missed? Because we have people, regardless of whether they have enough 

money to go; I will tell you the blue haired ladies in my district 

can get on a Greyhound bus and go gamble in Niagara Falls. And 

they are going to be upset if we have the same mess with passports 

that we had a summer or so ago. 

Mr. TAPELLA. What I can say, we are responsible for producing 

the passport for the State Department, not the pass card. However, 

we do produce the NEXUS and Sentry card for Custom and Border 

Patrol. So, as a little pitch, I would recommend to those ladies in 

your district to get the NEXUS card, which I believe will be allowed, and that will be produced just down the Street on North 

Capitol Street, and that allows you the access, the travel to Canada 

and Mexico. NEXUS for the north; Sentry for the south. And we 

do produce these. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Do you make money on them? 

NEW BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

Mr. TAPELLA. We do. And in fact, I would like to see us producing more. And that would also, one of the things we are working on in terms of our bottom line, we are spending a lot of time 

in new business development. One of the areas that we are focusing on is something called secure and intelligent documents. And 

those are primarily secure Federal credentials. It is a newer business. We have been producing the passport since 1926. We are in 

our first year of producing the NEXUS and Sentry cards. This year, 

for the first time, we are producing a Medicare card, and this is 

for Puerto Rico. 

We are working on HSPD–12 ID cards. We produced the credentials for all the law enforcement officials for the Presidential Inaugural. That is an area where I would like to see GPO. I believe that 

Federal credentials belong in a Federally-owned, Federally-operated production environment and not in the private sector. And I 

think it is an inherently governmental activity. And it is something 

that we have geared up for. 

We have a secure production facility in Stennis, Mississippi, 

where we are producing passports. We have secure facilities here 

in Washington, D.C., where we are doing both the cards and passports. We have the capabilities. We have the trained workforce. 

And it is an area that I would like to see us move steadily ahead 

on. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you for that answer. 

You just brought to mind, when we had a hearing on the Inauguration, I think it was the Secret Service testified that you printed the tickets to the Inauguration in July of last year. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
167 

Mr. TAPELLA. Yes, we took care of the printing of the tickets, on 

the calendar that was given to us by our customer, the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I am not saying you did it on your own. I want 

to know when you did it. In July? 

Mr. TAPELLA. That is the right answer, July. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thanks so much. 

ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT FROM THE CHAIR

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do any other members have any additional questions? 

Before you go, I wanted to just assign some homework. We do 

that here in the legislative branch. Last year, after your hearing, 

we asked you to submit a report that detailed policies and programs in place that you had to ensure that discrimination does not 

occur within your agency. And I would like to get an update on 

where you are with a report by next Friday May 1. It should include an explanation of how many active EEO cases there are now 

in GPO compared to last year; what these cases relate to; the status of each case; how the number of cases compares to other agencies; and what programs and policies GPO has in place to make 

sure that discrimination does not occur within the agency. And the 

report should clearly note wherever there has been a significant 

change since the last report in March of 2008. 

Thank you very much for your service and your time. We appreciate it. 

And again, thank you very much for the tour, especially the artisan that we got to see. That was extremely cool. 

With that, we’ll close out the GPO portion of this hearing. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
168 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 50439A.102
169 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 50439A.103
170 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 50439A.104
171 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 50439A.105
172 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 50439A.106
173 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 50439A.107
174 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 50439A.108
175 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 50439A.109
176 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 50439A.110
177 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 263 here 50439A.111
178 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 264 here 50439A.112
179 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 50439A.113
180 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 266 here 50439A.114
181 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 267 here 50439A.115
182 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268 here 50439A.116
183 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 269 here 50439A.117
184 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 50439A.118
185 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 50439A.119
186 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 272 here 50439A.120
187 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 273 here 50439A.121

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(189) 

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2009. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO) 

WITNESSES 

GENE L. DODARO, ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED 

STATES 

SALLYANNE HARPER, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

GEORGE STRADER, CONTROLLER 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. GAO is up next. 

We welcome you to the committee, Mr. Dodaro. It is always a 

pleasure to have you here. 

We are going to hear from you in a moment. But I know that 

you have, in your fiscal year 2010 request, essentially asked for additional FTEs, not surprising given the increase in your workload. 

GAO is asking for $567 million, a $36 million, or 6.9 percent, increase over the current year. I am not sure that we will be able 

to do all of that, but you have put forward one of the more reasonable, manageable, doable requests of the agencies, especially in 

light of your increased workload. 

And let me just say that, if you could please take back to the 

GAO employees how much Congress appreciates the work that 

they do, and really the work you do is the gold standard. It is 

something that we all rely upon. I said the same thing to Mr. Elmendorf. We can count on your expertise. This committee in particular relies on you on a regular basis, both when we were overseeing the construction of the CVC as well as a number of other 

different things that we are trying to make sure that we can hold 

accountable. 

So please take our thanks back to the employees of GAO. 

I am hopeful that this year we are going to be able to be responsive again to your needs to increase the number of FTEs that you 

have at the agency so that you can handle the workload. I know 

that Members are going to want to ask you about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We have just received the first of the 

bimonthly reports that are legislatively required. And even though 

we are just beginning, I know we are going to want to hear from 

you about that. 

And with that, Mr. Aderholt. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I would also like to join you in welcoming Mr. Dodaro for the 

committee hearing today and to hear their request. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
190 

GAO is an invaluable asset to the Congress and to the Nation, 

and in particular, I want to thank you and your employees for your 

dedication and support of Congress. 

And this committee looks forward to hearing your testimony 

today. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Do any other members have any other opening remarks? Okay. 

We will enter your statement into the record and if you can proceed 

with the 5-minute summary. 

OPENING STATEMENT—MR. DODARO

Mr. DODARO. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I very much appreciate being here Congressman Aderholt, Congresswoman McCollum, and Congressman Cole. I very much appreciate your kind words. 

I want to start out, first of all, thanking you and the committee 

for your support for us for our fiscal year 2009 budget request. 

And I will convey to the GAO people your appreciation and comments on their hard work. I know they will value that very much. 

Our request for 2010, as you mentioned, we think is a well justified and prudent request. Since we were here last year talking 

about our fiscal year 2009 budget, we have been given additional 

responsibilities by Congress. 

First, as you mentioned, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act assigned us a range of responsibilities, which include the 

bimonthly reviews of selected States and localities. And we selected 

16 States and the District of Columbia for us to do a longitudinal 

study over the next 2 years as they receive the Recovery Act moneys. I will be happy to talk about the results of that first report 

as well as the range of other responsibilities that we have been 

given under the Recovery Act. 

We have also been assigned a number of responsibilities to help 

in the financial institutions and markets area. The Economic Stabilization Act asked us to report every 60 days on the Treasury’s 

implementation of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and we have 

issued at least three reports in that area. 

We have also been assigned a responsibility to be the auditors of 

the Federal Housing Finance Administration, which oversees 

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and is now a conservator of those 

agencies. And that is in addition to the expanded responsibilities 

we now have auditing the Bank Insurance Fund, which, given the 

number of bank failures over the past year and a half, has become 

a much more complex audit. 

GAO WORK COVERS A WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES

Now, in addition to these new responsibilities, we continue to receive hundreds of requests from Congress to deal with a wide range 

of issues. In the future we will be focusing in on the operations of 

the 2010 Census; a number of health care issues, including health 

care to women in the military, as well as preparing and dealing 

with public health emergencies. We also have a wide range of work 

dealing with U.S. efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. We 

are going to be spending a lot of time on efforts to help Congress 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
191 

modernize the financial regulatory system to help mitigate any reoccurrence of the type and magnitude of the challenges that we are 

facing right now. 

We also have been dealing with cybersecurity issues that are getting a lot more attention. We have been working on that for a 

while. Contract management reform has been another area of 

focus. So we have a full range of activities across the breadth of 

the Federal Government’s activities, and we look forward to continuing to support the Congress in this regard. 

Last year we testified before Congressional committees over 300 

times, which is the second highest total in the last 25 years for 

GAO. And I would expect us to similarly have our views sought in 

this Congress as well. 

So, with that, I would be happy to answer any questions. I know 

this committee will give serious consideration to our request. I appreciate the time and effort and careful review that goes into it. So 

thank you all very much. 

[Mr. Dodaro’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
192 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 280 here 50439A.122
193 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 50439A.123
194 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 282 here 50439A.124
195 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 283 here 50439A.125
196 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 284 here 50439A.126
197 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 285 here 50439A.127
198 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 286 here 50439A.128
199 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 287 here 50439A.129
200 

INITIAL RECOVERY ACT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Ms.WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Dodaro. 

Can you just review with us, since I know a lot of Members, we 

all need to talk about it in our districts when we are home, your 

initial findings in the first report on the Recovery Act? 

Mr. DODARO. In the Recovery Act, we had three objectives. One 

was to track the uses of the money and the planned uses by the 

States and localities. The second area of focus was how they were 

preparing to assume their accountability requirements; how they 

were going to monitor and track the money. And then, third, what 

were their plans to evaluate whether or not the money was being 

used to achieve the intended purposes of the legislation? 

Now, the 16 States and the District of Columbia that we selected 

were going to receive two-thirds of the Recovery Act money over 

the time frame of which the money will be allocated. During fiscal 

year 2009, there is a total of $49 billion that will be allocated to 

the States and localities. Ninety percent of that is going to be in 

health care, education, and transportation. And so there were really three programs that were receiving the bulk of the attention as 

the initial implementation unfolded. 

Through the Medicaid program, the 16 States and the District 

that we looked at had received an allocation of $16.9 billion. As of 

early April, they had drawn down $7.96 billion of that or about 47 

percent of their allocation. Most of that was being used to help 

meet and maintain eligibility requirements in the Medicaid area 

and also to meet increased caseloads. Given economic situations, 

obviously, more people become eligible for services. 

The Federal share increased significantly in our sample States. 

It ranged from a 7.09 percent increase in Iowa to an almost 11.6 

percent increase in California. Because the Federal share went up 

and included retroactive payments back to October 2008, this enabled some of the States to perhaps reduce their share of the allocation. They used it to help offset, in some cases, layoffs and other 

actions that would have been detrimental to economic recovery. 

Now in the transportation area, most of the States were actively 

planning. They had $15.5 billion allocated to them; about $3.3 billion have been obligated. Now, in this case, obligated means the 

Department of Transportation at the Federal level and States 

agreed on projects, but most of the projects were still in the competitive bid process in the April or May time frame. So, aside from 

Mississippi and Iowa, who actually let some contracts, not a significant amount of Recovery Act funds have been spent yet, but it was 

in the pipeline. They were moving forward. Most of them were focusing on construction and maintenance activities and to repair 

roads and bridges. 

Now a third major program was the State Stabilization Fund of 

this program funding, 81.8 percent is supposed to be used for educational purposes, and 18.1 percent can be used for other public 

services, including education. But before the States can spend that 

money, which was allocated in early April, they have to submit an 

application, and it has to be reviewed by the Secretary of Education. Only two of our States had submitted and had their review 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
201 

approved by the Department of Education, so that is in process as 

well. 

Now, in the accountability front, we found that a number of 

States were taking their responsibility seriously but were concerned that they had, because of their own fiscal pressures, cut 

back in a lot of areas, both on the management side and the audit 

side. They were concerned about their ability to provide adequate 

oversight over the money. 

One of the recommendations that we made to OMB is that they 

clarify how Recovery Act funds can be used for administrative purposes so the States could strengthen their oversight ability to make 

sure that the funds were spent adequately. 

We also made a recommendation that OMB modify the Single 

Audit Requirement, which is the fundamental accountability mechanism at the State and local level to audit the funds, to have more 

reviews done in fiscal year 2009 before most of the money the State 

and local governments receive is going to be spent in 2010 and 

2011 in terms of the spendout rates. And so if the auditors can get 

in early and assess controls, it can better ensure that the money 

will be adequately safeguarded. And so we made that recommendation. 

And we also made a recommendation to OMB in the last area, 

which is to evaluate the impact of the funds, and to provide assistance on the definition of jobs preserved and jobs created that all 

the recipients are supposed to report back. There is still a lot of 

confusion about what methodologies will be used and accepted by 

OMB. So we had a series of recommendations in those areas. 

We also recommended better communication between the Federal 

Government and the State and locals. OMB had really started out, 

I think, with a good set of guidance. But they could build upon 

those efforts and strengthen their abilities. Particularly, States 

were concerned where Federal money was going directly to localities and bypassing the States. What they were concerned about is 

that since they were making their own decisions to allocate money 

that they wouldn’t adequately coordinate, and so might be actually 

double funding the same activity. And so we recommend that OMB 

notify the States of all the money that is going into that State. 

OMB agreed with the thrust of all our recommendations. And so 

I think we got off to a good start in trying to make sure that accountability issues are dealt with. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely. Thank you. 

My time is expired. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

OVERSEAS PRESENCE

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yes. 

It is my understanding that, back in September 2008, you established an ongoing temporary duty presence in the International 

Zone in Baghdad, Iraq, and that GAO employees are assigned there 

for a 6-month period. What is the current number of staff present 

in Iraq and what are some of the responsibilities that they have? 

Mr. DODARO. Sure. First of all, the presence is exactly as you 

mentioned, Congressman Aderholt. We still have three people 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
202 

there. We just completed the 6-month tour with three individuals. 

We have just assigned three new individuals over to Baghdad. 

We do a range of activities over there. We have been focusing on 

monitoring the security situation over there and regularly report to 

the Congress on that. We also look at the reconstruction activities, 

the contracting activities going on over there, and the efforts by our 

military to train the Iraqi police and military. 

And also, we look at the various sectors, whether it be the energy 

sector, the electrical grid, water supply, et cetera. Another important feature of what we look at is the efforts by the U.S. Government to bolster the capabilities of the Iraqi ministries to carry out 

normal government functions. And we also monitor their efforts to 

pass some of the legislation that is really necessary and that was 

agreed to previously as well. 

Now, a big focus for us going forward will be the drawdown of 

the troops over there. During the first Persian Gulf War in the 

early 1990s, that drawdown took about 15 months. There were a 

lot of issues, and we already issued a report on the status of planning activities at the Department of Defense. There has to be arrangements made with other countries to move the equipment. The 

equipment has to be cleaned. There has to be environmental restoration issues. So there are a whole lot of issues associated with 

the drawdown. So we will be monitoring these areas that I mentioned as well as the drawdown activities. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Do you have any plans to have much of a Department presence there for the long-term? 

Mr. DODARO. Not really. We used to have many overseas and 

international presence during the, for example, the Vietnam War 

and some other activities. We have closed all those activities. So I 

don’t have any plans right now. 

The only thing we have been thinking about is with the efforts 

in Afghanistan, and we have also monitored some of the U.S. efforts in Pakistan as well. We might move to a regional presence activity to have something there that we can deploy people to and 

from those locations. But I think it is not effective for us to have 

a lot of brick-and-mortar presence in other places given modern 

communications, modern technology, and transportation efforts. 

ACTIVITIES UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION ACT

Mr. ADERHOLT. I know the Presidential Transition Act specifies 

that GAO is the source for the transition team when a President 

leaves and another President takes over. Tell us a little bit about 

this. I think the subcommittee as a whole would be interested in 

what role you all play in that transition. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, I would be happy to. 

As you mentioned, the Presidential Transition Act was amended 

in 2000 to include GAO as a resource for new administrations so 

that they could learn about their management risks and challenges 

associated with making the leap from campaigning to governing. 

But given this particularly challenging time for our country, we decided not to be just reactive and wait for people to come to us and 

seek our advice. 

On November 6, 2 days after the election, we posted a Web site 

that we had been working on for a number of months which disVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
203 

tilled all of GAO’s hundreds of reports and testimony down to 13 

urgent issues that we thought the administration needed to focus 

on from day one, which included financial institutions and markets; 

U.S. efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan; dealing with preparing for public health emergencies, which we are seeing some of 

that right now; and military readiness and spending. And we also 

listed for the 28 largest Departments and Agencies what we 

thought needed to be done for each major Department and Agency 

to assist the individual teams for the transition efforts as well. 

We also listed cost-savings opportunities that were based on open 

GAO recommendations that hadn’t been implemented. We talked 

about the long-term structural deficit problems that the government was confronting. And so all GAO’s advice was made available 

24 hours to the transition teams. 

We continue to update that site and continue to meet with new 

officials as they come in to office. So I was very pleased; that transition material I know was used effectively. And we got some feedback on it. And I think we played a very important role on helping 

the administration get up and running. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. It appears the most recent transition went very 

smoothly, so you played an important role in that. 

Mr. DODARO. To the credit of the Bush administration as well, 

I thought they put a good bit of effort into preparing for the transition as well. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yes, I think both sides. 

Mr. DODARO. I think it was very well done. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. That is all. 

IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF RECOVERY ACT ACCOUNTABILITY

MEASURES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. I would like to thank you for the 

work that you do and for coming over to brief me earlier on some 

of the challenges that I see with the recovery package funds and 

transparency and accountability, so I am going to follow up on 

some of the discussion that we had before. 

City, State and tribal governments, they all want to meet the reporting requirements. They are all very concerned that they do it 

in a timely, correct, transparent fashion. But as we know, in this 

economy we are seeing city, State, county and even the tribal governments having to make cutbacks because of incoming tax revenue and decreases in State budgets. So as we look forward to seeing the transparency and the accountability, they are very concerned that with the best of intentions, an inadvertent error could 

be made and something could not be reported in the right category, 

and everybody would have a sad story. 

I asked you what role the GAO is going to play in the process 

so Congress and the administration have good, accurate, and timely information; but we also have to audit how the reporting process 

is working so we can make adjustments when they need to be 

made. 

One issue, after speaking with some tribal governments—and I 

am going to meet with one of our Minnesota tribal governments 

shortly—is in the area of housing. And especially in health care, 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
204 

they have the Bureau of Indian Affairs, they have NIH, they have 

three or four agencies and categories they have to report to. Is it 

going to be up to them to separate where all of the individual funding came from? Is each one of the agencies going to work together 

so that the tribal government only has to fill out one form for 

transparency and accountability, or are we going to make this a 

nightmare for everybody? 

What can we do legislatively or working with the White House 

to make this work the way that everyone wants it to work in a 

friendly, fair, transparent manner? 

Mr. DODARO. First, OMB is moving to try to have a central reporting system, and we have encouraged them to move along those 

lines. One of our recommendations was that they put a working 

group together—Federal, State, and local officials—to work on the 

reporting requirements. 

A number of State officials had written a letter to myself and Director Orszag and asked to meet and work through the reporting 

requirements. I think there needs to be clarification. I was glad to 

see OMB postponed the first reports until October 10, rather than 

July 10, to provide more time for this type of coordinated activity 

to take place, so there is greater clarity and it is an efficient and 

effective process. 

We are working with OMB to make sure that this is as efficient 

as possible, but the only way to deal with it here is to have OMB 

centralize it. Some agencies have their own reporting responsibilities, but they are going to have to try and coordinate those activities together. 

You also asked me about coordination with the National League 

of Cities. We have coordinated with them. They testified at the 

hearing that I testified on before the Senate Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs Committee. So we are going to continue 

to work with the various levels of government ourselves and try to 

communicate with OMB. 

Also, the one recommendation that we made about having some 

of the money available for administrative purposes should help, if 

OMB clarifies that, it should help in the reporting area as well so 

they have some administrative support necessary to prepare the reports. 

PANDEMIC ISSUES

Ms. MCCOLLUM. As the flu epidemic possibly could turn into a 

pandemic—and there have been wonderful, wonderful steps taken 

by the Bush administration, in moving forward and doing a lot of 

good things. And the House of Representatives tried to put more 

money forward, but we lost that battle. It looks like the money 

might be coming now. 

What, if anything, has GAO been looking at or doing, in the line 

of preparedness, not so much in flu vaccines and public health, but 

the inventory because we have crash carts in hospitals that have 

30 drugs on them, and 29 of the drugs are imported from Canada, 

China and perhaps Mexico and other countries, and we are more 

and more dependent, especially in this economy, on an on-time delivery system? 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
205 

What oversight has there been and what direction has there 

been, or haven’t we had the time or the resources to do what we 

need to do to find out how the on-time deliveries in the private sector are affecting outcomes for food, water and basic supplies that 

hospitals and public health infrastructures depend on? 

Mr. DODARO. For the last 3 years, we have been focused on planning for a pandemic. We have issued 11 reports and testified a couple of times and made over 20 recommendations to build on the efforts that were made previously over there. Some of them have 

gone to the capacity issue, clarifying roles and responsibilities 

throughout the intergovernmental system. So I think those are 

very important issues. 

In fact, we had suggested to the Bush administration that they 

push the guidance forward to determine how the antivirals are administered. Since you have limited numbers of them, what priorities ought there be for distributing the amount of antivirals at the 

State and local level? They did issue that guidance back in December, which we were encouraged by. But we still have some outstanding recommendations. 

But the other thing that we did was, we added to our high-risk 

list this past year, better protecting the public through enhanced 

oversight of medical products, which include manufacturers of 

drugs, including vaccines, as well as medical devices. We didn’t 

think that FDA really had the capacity, or had made the shift in 

focus needed, because of the foreign production of drugs and medical devices, to have the proper oversight over that area. So that 

is a separate area. It is related to what you are talking about with 

on-time deliveries, but it starts with the fundamental oversight of 

safety to begin with. 

So we made recommendations in both of those areas. I will look 

more specifically to see if we dealt with real-time delivery systems 

and provide it for the record if we have done more. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. 

RECRUITING AND INTERNS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. I inadvertently stepped on my good friend Mr. 

LaTourette’s toes when he asked a question, and I want to be very 

sure that I ask his question because I think he wanted an answer 

for the record. 

During our visit in my office last week, we discussed the skill set 

you need to carry out the various audits and projects you oversee 

and how you find people with these skills. Would you please highlight these skills for the subcommittee and discuss how you recruit 

potential employees? 

And he had a follow-up: What role will interns play in this process? 

Mr. DODARO. I am going to let Sallyanne explain our national recruiting program, but basically the skill sets we need in GAO are 

varied. We have a highly professional, trained workforce that has 

multiple levels. 

We have public policy analysts. We have economists. We have financial auditors. We have computer scientists. We have a number 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
206 

of people in specialized areas. We have an actuary and we have 

physical scientists. We have civil engineers, whatever we need. 

When we were asked to help on the Capitol Visitor Center, we 

had a trained civil engineer, and he was able to go in there and 

really provide sound advice. And we do that with construction 

projects across the Federal government. 

The same thing with nuclear facilities or radiological devices or 

biological information. We have a medical doctor who heads our 

health care area. 

So we have a wide range of skills and a very sophisticated recruiting effort to obtain the skills that we need. I will turn the floor 

over to Sallyanne to explain how we do it. 

Ms. HARPER. Basically we want to stay in the market of always 

recruiting, and so we build long-term relationships with places 

where we are drawing these skill sets from. We really believe in 

refreshing at the entry level and building from the entry level in. 

So normally we are recruiting at the Masters and above level. 

We also have a very aggressive intern program; 160 to 170 interns come in, normally May to September. They try us out and we 

try them out. We make offers to about 70 percent, on average, and 

we get about a 70 percent acceptance rate. We found that they tend 

to have retention benefits for us. They will stay longer because 

they know what they are getting into. And so I think that combination has proven very successful. 

Mr. DODARO. Congresswoman McCollum, your question about 

GAO retirement eligibility, at the end of 2010, only 17 percent of 

GAO’s workforce is eligible to retire, and it is about 42 percent of 

our senior executive corps. But Sallyanne and myself and a lot of 

other people at GAO have been working for a number of years on 

succession planning efforts to make sure that we not only retain 

proper skills, but that we also develop the workforce for the future 

because we are undergoing demographic changes just like the rest 

of the country. 

TARP ACCESS

Mr. COLE. Mr. LaTourette’s question and mine dovetail well. 

This is my question. 

On the whole issue of TARP—and we talked about this with 

CBO—obviously, we now have a huge expenditure that is not like 

anything that any of us have done before. Have you been able to 

get the kind and the number of people that you think you need to 

have to get a handle on that? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. I feel very confident that we have the right 

skills. What I am concerned with TARP is having the proper access 

to get the information that we need. Let me explain a little bit 

about that. 

In order to do TARP, we pulled financial market experts. We 

have financial auditors. We have attorneys who specialize in conflict of interest. We have procurement specialists who look at how 

they contracted for the asset managers. And we have economists 

who can track whether the effort is producing the desired effect in 

the markets in terms of the credit rates and the interest rates. So 

I feel very confident that we have the right team. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
207 

We have been focusing to make sure that Treasury hires up the 

right people to manage the program effectively. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman would yield for one second, the $25 million that we appropriated, was that enough for 

you to deal with all of the oversight that you need to deal with? 

Mr. DODARO. The $25 million was for the Recovery Act, which 

will go through September 2010. TARP will get reimbursed from 

the Treasury Department. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So oversight is reimbursed from 

Treasury? 

Mr. DODARO. And as long as the TARP money holds out, we will 

be okay. 

But the access issue is the big concern I have as to the TARP 

program, because it has been leveraged with activities at the Federal Reserve and FDIC. At FDIC we have authority, and we have 

authority at Treasury. But if the Federal Reserve uses monetary 

policy discount window operations, which is what they are using for 

most of these activities, we are statutorily prohibited from auditing 

those activities at the Federal Reserve. 

I have been vocal about this in testifying before Congress on 

TARP programs and changes to the broader financial regulatory 

system, which we added to our high-risk list. But if Congress wants 

us to conduct effective oversight, they have to change the statute; 

and a number of committees are considering ways to do that right 

now, because the amount of money that is being leveraged at the 

Federal Reserve outshadows the TARP funds. 

Mr. COLE. I hope you will do that, and I hope we give you that 

ability. We would like to make sure we have a very good feel for 

what is going on, and you are very transparent with the American 

people. 

TRIBAL RECOVERY ACT GRANTS

My last question is related to something Congresswoman McCollum asked. In the stimulus package, there is a lot of money set 

aside for tribes. My understanding, talking to some tribes, to access, for instance, law enforcement money, they are required to 

produce a set of statistics, criminal statistics, which are really set 

up and work real well for States and localities, but don’t work well 

for tribal governments. They collect statistics, according to the FBI, 

which is not broken out for tribes. 

They are having difficulty producing the data that is required for 

them to literally go and compete. It is one of these things that I 

would ask you to look at. 

Over the last several years, we made it explicit in any grants— 

and we did this on the Rules Committee—that States, localities 

and tribal governments could compete for certain things; and yet, 

we clearly had a set of requirements, sometimes with DOJ, where 

literally the requirements are such that they are effectively denied 

the eligibility that Congress clearly wanted them to have. This is 

one of the area of special expertise, if you will, that is really hard, 

because Indian law and sovereignty are difficult. 

If you can look at that and see if there are areas where we clearly are not giving tribes the ability to access money that Congress 

set aside because they cannot meet the statutory requirements. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
208 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. If the gentleman would yield, I think one or two 

phone calls would probably clear it up, but with tribal nations they 

have tribal courts. So how things are charged out sometimes are 

different, and so the statistic gets reported differently. 

Some of the restitution is done in a culturally significant way 

where they have very good success rates, and some of the traditional western U.S. governments are looking at whether it is a tribal justice circle for restitution. 

They are starting to adapt some of those into our system, but 

they are not necessarily recognized as being the way to conduct 

business as usual. So I think that tribal governments, because of 

their different agency jurisdictions and because of their sovereignty, we need to be sure that we are being respectful. 

Mr. COLE. I think this related to Byrne grants. That seems to be 

where the problem is, the whole statistical issue, it is really a challenge because tribal courts have limited jurisdiction. Where the 

crime was committed, which court they get referred to, whether it 

goes to a Federal court or a State court or a tribal court are really 

complex. 

If we ask you to give us your statistics from the State of Oklahoma, or Oklahoma City, that is a pretty easy job to do. It is really 

tough with tribal government, just given the overlap in jurisdictions and limitations of tribal courts. 

Again, I think Congress has a clear intent, but we may not have 

come up with a mechanism whereby they can literally go to DOJ 

and say, here is our challenge, here are the grants we would like 

to compete for. 

Mr. DODARO. The Byrne grants are on our list of 22 that we are 

going to track, so we will take a look at this issue. 

GAO WORKLOAD

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Before we wrap up—and I will check 

with other members to see if you have additional questions, but 

just three quick questions. 

I don’t really have a sense, but do you think—and I am trying 

to put this diplomatically. Do you think most committees have a 

good understanding of the workload that accompanies their request 

that they make of GAO or the cost associated with it? I get the 

sense that most committees just view GAO as a bottomless pit that 

has an army of workers that are experts and are standing by waiting to have their particular requests for a report dropped in their 

lap. 

Would it make sense to let chairmen know the cost of their requests that they are making, to maybe put the cost of a particular 

report at the bottom of the report so the chairman would know, or 

anyone would know, what it costs to produce a report? 

And you actually have fewer employees than 10 years ago? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And you are trying to staff back up 

because we are increasing our accountability, which is a good 

thing. And I think you have made a good case for additional staff, 

but—your statement asks for an additional 109 FTEs, but the 

budget justification indicates that you plan to hire 319 additional 

staff. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
209 

Are you dealing with that difference through attrition? 

Mr. DODARO. Right. That is to replace attrition and add additional people. 

I think the way to deal with the workload issue is two things: 

One—and we have been trying to work this with each committee— 

is to set priorities. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And I am not suggesting that chairmen are asking for reports that they don’t need. I am not sure that 

they always prioritize. 

Mr. DODARO. I think the understanding is increasing. We are 

working with each committee to set priorities. I think that is working effectively. The one area where we don’t have any control is 

when committees go into conferences and requirements are added 

there. 

We track every bill that is introduced that has a potential mandate for GAO. And if we don’t think that it is something within our 

scope of authority or competency or clearly stated, or gives us flexibility, we try to work up front with the committee. 

We also will be submitting again this year a list of mandates 

that we believe have outlived their usefulness and can be eliminated. And if we can find a way to somehow get conference amendments referred to our oversight or appropriations committees as 

part of a procedural matter, that might help a little bit. 

Other than that, I think we are doing a good job managing priorities, and I think that is the best way to deal with the issue that 

you raised. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Great. 

COMPTROLLER GENERAL ANNUITY

On the CG annuity issue, and I know you are contracting with 

the National Academy of Public Administration per the language 

in the bill from last year to review the issue of the lifetime annuity 

of the Comptroller General, has that contract been finalized? 

Mr. DODARO. Oh, yes. And the report is due by July and we have 

set the contract in order to make that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And how many previous Comptrollers 

General and/or their widows are currently collecting a lifetime annuity? 

Mr. DODARO. Two, I believe. Two. 

GAO PAY SYSTEM

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I don’t have any homework because I 

think you have enough work for you to do. You have enough on 

your plate. 

Just give us an overview real quick of the evolution of the pay 

system and how you are dealing with that and the employees and 

their reaction. 

Mr. DODARO. Recent history? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, recent history. 

Mr. DODARO. The recent history is that the GAO Act of 2008 resolved those prior issues. We made all of the retroactive payments. 

We appreciate the Congress’s enactment of that, and we raised the 

pay-up for those people and made retroactive payments, so that 

issue is resolved for the people currently here at the GAO. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
210 

Now we have also reached tentative agreement—we reached 

agreement quickly in 2008 on pay, with the union. We have tentatively reached agreement with the union for 2009. 

UNION RELATIONS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Speaking of the union, how are your 

relationships going? 

Mr. DODARO. I think very good, and I would expect them to give 

a similar report. 

We have an interim collective bargaining agreement. We have 

reached agreement quickly 2 years in a row on pay. We are working on a longer-term agreement, the framework for that, for the 

first master collective bargaining agreement. I have met with them 

several times, Sallyanne and myself, to make sure that everything 

is on track. 

We have got good labor management people that we have hired 

to work with them. They meet with them weekly to work through 

issues. I think it is going well, and I am committed to make sure 

that it stays that way. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Wonderful. Thank you. 

With that, thank you very much for your service and time. Keep 

up the good work. Don’t forget to bring our message back. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
211 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 313 here 50439A.130
212 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 314 here 50439A.131
213 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 315 here 50439A.132
214 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 316 here 50439A.133
215 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 317 here 50439A.134
216 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 318 here 50439A.135
217 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 319 here 50439A.136
218 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 320 here 50439A.137
219 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 321 here 50439A.138

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(221) 

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2009. 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE (OOC) 

WITNESSES 

TAMARA E. CHRISLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

PETER AMES EVELETH, GENERAL COUNSEL 

BARBARA J. SAPIN, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

SUSAN M. GREEN, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL 

ALLAN HOLLAND, FINANCE OFFICER 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good afternoon. Our last agency for 

the day is the Office of Compliance. 

Ms. Chrisler, welcome back to the committee. 

The Office of Compliance is asking for a $4.5 million budget, a 

$400,000 increase from last year, which is about 10 percent. We appreciate the work that you do making sure that we can deal with 

the life safety issues that exist in the Capitol of which there are 

a wide and varied assortment. They are a priority for me and have 

been since I began chairing this committee. 

But we are, as I have told every agency, in a situation where we 

need to understand what your ‘‘got to haves’’ are versus your ‘‘nice 

to haves,’’ so that is what we are going to be looking for during 

your testimony and questions. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to welcome Ms. 

Chrisler, and we look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Your statement is entered into the 

record. You may proceed with a 5-minute statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT—MS. CHRISLER

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Aderholt, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am honored to appear 

before you today in support of the Office of Compliance’s 2010 request for appropriations. 

I would like to emphasize four major points from the written 

budget submission and our written statement, which is authorization and funding for an OSH program supervisor, funding for the 

already authorized compliance officer position, contract dollars for 

a fire safety specialist, and the Agency’s cost savings effort. 

Initially, though, before we go on to the appropriations matters, 

I would like to mention something that might be on everyone’s 

mind, which is the swine flu. I want to share with you what the 

Agency has been doing with respect to educating and informing the 

legislative branch of what our efforts are. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
222 

We have been working with the Office of the Attending Physician 

and are currently collaborating with them on preparing a meeting 

for tomorrow, a legislative branch-wide meeting that will inform 

the campus and provide guidance on how to address pandemics in 

general and the swine flu in particular. This meeting will support 

the Agency’s preexisting efforts to address pandemics. We have fast 

facts on our Web site, which are just publication information that 

are helpful to the covered community; we will be posting that on 

our Web site as well. 

Before I move on to 2010, I would like to thank the subcommittee 

for its support of our efforts in fiscal year 2009. Because of the support of the subcommittee, we were able to do our job with respect 

to the Capitol Visitor Center. We were able to get in there and do 

preinspections and ensure fire safety concerns were addressed, and 

to ensure adequate accessibility issues were addressed for our visitors. And we thank you for allowing us to do our job. We appreciate 

that. 

We also thank the subcommittee for the support that we received 

for our budget request in fiscal year 2009. Because of the support 

of the subcommittee, we have been able to improve internal operations. We have been able to compensate our staff at a level that 

is equal to their performance, and we have been able to continue 

with our technical assistance. We thank you for that. 

For fiscal year 2010, we recognize the economic difficulties that 

the government and the country face, and we refrain from renewing certain unfunded requests from fiscal year 2009. I want to emphasize that. And I do want to emphasize that our request was 

made with that in mind. So we present that to you for your consideration. 

Our most critical item is the OSH program supervisor. Currently, 

that role is filled by a nonreimbursable detailee from the Department of Labor. This individual has over 30 years’ experience. He 

is a certified industrial hygienist. He provides technical expertise 

to our general counsel. He works with outside OSHA experts. He 

supervises the safety and health inspectors that we have, and he 

is retiring in calendar year 2010 and we would like to replace him 

with a position on staff. 

We have been working with the Department of Labor for a nonreimbursable detailee. I am not sure how that is going to pan out. 

They have their own fiscal constraints and staffing issues as well. 

We are hoping that the committee will fund a position for us, as 

well as authorize a position for us, so that we can bring those duties on staff to increase accountability, as well as provide some consistency with our internal operations. 

Second, funding for our compliance officer position that the committee graciously authorized for us in fiscal year 2008, but was not 

able to fund for us, we are requesting funding for that this year. 

The compliance officer position is necessary to ensure that none of 

the hazards that we find fall through the cracks. 

In the 109th Congress, there were about 13,000 hazards that 

were identified. This past Congress, the 110th Congress, there 

were less, about 9,000. But we want to make sure that we are on 

top of monitoring the abatement of these hazards; and that is what 

this position will ensure. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
223 

Also, fire safety specialist. In fiscal year 2009, we requested an 

FTE for that. Currently, we have reevaluated how to meet the 

needs of the covered community, and we have withdrawn our request for an FTE at this time and we are asking for contract dollars for that position. 

We have also reevaluated how to provide some of the training 

and outreach services that the Agency provides to the covered community, and we are not renewing our request for a trainer and ombudsman. 

In line with the fiscal constraints that are facing this subcommittee, as well as the government as a whole, we recognize our 

responsibility to reevaluate the way we do our business. So we are 

engaging in best practices and shared services with sister agencies 

to reduce our costs; and we continually strive to provide the needed 

resources with minimal, though adequate, resources. 

I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today. I am happy to answer any questions that you 

may have. 

[Ms. Chrisler’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
224 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 328 50439A.139
225 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 329 50439A.140
226 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 330 50439A.141
227 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 331 50439A.142
228 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 332 50439A.143
229 

STAFFING INCREASE REQUESTED

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

Let me focus in on the OSH program supervisor, because I certainly understand the logic behind wanting to bring that person on 

staff. But if you can get it from the Department of Labor, since 

that model has worked so far, we would strongly encourage you to 

do that. We are all dealing with bottom lines here, and my strong 

preference would be not to have to fund that as a permanent position if you can get it from the Department of Labor. 

Do you know when you will know whether or not you can? 

Ms. CHRISLER. We have spoken with them as recently as January 

of this year, and have really understood from them that they are— 

a lot of their senior level staff have been retiring as well, and those 

positions have not been refilled. So they are dealing with a limited 

pool of staff that they would be able to share with us at the experience level and credential level that our program needs. 

So looking realistically at filling the needs of our agency with a 

detailee from the Department of Labor, it doesn’t look like it is 

going to come to pass. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because they don’t have the experienced personnel that they detail to you? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Yes, that they can detail to us. 

It is not that they don’t want to, it is that they can’t. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And if you are choosing between a 

compliance officer and the OSH program supervisor, which is the 

higher priority? 

Ms. CHRISLER. The OSH program supervisor. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So if we can’t do both of them, you 

could live without the compliance officer? 

Ms. CHRISLER. The duties that the compliance officer will fill 

need to be done, so—living without the position is what we have 

been doing, and it is draining our resources. What we are doing is 

really having our inspectors fill the role of what the compliance officer would do. That is taking away hours and time from the inspectors. 

So, yes, we could do it. We have been doing it, but we would be 

more productive if we weren’t having to do that. 

RETENTION OF STAFF

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In the reports that you submit to us 

on a biweekly basis now, on your organizational chart you have a 

lot of vacancies. Are you having retention issues? You only have 20 

employees, but you do seem to have a lot of vacancies. 

Ms. CHRISLER. We have had some retention issues in the past. 

The support that we have received from the subcommittee with respect to fiscal year 2009 in allowing us to increase our salaries, I 

believe will address some of that. We are working with our oversight committees to address some of the benefits issues that we 

have, tuition reimbursement, student loan reimbursement. 

The subcommittee helped us in fiscal year 2008 with respect to 

internal promotion, allowing our staff to be promoted into one of 

the appointed statutory positions. That was very helpful, and that 

has helped us as well. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
230 

EEO COMPLAINTS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Two other questions: When GPO was 

here earlier, I asked them about their EEOC and discrimination 

complaints. They don’t seem to be abating, and they continue to 

have each week about the same number of discrimination complaints. It seems unusually high to me compared to the other legislative branch agencies. Have you worked with GPO? Or have any 

of those complaints come through your office, and what steps might 

you be taking to address them? 

Ms. CHRISLER. We don’t work with GPO. Our statute specifically 

does not give us jurisdiction over GPO with respect to these claims. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Why not? Does anyone have jurisdiction over them? 

Ms. CHRISLER. EEOC does. And so all of those complaints go to 

EEOC, and they are not processed through our office. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Whereas a complaint within the 

House of Representatives or any of the other legislative branch 

agencies would go to you? 

Ms. CHRISLER. With the exception of GAO and LOC. The GAO 

has their personnel appeals board, and the Library of Congress 

uses them as well. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am concerned that this continues to 

be the one agency that has dinosaur-like qualities that don’t seem 

to be changing. I don’t think it is for lack of a desire to change; 

it is just that it is going more slowly than I think it should. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Although our statute doesn’t give us jurisdiction 

over their claims, we have outreach services that we would love to 

offer GPO. If they chose to seek our assistance, we would be happy 

to help them. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. That is good to know. 

UTILITY TUNNELS MONITORING

The utility tunnels: The abatement process, from what has been 

described by AOC, is ahead of schedule and is going well. It is costing far less than they originally predicted. Do you agree with that 

assessment? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Yes. Progress is steady, and it is ahead of schedule. And from what they have shared with us, it is under budget 

as well. And if funding continues to go along as anticipated, we expect that progress will continue. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is what I like to see: ahead of 

schedule and under budget. 

I am going to end on a high note. 

HAZARDS IN MEMBER OFFICES

Mr. ADERHOLT. Your testimony states that hazards in Members’ 

offices have decreased by 5 percent in the past 5 years? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What efforts have been made by your office that 

have attributed to this decrease? 

Ms. CHRISLER. I think it is working collaboratively with the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, as well as the AOC House Superintendent, along with the outreach efforts that we have made. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
231 

The fast facts that we publish on our Web site are very practical. 

A lot of the employing offices and employees find them very useful, 

as well as the employee representatives. So it is our education efforts and our outreach efforts, along with our collaborative work 

with the AOC and the Superintendent—and the CAO’s office as 

well. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Regarding caseloads, how many cases do you currently have open? 

Ms. CHRISLER. With respect to safety and health or just in general? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. In general. 

Ms. CHRISLER. I would not be able to pull that number off the 

top of my head. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. We talked a little bit about this earlier, but what 

seems to be the most prevalent among the cases that you see? 

What comes before your office? 

Ms. CHRISLER. We see a lot of minor safety and health violations, 

the daisy chain cords that are plugged one into the other. 

We see a lot of retaliation cases with respect to the workplace 

rights area, the dispute resolution program, the EEOC-type of 

issues. 

We see a mixture of age and race and gender claims. Not to say 

that this is running rampant among the legislative branch agencies, but looking at the types of claims that we see, these are the 

cases that we see. 

There are, of course, significant, long-standing more serious hazards that we see with respect to fire and safety issues, as well as 

the utility tunnel concerns that are progressing as well. So there 

are a number and mixture of claims that are presented to our office. 

ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE

Mr. ADERHOLT. When you came into my office a few days ago, 

one thing that you mentioned was that you need more office space? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. On this request for the 2010 budget, does that 

take into account additional, trying to accommodate that? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you for the question. 

The 2010 appropriations request does not include our need or 

continued request for additional office space. That is something 

that we have been working on with our oversight subcommittees, 

as well as staff from this committee. We are very grateful for the 

assistance. 

We have looked at the need for the person power, and will address the space as it comes along, performance and work needs to 

be done. 

So we have prioritized the need for the additional resources and 

will continue to work on getting the additional space. And that is 

something that has prevented us from moving forward in the past 

with filling certain positions. But certainly we are at the point now 

where the resources need to be filled and the space issues continue. 

And we continue to address them. Thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. That is it for me. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
232 

Ms. McCollum. 

UTILITY TUNNEL WORKERS

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I would like to follow up with the issue of the 

settlement with the workers in the tunnel, realizing some of it 

might be an ongoing process and can’t be discussed openly here. 

Who is taking the lead on that, you or the Architect of the Capitol? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Our office is. With respect to the utility tunnels 

and the issues entered into the settlement agreement of the Office 

of Compliance and the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, we 

have a tunnels liaison who works with the AOC’s liaison. They 

have a very collaborative working relationship, and the process and 

the lines of communication are open and progress is going very well 

with them. 

With respect to individual complaints filed by workers, that is 

something our office is not at liberty to discuss, and it is not involved in that process. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. So if someone signed an agreement, and later 

on other things come to light through you, you have the ability to 

have their issues addressed? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Yes. Within our procedural rules, as well as the 

statute, there is a process for claiming an allegation of violation of 

a settlement agreement. Those allegations do come through our office and to my attention. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I know from serving in the Rules 

Committee at the State level, and serving on the city council, that 

you can go into closed session to discuss things that are personal. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I would like at some point a closed session, 

working with our friends on the other side of the aisle, to find out 

what is really going on. Because on my watch, I don’t want to say 

I just didn’t know if at some point things weren’t settled in a way 

that we as Members of Congress would want to see them handled. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In particular, you’re talking about 

with the tunnel workers? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So that we can get feedback from 

them? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. In a closed session, not in a public session, because I think with all of that, we read press articles, we hear different sides of the story, and we don’t have a chance for a robust 

discussion. 

I’m not saying that I want to get into the middle of negotiating 

or opening discussions up, but I want to know for myself whether 

or not, in my mind and in my set of personal values, if things were 

handled in a way—without reopening some of the issues, knowing 

what we know now—that is the most expedient and to the highest 

moral standards as to how we should treat one another? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Aderholt and I will talk about 

how we might approach a hearing like that. Thank you for the suggestion. 

Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
233 

PREVENTION AND EDUCATION

Mr. Aderholt gave a description of the 100 or so employment dispute cases that you have had to deal with or probably a fallout category, in terms of categories. When you look at it broadly, were 

these things that could have been avoided for the most part? 

I guess what I’m trying to get is, I’m trying to remember through 

the haze of my orientation, what we were actually told. We now 

have a fairly considerable body of experience, and certainly chiefs 

of staff and probably Members themselves ought to think about before you stumble into a problem that is always a challenging problem to work through at the end of the day. 

So given that, are there things that we ought to be doing as an 

institution or as individual Members so these problems don’t get to 

you in the first place? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Sure. That is what the focus of our education and 

outreach programs is all about. It is educating, reaching out to 

Member offices and employing offices so we can share with you 

best practices, so we can share with you and educate on where a 

violation might exist so you can prevent it, because we certainly believe that prevention is going to save money in the long run. And 

everyone wants to do that. 

So one of the major focuses that we will be—we have a new strategic plan that we are going to be developing come the beginning 

of fiscal year 2010. And one of the major focuses of that plan will 

be increasing our education and outreach efforts and educating the 

Member offices and employing offices so that we can prevent a lot 

of the hazards, a lot of the workplace differences. 

Sometimes it is just miscommunication. Sometimes it is not 

knowing what the responsibilities are or the rights are under the 

statute, and that is our responsibility. That is something that we 

are going to be looking at. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

I don’t have anything else. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT FROM THE CHAIR

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The homework I want to ask you for 

relates to the lingering health and life safety problems that we 

have and will have for the foreseeable future, and that I am really 

committed to trying to get a handle on and take a bite out of every 

fiscal year that goes by. And both you and the Architect of the Capitol have testified that these are problems that will take years and 

large amounts of funding to address. 

But before you can solve a problem, you need a complete and 

total picture of what the problem is. So if you can please submit 

a brief report by Friday, May 8, describing the Office of Compliance’s view on the current scope of those problems and the level 

of effort that would be required to fully address them. Please include in the report a brief explanation of the number of infrastructure citations currently on the books, as well as the number of infrastructure citations as dated today. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
234 

With that, thank you to everyone for coming today. The subcommittee stands in recess until tomorrow, April 29, at 1:30, when 

we will hear from the Library of Congress and Open World, on 

their fiscal year 2010 budget requests. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
235 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 345 here 50439A.144
236 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 346 here 50439A.145
237 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 347 here 50439A.146
238 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 348/500 here 50439A.147
(239) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2009. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

WITNESSES 

DR. JAMES H. BILLINGTON, THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY 

OF CONGRESS 

JO ANN C. JENKINS, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

ELIZABETH R. SCHEFFLER, CHIEF OF OPERATIONS, COPYRIGHT OFFICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH 

SERVICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

DEANNA MARCUM, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR LIBRARY SERVICES, 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

LAURA CAMPBELL, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR STRATEGIC INITIATIVES, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

DONNA SCHEEDER, ACTING LAW LIBRARIAN, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

KURT CYLKE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR THE 

BLIND AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

JEFFREY PAGE, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

KATHLEEN OTT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS 

OFFICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

MARY J. KLUTTS, BUDGET OFFICER, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

NANCY EICHACKER, BUDGET FORMULATION COORDINATOR, LIBRARY 

OF CONGRESS 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good afternoon. I would like to call 

this meeting of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on the House 

Committee on Appropriations to order. This afternoon we will hear 

from the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, both on the 

Library’s budget request as well as the request for the Open World 

Leadership Center. We will also hear from Ambassador John 

O’Keefe, the Executive Director of the Open World Leadership Center. 

Dr. Billington, it is wonderful to be here with you once again. 

Thank you very much for all the work that you do. The Library is 

an absolute jewel in the crown of the Congress and our best foot 

forward, in my opinion, of the democracy that we represent and the 

information that we have made accessible through your efforts and 

your vision to the entire world. It is just absolutely incredible. I know you have asked for a $658 million appropriations request 

for 2010. If you adjust for the transfer of the Library police officers 

to the Capitol Police, we are at about a 10 percent increase over 

the comparable amount for the current year. That would, if approved, result in about a $100 million increase over 2 years. 

We were able to do quite a bit to address the needs of the Library in fiscal year 2009, and we are quite proud of that. I don’t 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
240 

imagine that we are going to be able to do quite as much this fiscal 

year, and so it would be helpful if you identify your main priorities. 

I know your technology initiative is one of those priorities. So I look 

forward to hearing about that. But I know you have life safety 

issues that you need addressed and, quite frankly, when we get to 

the Open World portion, because you have competing priorities, we 

are going to need to examine what those are as it relates to Open 

World as well. 

So with that, Mr. Aderholt. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Dr. 

Billington, for being here and everybody from the Library of Congress for your dedication to the Library and all that you do. And 

again we want to thank you for the tour that we had back a few 

weeks ago. That was very helpful. So we thank you for all that you 

do. 

So I look forward to hearing your testimony this afternoon. 

Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Dr. Billington, your full statement 

will be entered into the record and you can proceed with a 5- 

minute summary. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE LIBRARIAN

Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is an honor to be 

here, Madam Chair and Mr. Aderholt and members of the subcommittee, to present to you the fiscal 2010 budget request. 

I want to first of all thank you again, Madam Chair, for your active interest in and support of the Library. For complete funding 

of the 2009 budget, we are particularly grateful. We are honored 

also that you chose to be sworn in this year with a Bible from our 

collection, the first Bible printed in Hebrew in the United States 

in 1814. 

Mr. Aderholt, we appreciated very much the time you spent with 

the curators and staff this last month. We look forward to working 

with you and with all of the members of the subcommittee. We had 

the privilege of meeting all the others here as well. So we really 

look forward to it. 

Now in fiscal 2010 we are requesting actually an increase of 8.1 

percent, of which 4.6 percent represents funding for mandatory pay 

and price level increases. 0.4 percent is for discrete investments 

necessary to sustain continuing projects, and the remaining 3.1 

percent will support a critical investment in updating and enhancing the Library’s technical infrastructure. That is the major new 

element that we are presenting today. 

TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

We have moved from traditional business systems of personnel, 

finance, cataloging, and management of information systems to an 

environment where we now take in and are managing fast-changing digital formats that include e-journals, e-books, digital TV, 

websites, digital images, digital audio and video, and the like, even 

whole broadcasts from the web. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
241 

Each of our program areas—CRS, Library Services, the Law Library, the Office of Strategic Initiatives, and the Copyright Office— 

must now deal with all aspects of digital works: acquiring, preserving, and providing access to them. Over the past 15 years, separate systems have been built to meet these individual program 

needs as they have emerged and been identified. The Library has 

been very successful in delivering the new services Congress and 

the American people have asked of us. Some of the systems are 

new, like the Copyright Office’s online registration system. Others 

rely on what has become very dated technology. 

The Library has not sought any increase in base funding for 

technological infrastructure since the year 2000. We now have a 

pressing need to modernize our underlying Library technology infrastructure so that we support our diverse and vastly increased 

digital activity more efficiently, and with more unified library-wide 

systems that can be adjusted and scaled up economically to sustain 

services and meet new user demands as technology changes. 

Scalability, in other words, is an important component. 

We are now providing far more services, and I say far more services, with 1,000 less FTEs than we had in 1992, when we had barely begun the Library’s digital transformation. Our entire technology request builds upon successful results achieved and unique 

experience gained with the variety of our digital initiatives. 

We are now poised to develop core infrastructures that can be 

used by all parts of the Library. The launch last week with 

UNESCO of our World Digital Library, to extraordinary international acclaim, with 20 million page views in its first 4 days online and with something from all 192 countries in UNESCO, is 

proving to be a useful catalyst for building a new technological 

platform with reusable, scalable, and multimedial components. 

FT. MEADE

In conclusion, Madam Chair, let me highlight our Ft. Meade request. Having the space to store so much of America’s creativity 

and of the world’s knowledge in environmentally controlled facilities is critical to sustaining the historic mission of the Library. The 

Ft. Meade program, already 8 years behind schedule, has achieved 

100 percent retrievability and is essential for preserving and making accessible our uniquely comprehensive collections for the Congress and the Nation. 

The Library of Congress is the Nation’s oldest cultural institution. It is a unique trove of information, knowledge, and creativity. 

Today, when technology is transforming the way knowledge is generated and how we deliver our services to Congress and the Nation, 

the Library is renewing and expanding its role in our knowledgebased democracy, as you indicated in your opening remarks. 

We look forward to working with this committee to craft a budget 

for fiscal 2010, and I thank you and the Congress for continuing 

to be the greatest single patron of the Library—of any library in 

the history of the world. 

[The statements of Dr. Billington, Mr. Mulhollan, and Ms. Peters 

follow:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
242 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 509 here 50439B.001
243 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 510 here 50439B.002
244 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 511 here 50439B.003
245 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 512 here 50439B.004
246 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 513 here 50439B.005
247 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 514 here 50439B.006
248 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 515 here 50439B.007
249 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 516 here 50439B.008
250 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 517 here 50439B.009
251 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 518 here 50439B.010
252 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 519 here 50439B.011
253 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 520 here 50439B.012
254 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 521 here 50439B.013
255 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 522 here 50439B.014
256 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 523 here 50439B.015
257 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 524 here 50439B.016
258 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 525 here 50439B.017
259 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 526 here 50439B.018
260 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 527 here 50439B.019
261 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 528 here 50439B.020
262 

PRIORITIES AND TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Dr. Billington. 

Just to begin more broadly, as I mentioned, if you look at it without the Library of Congress police transfer, you are asking for a 

more than 10 percent increase. And it is not that I don’t think it 

is justified. It is simply that we are in a world of very limited resources, and I have said the same thing to every agency that has 

come in front of us, and I know you are aware of that. 

Assuming we are not able—which is a safe assumption—to fund 

your full request, where would you begin to prioritize your programmatic increases and the requests that you have made? The 

largest single increase proposed in your budget is $15 million for 

upgrading technology at the Library as part of your 5–year technology initiative, which would cost approximately $75 million over 

that period. Can talk about that program a little bit? As we were 

reading through the report, there didn’t really appear to be an end 

point to the technology project. 

My question with the technology project, are you really just asking for an increase in your base funding or is there an actual finite 

program that has an end point? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. The majority of the technology request is base 

funding. I would say in terms of priorities, our first priority is always mandatory pay and price level increases. But information 

technology infrastructure is really an essential priority and our request also includes $2.7 million for GLIN, the Global Legal Information Network, for the Law Library, and the CRS Web site enhancement of $1.8 million. It also includes something for the Legislative Information System. We recognize this is a substantial 

amount. 

It is all in a sense dependent on modernization of the Librarywide infrastructure. We hesitated to bring forth this infrastructure 

request until we analyzed it pretty thoroughly. The specific requirements are built on our experience, much of which is one-ofa-kind experience. There are three levels, or tiers, in it that are 

interrelated. There isn’t one tier that could be cut out entirely. If 

we had to make reductions, we would have to do it pretty much 

across the board, because you have to have the integration of the 

three tiers of the technology infrastructure request. In terms of the 

two main priorities, they are the mandatory pay raises and price 

levels and the technological infrastructure. We can discuss this 

with you in more detail. 

TECHNOLOGY FUNDING VERSUS OPEN WORLD FUNDING

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The technology initiative is among 

your top two priorities in your request. That initiative is new and 

it is $15 million. You are also asking that we continue an almost 

$15 million appropriation for Open World, which is, at least in my 

opinion, not an appropriate fit for the Legislative Branch Subcommittee’s budget. It is a worthwhile program. But given the 

needs that have been underscored agency after agency, and you are 

suggesting that you need $15 million for this very vital program, 

how is it that we can continue to justify $15 million for Open World 

when you need $15 million for a technology initiative which would 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
263 

be much more broad-based, help a lot more people, provide access 

to information which is much more aligned with the legislative 

branch’s mission? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, it is obvious that the committee—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am speaking only for myself. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. And for you, Madam Chair, to evaluate these 

things. But they are two separate agencies. I happen to be chairman of the board of Open World, but Ambassador O’Keefe will talk 

about it subsequently. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I know this matters to you a great 

deal, and I want your opinion. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. It is not a question of me. It is a question of an 

opportunity for the country because Open World’s tenth anniversary is here. It is a crucial stage in the development of our relations with this country and defining the whole region of the former 

Soviet Union, and—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But how do we do both? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I beg your pardon? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. How are we supposed to do both? If 

I am forced to make choices, do you prefer we continue to fund 

Open World, or do you prefer we give you $15 million for a technology initiative? That is a choice that we are going to have to 

make. We just don’t have that many places that we can get $15 

million. Just food for thought. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I appreciate it. But I am here basically to testify 

for the Library of Congress and its long-deferred technology requirements. The only point I would make on the other side is that 

Open World is an opportunity, an unusual opportunity for the 

United States. It is not a question of my affection for the program. 

I think we take a bipartisan view of these other matters, but I 

would be happy to discuss it with you in whatever format you 

would like. 

LIBRARY’S NEEDS

The Library’s needs are what I am here primarily to testify for, 

and I have to stress that the technology infrastructure needs are 

long deferred and clearly affect our core mission. If we are going 

to acquire and preserve and maximize access in a democratic way, 

I think the World Digital Library and a lot of these things are 

going to be very valuable for Americans and for the educational 

mission that we have taken on. 

Those are our priorities. On the other matter I think you need 

to hear from Ambassador O’Keefe. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We will, but I just wanted to raise it. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. In the current difficult economic times, no one 

should be asking anybody in the Congress for appropriations for 

things that aren’t important for the country. And obviously, superimposing a digital library on the traditional library without diminishing traditional services is an important service for the country. 

Publications have increased 40 percent worldwide in the last decade. So it is not just that published things are disappearing but 

that publishing itself is experiencing enormous growth. The unique 

role of the Library of Congress is increasing. So I think this request 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
264 

is of fundamental importance to this institution, the Congress and 

the Nation. 

The Open World program is an opportunity. There are not many 

initiatives that are this size and that have had this kind of an impact. I have been involved in exchange programs for 50 years, and 

I really think this is, from the point of view of national interest, 

probably the most pound-for-pound effective one that I have seen. 

But I am happy to work with you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And you have worked with us. My 

time has expired. I know it is like asking you to choose among your 

children, and I know that is hard for you. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. It is a wonderful analogy. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am a mom. So that is the first one 

that came to mind. We can talk some more about it. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. 

WORLD DIGITAL LIBRARY

Mr. ADERHOLT. Last week it was my understanding from the 

meeting at UNESCO headquarters in Paris the Library of Congress 

wants to operate the World Digital Library. I would just ask you 

to update the subcommittee on this major initiative which really 

brings the world’s cultural treasures together. Tell us a little bit 

about that. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, that is based on the experience of the National Digital Library, which has now online 15.3 million primary 

documents of American history and culture with a lot of experience 

gained over the years. After some experiments with foreign bilingual Web sites that were very successful, we proposed the World 

Digital Library after we rejoined UNESCO. UNESCO adopted it as 

an international project last week. There, it is something from 192 

countries in the WDL to make it clear that this is truly a worldwide program. There was a tremendous response. We have 32 partners; 19 nations have contributed to the World Digital Library. 

GATEWAY TO CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE

The Library of Congress is such a rich treasure trove. This international initiative has been extremely helpful in expanding our 

Web presence and overcoming the digital divide, making available 

information, historical memory, important cultural documents that 

both stimulate thinking and increase respect and understanding of 

our own culture and that of others. 

This of course ties right back to the request for resources to support all of the Library’s digital programs. It is very important for 

Americans and American schools. We are reaching an enormous 

audience on our international Web site, and the World Digital Library adds an enormous dimension to it. It is not just democratizing and acknowledging information. It is also bringing knowledge of other cultures to America, to the K through 12 audience, 

on which we are having such an impact and a growing educational 

relationship. 

The World Digital Library has fascinating content. We have the 

Mexican codexes online, and an 8,000 B.C. manuscript from South 

Africa. These are great cultural treasures. All content is accompanied by expert commentary from curators and scholars. ThereVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00264 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
265 

fore it is dependable, and it is very educational. It stimulates critical thinking as well, because you can see these items online—the 

Mexican codexes, bones from ancient China, the first map of the 

New World, and you can zoom in. There are all kinds of electronic 

enhancements. So we think this is a major contribution, to extend 

this to the world and in effect to repatriate what people don’t realize that America has. Our country has preserved many of the cultural treasures of the world. Now we are giving it back. We have 

more holdings than many countries do, for example, some countries 

in Latin America and Africa. We are giving these things back free 

of charge, cooperatively with other countries, and this effort has 

certainly been hailed. Practically everybody in UNESCO is interested in joining this. This program has a very small staff with very 

high skills. We have done this with private money. We could give 

you a whole pile of international clippings about the World Digital 

Library. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. The attention it has received? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. A couple of them have said that this is one of 

the best things we have seen America do for the world in a long 

time. The young people in many developing countries are living in 

an increasingly audio visual world. In the developing world are 

very young cultures. Seventy percent of the population of Iran, for 

instance, is under the age of 25, and that is typical of many of the 

developing countries in which we have problems. We reach everybody through our online presence, and I think it is an American 

accomplishment. 

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PRIVATE FUNDING

We will add to this presence with the new information that you 

can now see in the public spaces of the Jefferson Building, with the 

new interactive online experience, with technology that is not yet 

on the public market. This is a very dynamic, entrepreneurial activity of the Library, done principally with private money and private support and partner cooperation. So when people come here, 

they can see original documents and then go back and teach and 

learn and be stimulated, not only about other countries, but also 

about our own, to start the process of critical thinking. 

We have had two conferences funded by the Gates Foundation 

this last year on how to provide dynamic educational resources to 

the K through 12 community. And one of the ways is to get people 

asking questions. This is disproportionately valuable in the inner 

cities and other countries. Strong audio visual and documentary 

content and Web access open to all is essential. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Before my time runs out—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is a little bit over. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. But it all depends on our infrastructure. We are 

turning to technology infrastructure resources as a guarantee for 

hopes of continuity of the future. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We will put the reins on your enthusiasm just so we are not here the entire afternoon. I say that with 

affection, just so you know. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Sorry about that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ms. McCollum. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
266 

HILL MUSEUM AND MANUSCRIPT LIBRARY

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Well, it is good to see you again. And I really 

enjoyed our discussion last month about developing a partnership 

between the Library of Congress and the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library to help with their public ancient threatened manuscripts in the Middle East, Africa, and countries in the former Soviet Union. Madam Chair, this is a very exciting opportunity. 

There is a museum at St. John’s University in Minnesota that 

through digital cameras and just sometimes it is a monk, sometimes it is a trained volunteer to go into other parts of the world, 

working with local religious leaders, working with local community 

leaders to preserve—nothing is removed—preserve through using 

digital means ancient manuscripts. And they are at a point where 

they have collected more than they can catalog and to do some 

things with. And it is the perfect opportunity from the UNESCO 

standpoint that you were talking about earlier to have these things 

digitized and share back with countries as well as having them 

available for our scholars and for our citizens to take a look at. 

So I look forward to working with you and the subcommittee. It 

is a very cost-effective, very efficient opportunity to show the best 

and brightest of the Library of Congress and the American people. 

IMPORTANCE OF FT. MEADE STORAGE

But I want to ask you a little more about the Ft. Meade site 

which, as you pointed out, was 8 years behind schedule. You are 

going to expand your capacity this summer. And why is that so important? 

I worked on the Wilson Library at the University of Minnesota, 

where we had collections that we needed to store and care for properly. And sometimes people don’t understand the importance of offsite storage for libraries. They think if it is out of sight, it is out 

of mind. You don’t need it anymore. So talk a little more about— 

maybe give some examples of why Ft. Meade is going to be so important to you. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, Ft. Meade offsite storage is really essential to our mission. We have talked a lot about digital things. But 

the published books, published works have increased by 40 percent 

globally in the last decade. The explosion in digital publishing has 

led to no decline in print publishing. And so it is essential to be 

able to keep them. 

Three million books and bound periodicals have already been 

moved to Modules 1 and 2, and we begin occupancy of Modules 3 

and 4, where we will store special collections materials, in June. 

We have had a 100 percent retrieval rate for books moved to Ft. 

Meade. Collection materials are retrievable because this is a very 

modern system of storage, and we have now had a lot of experience 

with it. As I have said, you can’t beat a 100 percent retrieval rate. 

Ft. Meade is close by, and retrieval is rapid. 

We have had a very good relationship with the Architect of the 

Capitol as Ft. Meade facilities have been designed and built. We 

want to support the Architect’s request to begin Module 5 because 

books now are beginning to pile up, a circumstance that guarantees 

that some will not be found. We now have something like 671 miles 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
267 

of shelf space that would reach from here, I don’t know where, 

probably to Minnesota. 

By the way, we look forward to collaborating with the Hill Museum and Library. That is a spectacular, unique operation which 

could very much enrich the World Digital Library. We have had 

some contact with your people and I have visited there myself. We 

will make sure we visit the Middle Eastern Division. We will be in 

touch with your people. I thank you for bringing that to our attention. 

The essential task of maintaining original materials is basically 

why Ft. Meade is so important. We are pretty much a library of 

record, and preserving these materials is a national service of 

sometimes international importance. Ft. Meade has worked out 

very well and we hope we can continue to develop additional modules. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I guess the secret to finding things on my desk would be not just to have it piled 

up but to have it retrieval ready. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. LaTourette. 

THANKS TO THE LIBRARY

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. I want 

you to know I sprinted from the floor to be here and I want to, for 

the purpose of the record, thank Dr. Billington. When he came to 

visit, I told him one of my favorite folks in history is James Garfield, the 20th President of the United States. I heard a very fascinating story that sort of intertwined Alexander Graham Bell, who 

you will remember for other things, but after President Garfield 

was shot in a train station by a fellow who had basically untreated 

syphilis and had gone crazy. He didn’t die for a long period of time 

and was actually transported to the Jersey shore when he passed 

away. And Alexander Graham Bell was commissioned to invent basically the first metal detector. When he was passing the metal detector over the President’s body to try and find the bullet, he was 

unsuccessful, but later discovered that because the President was 

lying on a bed with metal springs it sort of screwed up the process. 

But Dr. Billington was kind enough to get me Alexander Graham 

Bell’s letter to his wife expressing his disappointment. And it is one 

of the things that really makes the Library amazing to read a letter that he had written to his wife about the failing health of the 

President. It was fascinating, and I thank you very much. I wanted 

to do that publicly. 

Madam Chairman, my questions today are more directed to CRS 

and so with your permission, could we ask Mr. Mulhollan—not that 

I want to ignore you but I have seen how you turn a simple question into a 5-minute answer. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. Mr. Mulhollan. 

CRS INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

Mr. LATOURETTE. Mr. Mulhollan, welcome. We had a hearing, I 

don’t know, yesterday, a couple days ago with GAO and Ms. McCollum I thought asked a wonderful question about institutional 

knowledge. And Mr. Cole was kind enough to ask a question about 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
268 

their internship program. And so in your testimony that you submitted in writing, I notice on page 5 you talk about the concept 

that you have introduced of section research managers. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Right. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And the GAO experience is, they indicated to 

Mr. Cole that in their internship program they make offers to 70 

percent of the people that intern with them and 70 percent of the 

people they make offers to accept those offers. 

I understand that you had something called a capstone program, 

is that right? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. That is correct. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And is the capstone program an internship 

program? Or what is the capstone program? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Okay. You have identified actually three separate areas. The section research managers were competitive hires 

to facilitate and manage research within CRS. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I asked them separately. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. The capstone program supports research partnerships with about 20 universities across the country. A number 

of public policy schools have capstone programs, which are one-totwo semester courses in which the class works with a client to analyze a public policy question. And so what we do with public policy 

schools such as the LBJ School of Public Affairs, the Bush school 

at Texas A&M, Columbia University SIPA program, the Maxwell 

school at Syracuse University and other schools across the country, 

and in consultation with House and Senate committees, identify a 

research problem that will be deliberated within the Congress in 

the near term. The schools in turn supplement our research efforts 

so that information and analysis will be available to the Congress 

in time for reauthorization, oversight and legislative activities. An 

example of one such partnership was one undertaken with the 

Bush school on election administration and it was completed in 

time for the reauthorization of HAVA in House Administration. Not 

only did we have the research, we also had exposure to the faculty 

and students of the school. Because we have a passion for anonymity Universities are often not fully aware of what we do. These programs expose partner schools to job opportunities at CRS. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. My question is, I think it is a great program. 

How many capstone students, graduate students has the CRS 

hired? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. That is a good question. I will find that out and 

get to you. We have separate intern programs as well. We have had 

Presidential management fellows, the HACU intern program and 

others. We have hired staff from these programs. And we have a 

student diversity program. Last year we sponsored 24 students 

from historically black colleges. 

The challenge we have is that when you look in all the fields 

from which we recruit, which is all the major disciplines, we have 

a challenge of the fact that only about 10 percent are minority. And 

so we had tried to get undergraduates between their junior and 

senior year to work over a summer and encourage them to get 

graduate degrees so that they can successfully compete for jobs. We 

have hired three out of the diversity program at this point. We 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
269 

have had a larger number, and I will give you the numbers on that, 

of Presidential management fellows. I would say 10 in 2008. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. How many Presidential Management Fellows did CRS bring onboard in 

2008? 

Response: Ten. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. If you would be kind enough to get me 

that information. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Sir, I will give you those numbers. 

SECTION RESEARCH MANAGERS IN CRS

Mr. LATOURETTE. And how many senior research people, managers do you have? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. In each of the Research Divisions we have an 

assistant director, a deputy assistant director, and between five 

and six section research managers. Section research managers generally manage about a dozen people, and have the expertise that 

allows them to have substantive dialogue with the analyst about 

the research and to ensure quality products and services that draw 

on the disciplines. For instance, the woman who heads our public 

health heads a group made up of a physician, an epidemiologist, a 

macroeconomist, and an aging specialist. So you want someone who 

can ensure the quality examination of the research as it goes 

through the research process and division review. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I think that is my question. So what is the 

skill set of the woman—the person that is supervising all these 

folks with all these—— 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. They are experts with knowledge of a range of 

disciplines within their section. For instance we are in the process 

of hiring someone who is an expert on trade—a trade economist for 

a vacant position in our trade section. We also have someone who 

is the head of our Congress section, she is someone who has her 

Ph.D. and has taught. She knows relevant disciplinary literature 

and has the skills and experience to lead the examination of the 

institution of Congress. And so in each instance a section research 

manager is someone who has the disciplinary competency for that 

cluster of issues managed in each of those sections. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. That is what I wanted to get at. And that is, 

are the senior or the section research managers, are they analysts? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. They are research managers. Their role is not 

only to understand the analysis of the issue but also to develop relationships with committees that have jurisdiction over those 

issues, and to know the capacities elsewhere in the Service upon 

which to draw. We are increasingly finding that there are fewer 

and fewer issues that are not interrelated. So we are bringing the 

attorney, the economist, the scientist together at the table. They 

support collaboration which results in integrated analysis and they 

have capacities to identify those with the needed expertise to assist. Their challenge is to do just that. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I think my question is, as we talk to GAO they 

are hiring these folks who have been their interns and you are 

doing some of that. As I understand these section research managers, they were sort of brought in from the outside and dropped 

in—— 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
270 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Well, half were outside and half were internal 

candidates. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. So are you saying half of the people who used 

to be section research managers continue to be section research 

managers? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Well, we have actually a mix. I will give you 

the exact numbers. But roughly a third were section heads who 

were neither full-time researchers or full-time research management. Some were analysts in the service who became section research managers—and that is about half of them, and the other 

half were experts who came from the outside. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. I will tell you what, I am not going to 

embarrass anybody by name. But there was an article in Roll Call 

about one of these folks that you brought in and hired as a research manager at CRS, spent 6 years as I can read the article, as 

a legislative assistant for Senator Lieberman and now has been 

hired to supervise 10 analysts in the Congress and Judiciary sections. Would that be an example of what you are talking about? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Well, for instance, that person is someone who 

is an expert, a Ph.D. in political science, who has written a book 

for which she received an award; I believe it was about several 

Presidencies. The persons who are new to CRS have expertise in 

their area. In this case, she is someone who has experience in the 

Congress; she understands our clients—you and your staff—and 

knows what is needed by an LA or a committee counsel in order 

to undertake their work. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM [presiding]. Mr. Ryan. 

Mr. RYAN. I would be happy to yield my time to the gentleman 

from Ohio. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. What a gentleman. 

Mr. RYAN. I don’t know how happy I will be about it. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Western Ohio reigns here. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. And my sister was born in Ohio. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I should really get everybody’s time. 

Mr. RYAN. Let’s not get greedy here. Reclaiming my time. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I appreciated when you came to visit me, and 

I appreciate the observation you just made that the Congress is 

your client. I went on the CRS Web site this morning and didn’t 

find any reports on the fiscal year 2010 budget or the conference 

report which we voted on yesterday. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. I am sorry. On what issue? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. On the budget. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Oh, okay. There is a section on the Web site 

dealing with the budget process itself but not the actual budget 

resolution. 

OVERSIGHT OPTIONS AND RESEARCH PRODUCTS

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. But we were asked to vote on the budget resolution. I am just saying that that would be helpful. It is not 

a criticism. What it is, is GAO came in and indicated that they 

have an oversight board. And I know you are under the jurisdiction 

of the Librarian. But it is made up of 10 Members of Congress from 

the Senate and the House. And they basically advise on what kind 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
271 

of products your customers wants, not what you determine your 

customer wants but what your customer actually wants. As an example, somebody in passing told me that you don’t do side-by-sides 

anymore. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. That is not quite the case. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. What is the case? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. The case is that we try to add value by providing a comparative analysis that does not require you to go line 

by line but helps identify where the differences and issues are and 

analyzes the implications of these differences. So on these measures, these are the important issues, and their implications are important as well. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield. I think some of us 

come from different backgrounds legislatively. I abhor the fact here 

that I have to create my own side by sides, the fact that we don’t 

do strikeout language so you can’t tell what is actually being in the 

text because that is the institutional experience I came from. And 

so I think by having you know—that could have been true at a 

point in time. And I don’t know when. You probably had a robust 

discussion, the discussion was oh, we are not going to do side-bysides anymore. This is what works good for everybody or for the 

majority of how you set up your documentation to do the contrast 

between the two. And institutionally there might be new—with 

new Members and then as people kind of transition through that 

might say, well, you know I think now maybe we are tipping more 

the other side. Kind of like fashion. It is in, it is out. And then it 

comes back in again. 

So I just wanted to agree with the gentleman from Ohio that you 

know I didn’t know I had an option for a long time. And I yield 

back. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you. And that I think is the point and 

maybe ask you to consider and ask my colleagues to consider that 

your customers actually form a board to tell you what kind of products—because I will be more blunt than Ms. McCollum. I am too 

stupid to figure some stuff out without a side by side. And I relied 

on those side by sides to see what the Senate was up to, which was 

usually nothing, and what we were up to. And I found it to be a 

very valuable tool. If somebody over there made a decision we 

didn’t need it anymore, nobody asked me. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Excuse me, sir. That is not the case. We still 

do side-by-sides—we talk to the client, committee counsel or whoever. If, in fact, a line by line comparison is what is needed for formal conference activities, that is what the committee is provided. 

And oftentimes it becomes committee property because as you 

know, a huge amount of our work is client controlled. 

Now that said, the fact is that we had found that, what a Member wants to know is the important differences between, measures. 

The fact is we have found in the majority of our dialogue with 

Members and the staff that they want to have the important provisions isolated and the differences underneath them identified— 

sometimes elaborating significantly why there are differences between the two, and that is what is done. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
272 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I appreciate it. But you have four customers 

here. I will take an informal poll. How many would like a side by 

side? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I would like to see it. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Here are four customers. Please give it to us. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. You are part of our oversight as is the House 

Administration and the Joint Committee on the Library. But why 

I come and meet with you is to hear these very things. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I know that. But I am just saying that the 

GAO model impressed me that there is a constant dialogue. We 

don’t have time to see you and just like you don’t have time to see 

us every day. But 10 Senators and Members sit down and say to 

GAO—because we talk about this. You probably suffer from the 

same thing as GAO. We probably ask for stupid stuff that you— 

if you worked with us, you could say, well, why are you doing that? 

Why do we have to reinvent the wheel? I think it would save you 

work and it would also give your customers— 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. I just stand on the record that in fact CRS welcomes any input from every Member of Congress with regard to 

what their needs are and to ensure the fact that we are meeting 

your needs. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. LaTourette. And I don’t think 

that anybody here thought that you wouldn’t. We were just trying 

to figure out how to communicate even more effectively than we already do. Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Since my wife is from northwest Ohio, I feel like I 

ought to yield time back to Mr. LaTourette. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I could call my sister. We could yield time to 

her. 

OUTREACH TO UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES

Mr. COLE. She is a trained prosecutor, too. 

I wanted to ask Dr. Billington, if I may, a little bit about what 

you are doing—because I know it is pretty spectacular and I want 

to get it on the record—in terms of outreach to underserved communities around the country on the Web. I have seen this with Native Americans and was shocked when I got back, I had done a little lecture, all of a sudden to have tribal people in my district and 

other places bring this up that I had no earthly idea were clearly 

you know on the Web, getting involved in finding out about their 

own history and their own people. And it was amazing to me because we quite often focus on areas with very limited libraries or 

very limited access and all of a sudden they had a wealth of information in front of them. 

So if you would tell us a little bit about what you are doing and, 

using whatever time frame would you like, the number of people 

that are now using the Library of Congress compared to 10 years 

ago, what have you. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, first of all, the entire digital project, over 

a number of years of engagement putting online high quality, dependable content, has proven to be disproportionately valuable in 

the inner cities and in the outer countryside, where the people do 

not have access to good libraries, where the school system may not 

even be as well equipped as in other areas, or at least as effective. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
273 

The Digital Library is effective with the young and the less well 

off for another reason. It invades the audiovisual world where they 

are increasingly living. The whole culture is getting swamped with 

audiovisual, instant unfiltered stuff of one kind or another. All of 

the content that we put online has two qualities. First of all, it is 

intrinsically important. It is of some interest. And second of all, it 

is explained simply. 

EVOLUTION OF DIGITAL PROGRAMS

The first thing I did when I started this program was to talk to 

curators who have great specialized knowledge. I said, pretend that 

your 10- or 11-year-old niece or nephew had just come in and said 

Uncle Bob, what is all this about? Why should I be interested? We 

are asking experts to speak to young people in plain language, and 

we are thereby invading the medium in which they live. Young 

people visit video arcades, play video games, or are engaged in illiterate chat rooms before they have a chance to really read anything 

or learn how language is used. 

Second thing, particularly with the creation of our new Audio 

Visual Conservation Center, which for audio visual things in 

Culpeper, Virginia is what Ft. Meade is for paper-based things, we 

are going to have great new opportunities to reach a lot more people. Take for example the 10,000 wax cylinders, which pretty much 

all represent Native American tradition. It is the history, as you 

know far better than I, it is the literature, it is the music of the 

Native American people. Because it is on wax cylinders you can’t 

use it too much or you would wear it out. We have developed with 

Lawrence Livermore Labs in California a system called IRENE, 

which is an acronym for a system which takes thousands of microscopic photographs of the ridges and can reproduce this material 

even more clearly than you could get it with the original. So we are 

going to be able to make accessible that and also the 3,000 very 

long playing recordings of Native American oral stories representing multiple tribes and multiple languages from the 1890s. 

The Library of Congress has a great record of accumulating this 

material. Now we have new opportunities to get it out to the public. 

So I can assure you it is one of the priorities of the American 

Folklife Center where most of this material resides, to get it out 

rapidly and make it an important part of our collections. In general 

we are going to get artistic and cultural things which are oftentimes removed from curricula in K through 12 schools, back into 

the education communities, because we have the world’s largest 

performing arts Library and we have this immense quality of 

American folklore. 

Mr. COLE. Well, I would just ask that while obviously we are all 

users here and we are very fortunate with all the resources put at 

our disposal, but when you think through that prioritization that 

the Chair appropriately asks that you really think long and hard 

about putting an emphasis on exactly this type of thing. I just 

think—I have seen ways in which the institutions open worlds to 

kids and sometimes frankly to older people that they just never 

dreamed were there. They didn’t know and they literally can sit in 

their home and go to a local Library and see things that you know 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
274 

are important to their past or important to their understanding of 

who they are but never existed before. So it is pretty remarkable. 

And you know I think sometimes we use you intensely and appropriately, but there is a broader audience that pays for all this 

though the American people and to give them the opportunity to 

see what we sometimes take for granted ourselves. And I think you 

have done a superb job of this. I just hope we can give you the resources to continue that part of your mission. 

DIGITAL LIBRARY AUDIENCE AND USAGE

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, in terms of numbers, I mean in usage, it 

is hard to change the way of computing by and large. The last time 

we computed, we were getting 5 billion hits a year. Very diverse, 

all over the place. But now we compute usage in terms of visits and 

page views, and we are somewhere in the area of 90 million visits 

and I don’t know how many page views. It is enormous. But K 

through 12 is our target and the underserved people are a high priority in what we are doing. Giving more people more access to 

more knowledge to use in more ways is a whole new important 

area of focus for the Library. We are not just a research library. 

We are a service to, as you say, to the people, and particularly for 

the underserved people. We have also our very small staff that 

monitors the educational output to this population, and they have 

made many visits, and they will make many more, to places, particularly to underserved places, where they set up programs to 

train teachers to use this material. So we have to penetrate it. We 

have to get to kids where they are. 

We really appreciate your suggestion, and I hope we are going 

to be able to report on some fascinating things from this new machine which is coming out of the audiovisual center. 

DIGITAL TALKING BOOK STATUS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Cole. I want to focus on books for the blind now. 

If you can, walk us through succinctly where we are on implementation of the books for the blind, the Digital Talking Books Program. I know your original plans were to produce about 220,000 

machines, at an average cost of $156 per machine. Have you looked 

at whether that is the number you really need? Have you reevaluated that? And then the budget document this year includes a 

budget for the Digital Books Program between 2004 and 2013 and 

it shows the cost over a 10-year period of $230 million. And given 

that we have a declining cost in technology, especially in flash 

memory, is there any chance that the costs will be significantly 

below those projections? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, let me give you a general report on this 

and then maybe Jo Ann, our Chief Operating Officer, can speak in 

more detail. In general, the talking books program is making excellent progress and today we are delivering 5,000 digital machines to 

eight network libraries, to be tested by our most voracious readers. 

Blind people read more than sighted people do. So this is an important, very important constituent for all kinds of reasons. Fifty-eight 

titles will be available for reading in this test, and then we will 

begin full production of machines and titles. There is also a 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
275 

download project involving 100 blind readers who download directly from the NLS Web site, and the pilot has been so successful 

that that program is now open to everyone in the program, and 

5,600 individuals are now using it. It is password protected and delivers titles to readers’ computers. 

I will get you an exact breakdown of these statistical matters. 

But do you want to comment? 

[The information follows:] 

Response. The following production statistics for the period of 2004 through 2013 

were provided in the appendix of the 2010 appropriations request. These production 

targets, representing a total implementation cost of $230 million, continue to be 

valid. This chart will be updated at year-end to replace projected costs with actual 

costs. 

While the price of flash media has risen since the time those numbers were provided (budgetary costs during the design phase for USB flash media were $9 in 

2008, $8 in 2009, and $7 in 2010, and the cost is now approximately $7), fluctuations of this sort will be accommodated by marginally adjusting levels of book production from year to year. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
276 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 563 here 50439B.021
277 

Mr. JENKINS. I was just going to say that we are continuously 

trying to find greater efficiencies. We have already achieved some 

from the original digital talking books and we would be glad to provide for the record more details of what it is actually going to cost 

and any cost overruns that we will have over the coming years. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. Please provide additional details on what the Digital Talking Book program is going to cost and any cost overruns the Library will likely experience in 

coming years with regards to this program. 

Response. The $13.5 million provided by the Congress for the period of 2008 

through 2013 will enable us to complete implementation of the Digital Talking Book 

Program within five to six years. While commodity prices may result in fluctuations 

from year to year, there is likely to be enough play in other estimates—for players, 

duplication, labeling, and shipping—that NLS will be able to ensure steady production at planned levels. 

The digital talking book player provides a platform for further development. A 

mature, stable, and universally available Internet infrastructure, when available, 

will provide a more streamlined book delivery. The modular nature of the digital 

talking book hardware platform and hybrid electronic/physical delivery system now 

in place lends itself well to further development options. Increased Internet borrowing would cause the long-term cost of direct circulation to fall; the introduction 

of the player this year will provide more concrete data with which to determine the 

scale of the potential decrease. We have full confidence that future system valuation 

over the next generation will not require additional appropriations. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That would be great. 

COPYRIGHT PROCESSING BACKLOG

On the Copyright Office, there is concern over the number of 

copyright claims that are currently in process. Obviously there is 

an impact on the individuals who registered their works with the 

Copyright Office. And in your written testimony you talk about the 

number of claims having more than doubled during the last year 

to over 500,000 claims today. 

How has the backlog affected the average processing time for 

claims? And what impact is it having on individuals and organizations who are seeking copyright services and protections? Also, is 

the delay in processing new requests, is it a problem of antiquated 

systems, not enough personnel or not enough money? I mean, what 

is the problem? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, first of all, we recognize there is a need 

to improve. There has been a re-engineering of all of these processes. But in the processing of applications, 53 percent come in 

electronically, and that process now takes 6 months or less. We expect that to increase to 80 percent of all claims by 2011. The big 

problem is paper applications, which are still—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you expect the length of time to 

increase by 80 percent? 

Mr. JENKINS. That 80 percent of all the copyright registrants will 

submit electronically by 2011, which will be a fairly reasonable 

time. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. That is the direction we are moving in. But 

paper applications turnaround is very, very bad, really, at 17 

months. You ask where the problems are and I can get the Register. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Why don’t you, if that would be helpful. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
278 

Dr. BILLINGTON. She would, but just the general point is that everybody has to be retrained. It is not a question of re-engineering 

and electronics. Everybody has to be retrained to deal with this 

whole new process and system. So training is probably the principal focus. 

COPYRIGHT STAFFING, TRAINING, AND PROGRESS

Ms. SCHEFFLER. Liz Scheffler. 

Let me talk a little bit about what has been happening over the 

last 2 years. We bought the new system in August of 2007. We had 

to retrain 100 percent of the existing staff who moved to new positions and completely new work. We also turned on, I hate to say 

this, a brand-new system simultaneous with the training. It took 

us a good solid year plus to retrain. We began in August of 2007; 

finally finishing training everybody in January 2009. 

We have seen productivity gains. As people have gone through 

their one year of training, we had to sequence training to accommodate the number of staff and get them through their 90 days of system familiarization and new procedures before they became fully 

productive. A year ago we were producing basically one and a half 

claims per hour per registration specialist. As of this week those 

who have been fully trained and have been through their 90 days 

of familiarization are basically running three claims per hour. So 

basically we are working through the backlog. In fact we have one 

particular area, the literary side, that is still experiencing a fairly 

heavy backlog. However, both our visual arts and our performing 

arts registrations have leveled off and are starting to decline slowly. 

I can also say that as of today we are now—I should say as of 

Monday we are now 100 percent staffed in that area. We had over 

500 applicants. We have open positions to select 15 staff. We hired 

the first group in February. The second group showed up Monday. 

They are currently training. I can say that I have been in training 

where we actually had them working claims as they are being 

trained. A win-win for all. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Does the change in your fee structure 

allow you to improve on the backlog? Are you going to be able to 

hire anybody else to address the backlog? 

Ms. SCHEFFLER. At this particular moment we are looking at 

that. The goal right now is that as we move more towards electronic, we will be putting less people into our up front ingestion 

process and basically moving more people towards the registration 

process. Also, too, we are hoping that because—having actually sat 

there and observed the work, it takes 3 to 4 minutes to process an 

electronic claim, 100 percent, where it is 10 minutes to process a 

paper claim. The hope is by the new fee structure, more people will 

choose to go electronically if the fee stays the same. It remains at 

$35. So the expectation is yes. That will be one of the encouragements, and yes, we expect that will be happening. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LaTourette. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
279 

CAPITOL POLICE MERGER

Mr. LATOURETTE. Dr. Billington, the merger of the Library Police 

and the Capitol Police is targeted, I understand, by October of this 

year. And if you could just take a minute and give us the status 

on that merger and if by October of this year that that deadline 

could be met. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. My Chief Operating Officer, Jo Ann Jenkins, 

will respond. 

Ms. JENKINS. We have been meeting periodically with the Capitol 

Police. We believe everything is on track. We will have 84 officers 

who are eligible to transfer. Sixty-two of those will transfer over as 

officers, and 22 will be transferred as civilians. And of those 22, 8 

are eligible to retire without any loss of pay or retirement benefits. 

We are waiting for the Capitol Police to give us a concept of operations plan for our review. We have given them what we would like 

to see in it, and they are moving it through their approval channels, but we haven’t seen the final one yet. 

PUBLISHING AND COLLECTIONS

Mr. LATOURETTE. And this will go to either one of you. Regarding the printed material that you get into the Library, I understand that there has been an increase over the last decade or so 

of 40 percent regarding the printed material that has come into the 

Library. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. That is a 40 percent increase globally in what 

is being published. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. That is coming from all over the world. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. That would affect it. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. Based on that 40 percent of this new 

material, what does that do to you as far as deciding which materials that you store, materials that you keep in the Library? The 

ones that are kept at the main—I know you have some storage centers, but how do you decide what is kept in the main part of the 

Library and what you would store away in some other outside location? 

ACQUISITIONS POLICY AND WORKFLOW

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, first of all, the total acquisitions policy is 

determined by individual curators with different areas of expertise 

concerning what should be in the national collection and what 

should not be. 

And, incidentally, we have just commissioned a Library-wide 

study to reexamine our acquisitions policy to see if there is anything that needs to be updated. 

But I have to tell you that we get 10,000 artifactual items a day 

in the Library in the world’s production of things that contain 

knowledge, creativity, information. They decide right on the spot to 

dispose of some of this, a fair amount, actually. Actually, we get 

approximately 22,000 items a day, of which only 10,000 are kept. 

I am a compulsive keeper of things. My wife would tell you. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. My wife would tell you the same thing. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. But I occasionally go down myself—and I know 

Deanna Marcum, our great head of Library Services, does this 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
280 

more often—goes through all the discarded items, and I don’t see 

anything that anybody could conceivably want. But we are more 

comprehensive. When we talk about a universal collection—we select everything that goes into the collection. We filter it. And the 

staff who do this are incredible, because they are dealing with different formats, different languages. 

They make selection decisions on the spot. There are the policies 

of where it is going to go to be catalogued and processed. Then they 

determine whether it is a rush item or something that can go slower. It is a very systematic process. 

One of our most experienced professional librarians is going to be 

talking to all of the curators about the collection development process. Library Services provided the committee with an enormous description of how we actually do it now. But we are going to see if 

there is some way we can improve our process. 

With our collections in remote storage there is a retrieval delay 

of only a couple of hours. There is a 100 percent retrieval rate, so 

far, from our storage facility at Ft. Meade. But the retrieval of 

audiovisual collections in Culpeper will be done electronically. Because we have incredible machines out there that can digitize collections 24/7—from movies and television—so they will be digitally 

deliverable almost on demand here on Capitol Hill. 

I think that is the story, unless you want me to be more specific. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Before my time is expired, I would like the 

record to reflect that my grandfather lived many years in Ohio. As 

a matter of fact, my grandfather’s brother lived there. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Without objection, the record will reflect. 

Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I am fine. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Just a couple. 

Mr. Mulhollan, can I see you just for a minute? 

And just so I am not misunderstood, I consider the CRS to be one 

of the treasures of this place. I think it stands apart from other organizations in terms of its—I never have detected a partisan tilt 

to things, and I appreciate that very much. 

And I know that the chairwoman and I talked. There are some 

who want to take it out of the Library of Congress, and I think it 

is fine right where it is and should be, and you are doing a good 

job. 

PEER REVIEW IN CRS

That doesn’t mean I don’t have some questions, though. Talk to 

me a little bit about the peer review. If the chairwoman asked you 

for an opinion that one of your analysts looks up, what is the peer 

review process for the information that winds back up in the chairwoman’s office? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Well, it would depend on the question. There 

are increasingly fewer questions that don’t need the insight of different disciplines to provide a comprehensive examination. When a 

request comes in about a certain question, a researcher would work 

out the parameters of the research with the client and his/her section research manager. The research begins and as often as not, it 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
281 

may well be that several analysts would be involved in thinking 

about the policy problems posed and how to address them. 

When that is undertaken, then it may well be that—let’s for argument sake say—that a piece that was done by an environmental 

or field biologist was then reviewed by an attorney who knows environmental law. And also it may well be that someone who is an 

economist may take a look at that analysis. So it is peer reviewed 

within the institution depending on the parameters of the question 

itself. 

And on occasion—I will use an example. A colleague of mine is 

a marine fisheries person. And I know on occasion he has undertaken research that has benefited from the expertise of a Norwegian marine biologist. Because of a highly technical or specialized aspect of this research, he is the expert to seek. So he might 

serve as a peer reviewer on an aspect of the research. He couldn’t 

reveal the congressional question because of confidentiality but the 

CRS analyst could seek peer review of his methodology, sources, 

and logic. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Let me ask you this, though, because it gets 

back to the section research managers. These people that you 

brought in that you say have expertise in whatever the area is, do 

they—so I am an analyst, Mr. Aderholt is a section research manager, and I write something. Does he check it? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Yes, of course. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And he is qualified in your shop to check whatever that—— 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. That is correct. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, that is what I was getting at. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Excuse me just for interrupting. The term we 

use in peer review is that the analyst seeks peer review before it 

goes to a section research manager—or a section research manager 

may decide to have someone else take a look at the research as 

well, that is what we call peer review. 

CONTRACTUAL SERVICES IN CRS

Mr. LATOURETTE. That is what I call peer review, too. 

Does CRS currently have contracts with outside contractors to 

provide services? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Yes. Generally in the IT area. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Anything other than IT? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. We have a contract that is actually privately 

funded through a foundation for a patent attorney to help us on 

patent questions. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Is that it? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. I will have to review it. That is what immediately comes to mind. 

When we have an outside expert on a hiring selection panel, 

sometimes he/she would be under a contract. The statute grants 

the Director of CRS discretion to obtain outside consultants. The 

statute allows that. But that has not happened much in the analytic area. It is dominantly in some of the support areas. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. If you would be so kind to submit for the 

record a list of outside contractors, the Service employees, what 

that represents and the cost. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
282 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. I would be happy to. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
283 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 578 here 50439B.022
284 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. LaTourette. 

SEPARATE BUDGET FOR CRS

I just have a collection of quick questions. One of them is for you, 

Mr. Mulhollan, so you should not depart. 

This goes back to what Mr. LaTourette raised, that some Members perennially ask us about why the CRS budget is a part of the 

Library of Congress’ budget and whether or not it should be separated out. I know that is not for you to answer, because it is awkward for you. So I will ask Dr. Billington. 

I know about 10 years ago it was shifted to the Library of Congress. On behalf of the collection of Members that usually ask me 

about separating out CRS’s budget, what was the rationale behind 

putting it into the Library of Congress’ budget initially? Just so I 

have a good answer when I am asked the question. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, I think the rationale for doing this was 

that by rooting it securely in the Library it ensures the Library— 

it ensures the added element of objectivity, basic knowledge and 

having access to the world’s greatest storehouse of knowledge, 

which they might not be able to use otherwise. But having it rooted 

there reinforces the tradition which has been developed for nearly 

a century—— 

Legislation and oversight call for the debates on objective knowledge that is as comprehensive as possible and objectivity which is 

above and beyond the objectivity that they get from their position. 

So I think having CRS as part of the Library—and this was determined before my time—has worked pretty well. I don’t think it 

has penalized or hurt the Service, and I think it has enabled us 

to continue to have a kind of resolution of these information problems. 

But, obviously, we are responsive to whatever Congress decides. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I understand. It is not my question. 

It is just a question I get from time to time from members. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. So I think that was the rationale. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I have a question for Mr. Mulhollan. 

CRS FTES AND WEB-BASED SERVICES

Your budget request for CRS is $115 million and 675 FTEs; that 

is a 7.3 percent increase. But you aren’t changing the number of 

FTEs from fiscal year 2009. So why does it cost 7.3 percent more 

to deal with the same support, the same number of staff? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Well, first of all, we are 90 percent salary, so 

the increase for salaries is roughly 5.8 percent. So the additional 

increase we are having on the budget is $2.3 million in nonpersonal 

expenses. $1.8 million of that is what we characterize as enhanced 

access of CRS’s expertise. 

As Mr. LaTourette was just pointing out, he went onto the Web 

site and he couldn’t find an analysis on the omnibus bill. As a matter of fact, we have a legislative agenda; and you can click on it 

now. And every week we put up the Service’s reports that are relevant to the floor agenda that week. But it is not an intuitive site 

and often important contentis not easily accessible. 

What we hope to be able to do is enhance the Service’s Web site. 

We are on our way, and we hope to open that up in the near fuVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00284 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
285 

ture. But what we are asking for is assistance to make sure that 

you have immediate access to the full array of expertise on a continuing basis so that—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Via the Web. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Via the Web. So, for instance, if an LA in any 

office tracks veterans, Medicare and some aspect of the farm bill, 

he/she may want immediate access to those issues first. Congressional staff can identify issues they have to track and immediately 

have access to CRS expertise and products and be notified of new 

work and products. 

The request would also help us manage larger and larger research data sets, whether it is Census Bureau data—one of my colleagues gave up their first-born child to get CMS data. And the 

committees particularly need us to undertake examinations based 

upon the data. 

We are trying to make sure that we have a consolidated, integrated data program; the $1.8 million will help us do that. 

SECURITY BREACH CRS REPORTS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Speaking of your reports, a few weeks 

ago there was a wholesale posting of CRS reports and of real concern on the part of the Members and CRS about how that happened. Have you gotten to the bottom of it and have you taken 

steps to ensure that it won’t happen again? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. That was examined by the Library’s IG. The Library’s IG investigated and went to the respective chambers and 

reported on that. 

As you know, the Service is extremely concerned because we only 

serve the Congress and we want to maintain that confidential status. What protects this confidential status is CRS’ speech and debate protections. And so we have to be seen by the courts as well 

as by the Congress as only having one client, and that is the Congress. That is we do not have a public face nor a public mission. 

And if we didn’t have that speech and debate protection then, a 

memorandum that I wrote for one of you could be revealed in a 

court proceeding 2 years from now. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My question is, have you taken steps 

necessary to prevent it from happening again and determine how 

it is that it happened in the first place? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. The determination is subject to the examination of the IG, right? And that is where we have left it, for the IG 

to do that and to then report how it happened and have each of 

the chambers identify the path to prevent it in the future. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Well, is that not something 

that we should discuss publicly? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Well, I think it would probably be done outside 

the chamber. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. That is fine. 

And, lastly—am I the only one with questions left? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I have one more. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. I have two other quick ones, 

and then I am done. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
286 

SPACE FOR OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

The Office of Compliance’s space that they have been trying to 

wrangle out of the Library of Congress for quite some time now, 

where are we on that? 

Ms. JENKINS. I know that our director of facilities has been working with the Compliance Office. They have given them several options to try to address some of their space needs. And as of this 

morning we were still waiting to hear back from the Compliance 

Board on which options, some of which cost money and some of 

which don’t cost money. So we are waiting, but we are working 

with them to try to address it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We had a hearing with them yesterday, and they seemed to indicate they were still having a little bit 

of difficulty. So if you could follow up, that would be great. 

LAW LIBRARY FUNDRAISING AND SEPARATE LINE ITEM

And then, lastly, on the Law Library, because I would bet every 

single member has been contacted by an attorney who is concerned 

about the Law Library and the GLIN network and the fact that we 

have an aging trained workforce that understands the GLIN network. Can you tell us where we are on that? 

And then, also, the legal community would very much like—I 

know the ABA specifically would very much like to be able to establish a private fund-raising source as a way to raise money privately for the Library, and they have yet to be able to do that. So 

where are we on that as well? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, let me say, first, on that last issue that 

we have been consulting a lot with the ABA. Three times I think 

in just the last few weeks. And I think we have a pretty good understanding. For the ABA and other outside parties to raise money, 

that possibility already exists. Funds can be specified for an exclusive purpose. So that possibility already exists. We have in our—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But they are saying that right now it 

might exist, but it is not easy. They want a separate appropriations 

account like there is for CRS. 

Ms. JENKINS. You are speaking not necessarily about fundraising. They asked for two things. They asked for separate language to set up—the ability to set up a separate trust fund for the 

Law Library, and we have given them some suggested language on 

how that could be done. 

The second thing they were originally asking for is to have a separate budget line item. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. That is what I am talking 

about. 

Ms. JENKINS. Dr. Billington, do you want to answer the line item 

question? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Go ahead. 

Ms. JENKINS. I think the issue as it goes back, in terms of the 

Library’s ability to manage the whole organization, is that it is 

very difficult when you come to us and say we want a 10 percent 

across the board cut for the Library to be able to manage all of 

these separate budget items, separate budgets for the different 

Service units to do it. So we have tried to convey to the ABA the 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
287 

transparency of what we are requesting in the Law Library budget. 

It is public knowledge, and we don’t believe that it is necessary for 

them to have greater transparency. I think we are very clear on 

what is in the budget, what process it goes through and that—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. You have answered the wrong 

question. I know those arguments. And they have made them to 

me, and I understand them. I am talking about their ability to 

more easily raise private funds for the Law Library. 

Ms. JENKINS. They can—we have right now the authority to set 

up individual gift and trust funds, and the fund can be specified 

for the Law Library purposes only. They would like additional language, and we have said we are comfortable with it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Great. 

Thank you. I am finished. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Just two quick questions, Mr. Mulhollan. 

How many full-time employees does the CRS employ? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Six hundred and seventy-five. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And where are most of them located, which 

building? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. They are on three half floors of the Madison, 

right next door to the Cannon Building. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. That is all. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. LaTourette. 

OFF-THE-SHELF PRODUCTS IN CRS

Mr. LATOURETTE. Last question, Mr. Mulhollan. 

There used to be off-the-shelf—I call them off-the-shelf-products 

available at CRS. For instance, it may say, what is the history of 

the flag-burning issue in the United States? There was a menu 

that I could call up, and rather than saying, could you write a specific opinion for me to give to my specific constituent, you had some 

off-the-shelf products. Do you still have them? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. There is something on the Web site called ‘‘In 

the Mailbag’’. And in there those are the issues that we say, okay, 

we are getting a lot of calls on this. Let’s say you get robocalls in 

a lot of the offices about flying saucers and whatever. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Nonpartisan. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Yeah, right. When we determine that this is 

coming up in a number of offices, then our librarians prepare materials that are available to all offices on our website. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I guess what I am asking—my recollection is— 

and I just want you to tell me if I am wrong, because I am wrong 

a lot—that you used to have some generic stuff. For instance, in 

all of our offices we have a book how a bill becomes a law. And I 

thought that you had not just a menu of what is hot, but you had 

a menu of like if a school kid calls up and he wants to know. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. There is also on the Web site a number of perennial issues. For instance, we provide materials that provide assistance for commemorations, for the Martin Luther King holiday, 

Flag Day and others that are of interest to constituents. 

Now, with regard to flag burning, we actually—if you put that 

down on the Web, you would get several CRS reports on the constitutionality on that, okay? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. But do you—— 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
288 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. There are—— 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Let me just say, what about—is there any kind 

of, like, paper, hard copies that are available? 

PAPER PRODUCTS VERSUS ONLINE ACCESS

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Everything is now available on the Web site to 

be printed up immediately from there. And so what we have been 

trying to do is ensure the fact that the questions and the analysis 

you need is available on the Web site 24/7. And so that if you want 

an examination on an issue, hopefully, it is there. If it is not, then 

you call and we will produce it for you. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I guess it is a manpower question I am asking. 

If—am I wrong that you changed this over the last—I have been 

here for 15 years. And I know I am not talking about technology 

improvements. I am talking about, do you do something different 

today in terms of you have got a storeroom with these 80 reports—— 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. We actually do. The storeroom is now in digital 

form in digital storage. What we have there is on the screen. And 

the new Web I think will be more robust and more intuitive in 

being able to ensure we are responsive to your questions. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Regardless how I get it, paper or electronic, it 

is the same as it was 15 years ago. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. I think in most—yes. It is just digital form. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Okay. Thank you. 

ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT FROM THE CHAIR—DIGITAL TALKING BOOKS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Billington, thank you very much. We have a little bit of 

homework for you. It is related to the digital book initiative. As we 

move toward full implementation of that, I think it would be useful 

to include a summary of how we got to where we are. Could you 

please have your staff prepare a history of this project, including 

a description of the process for developing the machines and book 

formats which are currently being circulated, the evaluations that 

were done to test the appropriateness and cost of the technologies 

which were finally selected, and a history of the cost estimates over 

the life of the program? And we would like that by next Friday, 

May 8th, please. 

Thank you very much for your service and your time. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
289 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 591 here 50439B.023
290 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 592 here 50439B.024
291 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 593 here 50439B.025
292 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 594 here 50439B.026
293 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 595 here 50439B.027
294 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 596 here 50439B.028
295 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 597 here 50439B.029
296 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 598 here 50439B.030
297 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 599 here 50439B.031
298 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 600 here 50439B.032
299 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 601 here 50439B.033
300 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 602 here 50439B.034
301 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 603 here 50439B.035
302 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 604 here 50439B.036
303 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 605 here 50439B.037
304 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 606 here 50439B.038
305 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 607 here 50439B.039
306 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 608 here 50439B.040
307 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 609 here 50439B.041
308 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 610 here 50439B.042
309 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 611 here 50439B.043
310 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 612 here 50439B.044
311 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 613 here 50439B.045
312 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 614 here 50439B.046
313 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 615 here 50439B.047
314 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 616 here 50439B.048
315 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2009. 

OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER 

WITNESS 

AMBASSADOR JOHN O’KEEFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Continuing on, we have Ambassador 

O’Keefe, who is the Executive Director of the Open World program, 

who has joined us along with Dr. Billington. Ambassador O’Keefe, 

I want to welcome you on behalf of the subcommittee. 

You have, at least with me, a fairly Herculean task, and that is 

to justify, or at least attempt to justify, your 2010 budget request 

for the Open World program. As I have made clear many times, 

both in public and in private, it is difficult for me to see how we 

continue to fund this program in this budget with all the needs 

that we have. To me, it continues to be a square peg in a round 

hole. Folks argue whether it is a worthwhile program or not. 

I have a difficult time—knowing the priorities that we have 

through all of the agencies and particularly knowing the funding 

demands for the Library—continuing to be able to justify funding 

at a level—funding it at all, but funding it at the level that we do 

in this bill. 

It is simply not a legislative function, in my opinion. And really 

what we have been working towards with you—or trying to work 

towards with you—is weaning you off the Legislative Branch budget, either through project fundraising or through access to funding 

from another more appropriate agency or branch of the government. 

But if we are looking at the funding decisions that we need to 

make, we have to fund a new radio system to the tune of $70 million to $100 million, perhaps more, depending on what happens 

with the conclusion of the report that we are expecting; technology 

upgrades at the Government Printing Office; more staff at GAO; 

additional enhancements at the Library, and the list goes on. So 

I am hopeful that you can tell us during the hearing this afternoon 

that you have made progress in developing alternative funding 

sources for Open World. 

As I told you privately—and I am sharing publicly with everyone 

what I said privately in my office—my goal is that at least 50 percent of the cost of your program be funded outside of this bill after 

this year. So I hope that you have been successful and that you 

have a lot of good things to report. 

And I look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Aderholt. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you for joining us today, Ambassador O’Keefe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR O’KEEFE

Ambassador O’KEEFE. Thank you, sir. It is an honor to be here 

today. And, Madam Chair, Mr. Aderholt, distinguished members of 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
316 

the subcommittee, thanks for the opportunity to testify on Open 

World Leadership Center’s fiscal year 2010 budget. 

As the Center’s Open World program matures, we see it growing 

in significance for both the American communities and organizations that make it successful and for the participating young leaders in countries of strategic interest to the United States. 

EFFECTIVENESS OF OPEN WORLD

Our board chairman, Dr. James Billington, 10 years ago this 

month proposed what Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs 

William Burns has said is the most effective exchange program of 

the many he has been involved with. 

In 1999, with strong bipartisan support from Congress, Dr. 

Billington and then ambassador to Russia James Collins brought 

forward a leadership exchange program that has benefited both the 

United States and new countries born from the breakup of the Soviet Union. Thanks to Open World, there are scores of Russian 

nonproliferation experts who now know their American counterparts and have a greater sense of joint purpose. There are antitrafficking advocates and officials in Ukraine who have a better understanding of how to track down the perpetrators of this crime 

and assist their victims. There are mayors and city counselors in 

Moldova and Azerbaijan who are making local governments more 

open and responsive to ordinary citizens. 

To give just one example of the caliber of delegates that Open 

World hosts, Veronica Marchenko, a Russian NGO leader and 

Open World alumna, last month received one of the Secretary of 

State’s 2009 International Women of Courage Awards from Secretary Clinton and First Lady Michelle Obama. 

In reviewing this legislative branch agency’s effectiveness over 

the years and our successful expansion beyond our original focus 

of Russia to Ukraine, Moldova, Caucuses, and Central Asia, I have 

to give credit to our dedicated staff and our partner host organizations that provide volunteer experts and home hosts across the 

country. I am honored to serve a program with such broad support 

in U.S. communities and in countries where we operate and that 

is constantly building partnerships between the two. 

In 2008, we sent delegates to 355 communities in 202 congressional districts. Seven hundred and fifty American families homehosted these first-time visitors to the United States. We will attain 

that same broad geographic distribution in our hosting program 

this year. 

To give you a feel for the enthusiasm, there are twice the number of willing American volunteer hosts than there are participants 

that we can afford to bring. 

OPEN WORLD STRATEGIC PLAN

Our request this year reflects the revised strategic goal approved 

by our Board of Trustees. The original strategic plan called for a 

20 percent expansion in participant numbers by 2011. Even with 

economies of scale, gifts and a cost reduction, such a goal would 

call for a substantial budget increase, which the board believed was 

not feasible at this time. Therefore, our request this year of 

$14.456 million is $546,000 above last year’s appropriation, a 4 perVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00316 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
317 

cent increase. This amount will support our expansion to Armenia 

in 2010 and will allow us to take advantage of the great opportunities that may open up with the changing of U.S.-Russian relations 

and developments in Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere in the region. 

Our strategic plan calls on us to diversify funding, a goal I know 

that you share, Madam Chair. Currently, an amount equivalent to 

19 percent of our appropriation comes from cost shares, gifts, transfers from other agencies and in-kind contributions. To increase that 

percentage, former Representative Robert ‘‘Bud’’ Cramer, an exceptionally committed member of our board, is working with us to seek 

funds from foundations active in the region. 

Our chairman, Dr. Billington, has been unstinting in his efforts 

to raise funds and to establish long-term cost-sharing arrangements. Dr. Billington and I are scheduled to meet with House Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Nita 

Lowey on May 13th to see if a portion of our funding might come 

from the Foreign Operations appropriation. 

After the July summit between Presidents Obama and 

Medvedev, there may be opportunities to engage the private sector 

this autumn and in 2010. 

POWERFUL TOOL FOR CONGRESS

So, Madam Chair, Mr. Aderholt, members of this committee, 

Open World’s Board and its hosting partners throughout the 

United States have created a powerful tool for Congress and our 

Nation to forge human links to the strategically important heartland of Eurasia. I seek your support to continue our efforts in the 

next fiscal year. 

Thank you for your attention. 

[Ambassador O’Keefe’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
318 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 624 here 50439B.049
319 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 625 here 50439B.050
320 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 626 here 50439B.051
321 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 627 here 50439B.052
322 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 628 here 50439B.053
323 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 629 here 50439B.054
324 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 630 here 50439B.055
325 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 631 here 50439B.056
326 

NEED FOR SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Ambassador. I appreciate 

your statement, and your full statement will be entered into the 

record. 

I want to read a letter that each committee chair received from 

the Speaker: 

Thank you very much for your continued commitment to a vigorous oversight and reform agenda. In response to my letter of February 19th, the House chairmen developed a requested schedule for 

regular and thorough oversight of the departments, programs and 

budgets under their jurisdictions. We are dedicated to carefully 

scrutinizing programs and agencies to cut wasteful, obsolete and 

duplicative spending. 

As of the beginning of this month, House committees under 

Democratic leadership have already conducted more than 162 oversight hearings; and over 100 more are in the planning stages for 

the coming months. Our commitment is not to programs but to the 

goals and objectives determined by the Congress to best serve the 

needs of the American people. If there is a way to achieve those 

goals and objectives more efficiently, with less cost or duplication, 

then the 111th Congress is committed to ensuring that changes are 

implemented. 

I would appreciate your developing a list of proposed reorganizations and spending reductions within your committee’s jurisdiction 

based on your planned oversight review. 

And I will ask unanimous consent to enter the full letter into the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
327 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 634 here 50439B.057
328 

OTHER RUSSIA EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ambassador O’Keefe, the Interagency 

Working Group, which is an agency with whom you might be familiar, is tasked with coordinating the efforts of all of these government-sponsored international exchanges and training programs. 

Are you familiar with how many exchange programs there are just 

specifically with the nation of Russia? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I think there are quite a few. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There are 91. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I am not surprised. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ninety-one. That covers 36,000 individuals. 

I understand the passion which you feel about this program; and 

I know that, Dr. Billington, you believe in this program and feel 

strongly that it is unique and important; and I know that it is, too. 

But given the Speaker’s mandate and direction and the fact that 

we have 91 different programs—and that is just Russia. That 

doesn’t include the broader former Soviet Union republics. Those 

programs sponsored 72,000 visitors from the former Soviet republics last year. 

So with so many opportunities for exchange programs with these countries, how do I justify, given the Speaker’s mandate, $14 million for your program out of this bill? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. There are a couple of reasons. 

First of all, there is a question of efficiency. Our overhead is 7 

percent, which is very, very low. 

The second thing is, as you say, it is a unique program. One of 

the reasons Under Secretary Burns feels it is the best program of 

its kind is because, a lot of these programs, bring people over, they 

send them back, and that is it. We create networks. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, then he should fund it. I mean, 

if he thinks it is great, then, great, let him take it and fund it. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I understand. 

But the other unique part, of course, is that, as a legislative 

branch agency, we coordinate, very closely with and work for Members of Congress. So our relationship with the Helsinki Commission, with HDAC and with other Congressional organizations is one 

that is complementary. We really are, in a way, providing opportunities for Members of Congress to interact with a lot of these visitors who are coming here. 

But, even beyond that, the executive branch programs focus appropriately on executive branch policy initiatives and executive to 

executive issues. Our focus is at the level of your constituents. 

JUDICIAL BRANCH FUNDING

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can I interrupt you for a second? Because I know that you have maintained that. And I am not trying 

to be antagonistic. We just have a lot of priorities that we have to 

balance in this bill. And so I don’t want you to think that we have 

anything against the Open World program. We are just trying to 

balance everything. 

But you have maintained that this is a unique program, unique 

to the legislative process. Only week after week the reports that I 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
329 

see from you show that the vast majority, if not exclusively, of your 

participants are in the judicial branch. You are mostly exchanging 

or having your participants from the judicial branch in Russia and 

the former Soviet republics. 

This is a legislative body. So I am not sure why you aren’t—and 

I have encouraged you and would like to know to what degree you 

have reached out to the judicial branch of our government to try 

to seek funding support from them. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Well, just for the record, the rule of law exchanges 

are about 10 percent of our total program. So there are other exchanges: accountable governance, environment, women’s leaders, 

things like that. You do see a lot of reports on the judicial process, 

because that is an area that lends itself to a weekly report—it has 

some tangibility. 

On the question of outreach, I did immediately go to see Mr. Duff 

at the Administrative Office of the Judiciary. He runs the support 

operation there. Basically, his budget is rent to the GAO, payment 

of salaries and incidentals to keep the court system functioning. 

So Dr. Billington and I then saw Bill Burns with regard to the 

idea of the diversified funding and have followed that up with a 

meeting with Dan Rosenblum, who administers all the Freedom 

Support Act money, we sent him a note over a week ago with a 

proposal for him to fund our 2010 rule of law program at $1.4 million. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My time has expired. Mr. Aderholt. 

INVOLVEMENT OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Mr. ADERHOLT. I notice in your comments that you mentioned 

that you have American volunteers in 44 States and 202 congressional districts that are impacted, where they participate in some 

form or fashion. As far as Congressional participation in this, have 

you had many Members of Congress that have been directly involved? I know that you have a few on your board, but, generally, 

have Members of Congress been involved in these programs? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I would say that, obviously, you joined us with 

Chief Justice Ivanov in Dr. Billington’s office with Representative 

Hastings. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Right. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Yesterday, we had a group of Russian parliamentarians who met with Senators Udall and Whitehouse on environmental issues. These were two members of the lower house and one 

of the upper house who were looking at issues of fisheries in 

Kamchatka and Alaska. So we have contact with Members of Congress on a regular basis when individuals come through. 

And then we have—I would say in the districts we always try to 

make sure that the district offices, and the member if he or she is 

there, have an opportunity to meet our participants. I believe Representative McCollum and Judge Magnuson met with some individuals in Open World a year ago or so, if I recall. It may have been 

just Judge Magnuson who was with you. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I just met with Judge Magnuson. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I will get you the exact numbers because we keep 

those statistics. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
330 

Mr. ADERHOLT. The reason I ask you that is because I was not 

familiar with it until I came in here as part of this subcommittee. 

Especially considering that legislative branch appropriates the 

money, I think there should be more of an effort to reach out to 

and allow Members of Congress to be active in this. Just food for 

thought on that. 

COST SHARES AND CONTRIBUTIONS

Talking about the cost sharing and any kind of donations that 

you get for the Center, what—I think was it $1.8 million? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. $1.8 million. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What kind of entities usually donate money to 

the program? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. What kind of entities? It is mostly the host families. They provide home hosting accommodations and meals; and, 

generally, they will take them around to various things in their 

own towns and cities. 

We also have cost shares from the grantees who help organize 

this. So part of our determination of who gets grants is the percent 

of cost shares that they will do for us. 

PROGRAM COUNTRIES

Mr. ADERHOLT. And so how many countries overall are involved 

in this? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Let’s see. It would be 10 countries right now. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And what is the criteria for choosing those 10 

countries? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. The board had made a strategic decision that we 

would do all countries of the former Soviet Union. And we meet 

every year to decide which ones. 

For example, last year Turkmenistan had a change of leadership. 

The Turkmenbashi in Ashgabat died and another fellow came in. 

There is strategic interest because of the long border with Iran and 

Afghanistan and its tremendous gas reserves. So we started a program in Turkmenistan. 

For this year’s Board meeting, we looked at a number of different 

options and chose Armenia and, if we can do it, Belarus, which is 

a little more difficult to break into. The reason for Armenia is because Masha Yovanovitch—the U.S. ambassador in Armenia who 

served previously in Kyrgyzstan when we started the program 

there, feels it could really, really help her program in Armenia. She 

has asked me several times if we would make her next on the list. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So you are willing to expand that list. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Yes, sir. But we are going to stay within the countries of the former Soviet Union. 

The Chair of the International Judicial Relations Committee, 

Judge Simpson, joined our Board meeting in February and gave a 

presentation on the possibility of doing rule of law in Serbia. The 

Board felt that we should stick with our strategic plan to remain 

up through 2011 within our current cost estimation. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. That is all. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ms. McCollum. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
331 

ROLE OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH IN OPEN WORLD

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Madam Chair, Ambassador O’Keefe, I have 

more of a comment than I have a question. I think we are at a 

crossroads with a program that was established at the time that 

there were dramatic changes happening in the Soviet Union. And 

one of the places we knew, we got in and worked on judicial reform 

would be good for business, it would be good for trade, it would be 

good for human rights, would be good for a whole host of events. 

The world changed. The value of Open World continues, but the 

value as you describe it is pretty much judicial reform. 

And I have been in Afghanistan, and heaven knows they need it 

and fledgling democracies need that. But Congress in and of itself, 

that is not what we do. We don’t do judicial reform. So to say it 

serves leg branch kind of creates a disconnect unless you have been 

out in the field and you have seen it. 

And you know that report language is constantly being written 

about corruption, about democracy. And then it is like, okay, that 

is the State Department’s bailiwick. 

Yet there is a role, and I think what we need to do is we need 

to have a discussion and stop, if you don’t mind, talking about 

Open World and just say, in the world as it is today, is it appropriate for the legislative branch to have some control over its own 

budget, over its own exchange, over its, you know, oversight that 

has nothing to do with the executive branch, knowing that we don’t 

set foreign policy but we finance foreign policy, and we can have 

tremendous impact with exchanges between representatives? 

Now, that doesn’t mean I am saying that if we review this we 

get out of working with judiciary and law enforcement and all. But 

I think what is missing here is, to what the chairwoman pointed 

out, there are 91 organizations going on. Everybody has added a 

layer to this onion, and everybody has forgotten what the center of 

the onion looks like now. And I think it is a very sweet onion, but, 

right now, it tastes rather bitter because of everything that is going 

on with our budget and our economy here. 

So we do need to—it is not about necessarily cutting waste, fraud 

and abuse. It is about looking at how do we serve our goal. And 

if there is a goal, if there is a role for the legislative branch to have 

its own engagement where we are not totally dependent upon the 

executive branch to engage with our peers in parliaments all over 

the world, then perhaps there is a function. Then we look at it differently. We look at the way that we fund it, and then we determine its depth and breadth and how we use it. 

So I think that is kind of the dilemma we find ourselves in. Is 

our role in uniqueness of this program and how it serves this institution and our peers around the world is not clearly defined anymore, in part because of the great work that you do and all the examples are at the judiciary, which we are not—— 

So, Madam Chair, GAO in 2004 recommended that Open World 

establish a strategic and performance-based plan to strengthen accessing and reporting on the program and its performance. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
332 

DISCUSSION WITH LEADERSHIP IN CONGRESS

Madam Chair, I might suggest that we work with the Speaker 

and the minority leader and have a fruitful discussion as we move 

forward as you are changing their dynamic budget to really see if 

this truly is going to be a function of the legislative branch, that 

we look into how we see that this moves forward to serve those of 

us in the legislative branch. 

I am not saying we walk away or that we leave the function that 

it has had in training judicial support. Because this body and I 

have been involved asking for it to happen. So I think, until we get 

there, there is going to continue to be this tension, this dilemma, 

and this heartbreak for all of us on this committee with the limited 

resources we have to move good things forward. 

And right now they are going through—they will be going 

through reorganization of the State and Foreign Act, which has 

been mandated basically for the last 50 years. 

So I think we have an opportunity of talking to the committees 

of jurisdiction about what and if we should have something that is 

truly owned by the legislative branch and I think appropriately 

housed in what is a very wonderful institution, is a friendly institution to the world, the Library of Congress. And I think until we 

have that discussion you are going to be haunted by this. 

And that is my comment. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Ms. McCollum. 

I will add that the problem that we have in the Legislative 

Branch budget is that we are the smallest budget of them all. And 

$14 million in this budget is much different and has a much more 

significant impact on the priorities that we have to choose from 

than every other bill. So it might seem like only $14 million, but 

that is a big nut, a big nugget for us to deal with. And that is why 

it is something that we end up wringing our hands with. And I am 

not the first one, the first chair of this subcommittee to wring my 

hands over Open World. I know there is perennial angst, annual 

angst over this. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I am ready to go to the Budget Committee and 

increase it if we have got a strategic plan. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I agree. I couldn’t have said it better 

myself. The case has been well made by Dr. Billington that there 

is value in having a legislative exchange program. I agree with you. 

I have not seen really the components of that legislative exchange 

program that we are funding recently. So it would be helpful if we 

need to adapt your program so that it is a better fit than it currently is. It maybe used to be a legislatively oriented program, but 

it doesn’t appear to be now. 

But I wanted to just go back really quick before—do you have 

any additional questions? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. That is all I have. 

FUNDRAISING EFFORTS OF OPEN WORLD

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I want to focus on your fundraising 

before they call votes. We did ask that—and, Dr. Billington—— 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I have one thing I wanted to address. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I am trying to get back—— 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
333 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I think this is a wonderful discussion, and I 

really also appreciate your problems and at the same time your 

positive assessment and your idea. 

I just want to say two quick things. 

One, that this is fundamentally different from the other 91 programs in that it is consciously directed at emerging leaders. These 

are young people. This is based on a list I got from a man who was 

the conscience of Russia after Sakharov. He is not well known in 

this country. He is the only survivor of the first death camp in the 

20th century, a living legend inside Russia. He gave me his list of 

people who could do something about the—one-tenth of the Duma 

are now alumni of this program. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. And they are our peers. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Fifty-one percent of them are women. That is 

something totally new in this generation. This is all the post-Soviet 

generation. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just help us help you. That is all we 

are saying. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. This is the best discussion we have ever had. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am so glad. I would love to take this 

off the table and not have to go through it every year because we 

have solved the problem at some point. But on your fundraising efforts, you have got a formal report that is due on May 30th. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. We do. 

PROGRESS ON FUNDRAISING EFFORTS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You submitted a letter to the committee outlining your fundraising efforts that you are undertaking. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Right. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can you tell the committee what commitments you have gotten up to this point from nonlegislative 

branch sources, either public or private? 

And then you did mention in your budget materials that you 

have a $950,000 pledge over 3 years. What concerns me about that 

pledge is that the funds—there is a limitation on how the funds 

can be used—cannot be used for any activities that were previously 

funded with appropriated funds. So that defeats the purpose of 

raising outside funds. If you get a pledge of funding, you need to 

be clear with the outside source of contributions that the idea is 

that you would be replacing funds that we can’t provide you with 

anymore. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Just a little clarification on that. 

First, one gift was $500,000 for the alumni program, which again 

is one of the unique parts of this program, that we keep these networks up. And we don’t use appropriated funds for that. 

The second gift or pledge which you have got, $150,000 per year 

for three years, was provided by Senator Malkin and that is—that 

can substitute for appropriated funds because it is for exchanges 

out of the Republic of Buryatia in Russia. And so the next 

$300,000, $150,000 next year, $150,000 the year after that, that is 

just for what would have been—we would have used appropriated 

funds. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
334 

And I understand exactly what you are saying. Because our objectives are, for example, to substitute the $1.4 million I have 

asked from State would be in place of appropriated funds. 

ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT FROM THE CHAIR

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I don’t have any additional questions. 

And your homework is the May 30th report on your fund-raising 

efforts. We look forward to hearing about those. 

As I said, you need to help us help you. Because it is not that 

I don’t want to make sure that this program can continue. It is 

that I am drowning in priorities. And these are not nice-to-have 

priorities; they are must-have priorities. If we are going to preserve 

this institution and its facilities, if we are going to make sure that 

we can continue to implement the vision of Dr. Billington and give 

the country and the world access to the treasures that are in the 

Library of Congress, unless I get money dropped from the sky in 

another amazing allocation, which I am not expecting this year, I 

don’t have that many places I can go to find the funds. So I say 

that with the utmost respect for your efforts and your dedication. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Well, I have to also thank you, Madam Chair. You 

are very forthright and very clear, which is useful. Also, I think 

that you do appreciate what we are doing. It is, as Dr. Billington 

said, an amazing program; and I am constantly impressed not just 

by the quality but by the fact that one in four of our participants 

have either met with congressional staff or Members of Congress. 

So we do a lot of contact. 

But I think you are right, Mr. Aderholt. We need to do much better outreach to the offices, and we will do that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

Thank you to everyone for coming today. The subcommittee 

stands in recess until next Tuesday, May 5th, at 10 a.m., when we 

give Members and public witnesses an opportunity to testify on the 

legislative branch agencies fiscal year 2010 budget requests. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
335 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 651 50439B.058
336 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 652 50439B.059
337 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 653 50439B.060
338 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 654 50439B.061
(339) 

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2009. 

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER 

INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am pleased to call this meeting of 

the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the House Committee on 

Appropriations to order. This morning we are holding our annual 

Member and public witness hearing, in which we give the employees of the Legislative Branch as well as Members of the House of 

Representatives an opportunity to testify on their concerns or anything else on their mind. It has always been helpful for the subcommittee when we approach doing our mark of the bill to get 

input from the employees. And each year something comes to light 

that we were not aware of that has been included or changed the 

Legislative Branch mark to some degree. 

So I am looking forward to hearing the testimony of the individuals that are here today. Congressman Holt is the only Member of 

the House who has requested time to speak, and his testimony will 

be taken as soon as he arrives following the person that is currently testifying at that moment. And with that, Mr. Aderholt? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Likewise I just echo what you say, look forward 

to hearing the testimony of our public witnesses today. 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Great. Our first witness will be Mary 

Alice Baish. She is the director of the Government Relations Office 

for the American Association of Law Libraries. Ms. Baish, your full 

statement will be entered into the record, and you can proceed with 

a 5-minute summary. 

Ms. BAISH. And I even get a bottle of water. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You do. We are very accommodating. 

Ms. BAISH. I had to leave mine outside of the building when I 

came in. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are not allowed to fly with water 

or bring it into the Capitol. 

Ms. BAISH. Apparently. I am very appreciative. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. We wanted to replace it for you. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
340 

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2009. 

NO-FEE PUBLIC ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION THROUGH THE FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY 

PROGRAM 

WITNESS 

MARY ALICE BAISH, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS OFFICE, 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES 

TESTIMONY—MARY ALICE BAISH, AALL 

Ms. BAISH. I hope my 5 minutes has not started yet, because I 

have a full message for you today. So good morning, Madam Chair 

Wasserman Schultz and Ranking Member Aderholt and members 

of the subcommittee. I am delighted to be here this morning on behalf of the American Association of Law Libraries, the Medical Library Association, and Special Libraries Association. We are committed to the democratic principles of no-fee public access to government information through the Federal Depository Library Program. We support Public Printer Bob Tapella’s full fiscal year 2010 

budget request for the Government Printing Office. GPO’s mission 

to keep Americans informed is uniquely vital to our democracy. We 

also recognize your need to make tough decisions for fiscal year 

2010 spending. 

FEDERAL DIGITAL SYSTEM

First I would like to thank you for your strong support of GPO’s 

funding needs in fiscal year 2009. We are especially grateful for the 

$1 million for the continued development of the Federal Digital 

System, or FDsys. FDsys is essential to GPO’s future and the needs 

of the public. We welcomed its first release last January. Building, 

maintaining and enhancing FDsys is crucial. There are enormous 

costs involved in properly managing the life cycle of electronic information from its creation to its authentication to its permanent 

public access and preservation. Public Printer Tapella requested $8 million for the further development of FDsys, listing it as his top priority during last week’s 

hearing before the subcommittee. We absolutely agree, an adequate 

annual level of funding for FDsys is necessary to ensure that its 

future development and enhancements keep up with the pace of 

technology. 

FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM

Second, we fully support the $40.9 million request for the salary 

and expense account which fund the Federal Depository Library 

Program. As GPO expands efforts to provide information in electronic formats, as well as distribution of print materials to libraries, it is imperative that new recurring costs related to identifying, 

cataloguing, and distributing government resources be fully supported. GPO’s cataloguing and indexing services are crucial to the 

ability of the public to find the information they need. 

And it is more imperative than ever before, because now we have 

a system, FDsys, which can harvest online information from agency 

Web sites. We believe that the funding request to hire 10 addiVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00340 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
341 

tional staff to ensure more timely acquisitions, cataloguing, and indexing services, is absolutely essential. Third, as a former documents librarian, I would like to brag about the very important 

services that depository libraries provide to your constituents each 

and every day. For example, responding to an August 2008 request 

from the superintendent of documents, members of the FDL community submitted statements about the value of their services and 

collections. And I invite you to view the responses on the FDL Web 

site. And I will be more than happy to give you the URL. Among 

them, Madam Chair, Broward County’s main library in Fort Lauderdale noted that while many basic questions can be found on line 

through agency Web sites or FDsys or GPO Access, that their users 

need their print documents collection. For example, among their recent success stories that they sent to GPO, they helped customers 

find a copy of a 1871 document titled ‘‘A Report on the Defenses 

of Washington to the Chief of Engineers In the U.S. Army’’, primary source material from the Civil War era, the 1919 annual report of the Secretary of the Navy, which is only available in the 

print United States serial set, and a 1988 regulation that is not 

freely available yet on line. Librarians at the Shepard Broad Law 

Library, also in Fort Lauderdale, have observed significant growth 

both in the number of their public users and circulation of their 

documents. 

More members of the public face pressing legal issues, but do not 

have computers or the money to buy documents that they need. 

And at a time when all States, including Florida, are enacting severe budget cuts that will negatively impact library collections and 

services, the Law Library’s participation in the depository library 

program ensures that the public will continue to have access to important legal documents. Interestingly, recent reference statistics 

at the Law Library indicate that bankruptcy, housing foreclosures, 

and assistance with housing, immigration, and health care services, are the leading information needs of their public users. Documents librarians also develop finding tools whenever a new hot 

issue occurs, such as the recent outbreak of swine flu. 

At Georgetown Law Library, they just updated their guide that 

includes Federal, State, and international laws relating to human 

influenza. The documents librarian up at the University of Alaska 

in Fairbanks posted a new online guide because he discovered that 

there are many congressional hearings published during and after 

the U.S. swine flu outbreak in the 1970s. And these are all print 

documents in the historic collection. It is simply impossible in this 

short amount of time to really adequately describe the excellent 

services that depository libraries provide daily to your constituents. 

We ask that you approve the GPO’s fiscal year 2010 request to 

support these collections and services needed by depository libraries. Last year I asked you to become champions of the FDsys, and 

I applaud you for doing so and thank you for your support. The 

FDLP’s greatest challenge right now is the fusion of valuable print 

collections with 21st century technologies. The added value, which 

is the heart of the program, is contributed by the very dedicated 

librarians at Federal depository libraries. Please send a clear message to the GPO and to these FDLP libraries that their collections 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
342 

and services are needed and appreciated by you more than ever before. Thank you very much. 

[Ms. Baish’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
343 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 664 here 50439B.062
344 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 665 here 50439B.063
345 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 666 here 50439B.064
346 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 667 here 50439B.065
347 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 668 here 50439B.066
348 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 669 here 50439B.067
349 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 670 here 50439B.068
350 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 671 here 50439B.069
351 

PUBLICIZING THE FDLP

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Ms. Baish. And 

I think that I speak for all the Members when I say that most 

Americans are not aware of the vast access to information that 

GPO and the Federal Depository Library System provide to them 

to access information they would not otherwise be able to. And I 

know that I am a lot more enlightened now that I serve on this 

committee. 

Ms. BAISH. GPO has a video that for a time was up on YouTube 

about the value of depository libraries. So I think that GPO is making an effort to better market it. And of course, the marketing is 

done at each and every one of the depository libraries as well. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sure. I do not have any additional 

questions. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I do not have anything. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. I have no questions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BAISH. Thank you so much. 

CONGRESSMAN HOLT ON REESTABLISHING OTA 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Our first and only Member witness 

today is Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey. Congressman 

Holt, you are here today to talk about our mutual goal of reestablishing the Office of Technology Assessment. If you can proceed 

with your statement, and I look forward to hearing your testimony 

from a historical perspective, as well as why you think it is so important that we reestablish the office. 

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2009.

REESTABLISHING THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY 

ASSESSMENT 

WITNESS 

HON. RUSH HOLT FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

TESTIMONY OF CONGRESSMAN HOLT ON OTA 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I speak as someone who worked on Capitol Hill as a member of staff, saw the Office of Technology Assessment in full operation, and as one who serves now and has seen the absence of that. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify about a very important 

program under your jurisdiction, one that if funded I think would 

help restore the American people’s confidence that we have the information that we need to make informed, well-reasoned decisions 

in a complex world. The good news is that we do not need to create 

a new, untested program to do this. We just need to refurbish the 

tool that we have had, that we know works, that has been too long 

neglected, and I am talking about refunding the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, known as the OTA. Every Member 

of Congress, I am sure the members know, need access to policy 

relevant, unbiased, technical assessments crafted by those who are 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
352 

familiar with our work, with the functions of Congress, written in 

a language that is relevant to our work, and produced with an eye 

toward the congressional schedule and common needs. That was 

the role that was filled by OTA for 23 years. 

UTILITY OF OTA

The greatest misconception about OTA, I think, is that it was a 

science organization for scientists. This was not the case. Members 

used OTA reports to understand issues and develop policy positions. Options explored by OTA became outlines for new legislative 

proposals. Congress often required OTA to assess the implementation of new programs for effectiveness. And OTA really existed to 

serve every Member of Congress. Some people say, well, you have 

a science background, you must want OTA. Actually, I need OTA 

less than most Members of Congress. Those responsible for 

defunding OTA claimed that it was necessary—that Congress had 

to rein in excessive government spending. Well, in its last year, OTA’s operating costs were $23 million, 

less than 1 percent of the legislative branch appropriations, yet the 

payback from OTA I think was far-reaching. For example, an OTA 

report was the source of upgrades in computer systems at the Social Security Administration that led to savings of more than $350 

million. Studies on the Synthetic Fuels Corporation raised important questions about the program. And its subsequent abolishment, 

I think saved billions. Now, all we need to do is find a way to have 

those savings added to the legislative branch allocation. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I agree. 

Mr. HOLT. But more important than any cost savings was really 

the incalculable value OTA’s contributions brought to the policy 

discussions. Many argued that we would be able to get the same 

information from other sources, think tanks, experts in academia, 

National Academies, CRS, GAO. These are all excellent resources, 

but they were not designed as OTA was designed. We do not suffer 

from a lack of information on Capitol Hill. We do not have the time 

or the resources to gauge the validity, credibility, usefulness, of the 

overwhelming amount of information we receive. And in the years 

since OTA was disbanded, no group or combination of groups has 

been able to assume its place as a provider of scientific and technical assessment for Congress with review panels and all of the 

analysis and procedures that went with that. And I think our national policies have suffered. 

Perhaps OTA could be made more responsive to requests by individual members. Better connections to other organizations like 

CRS and GAO and the National Academies could be established. 

Perhaps OTA could further democratize part of the policy process 

by harnessing the tools of the Internet and the public’s obvious desire to contribute to the national dialogue on climate change and 

energy security and much more. These are all important issues 

that Congress can and should explore. But we already know that 

the basic structure of OTA is sound. We have done this experiment. 

We just need to heed the results and breathe new life into OTA. 

A fully functioning agency would cost I figure something on the 

order of $35 million today. For a first year appropriation, I suggest 

$10 million to fund the reestablishment of OTA and begin a handVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00352 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
353 

ful of research projects, and then build up to the kind of agency 

that had a hundred and some professionals. There is no question 

that having those professionals in OTA, and I speak as someone 

who was a staff member at the time, elevated the level of discourse 

on any number of issues. OTA’s greatest contributions were its 

ability to provide long-term, forward looking perspective, and to 

alert Members of Congress to components of policies that are scientific or technical in nature but might not be immediately obvious. 

Consider that as early as 1995, before anyone had heard of the 

BlackBerry, and cell phones were clunky and uncommon, OTA produced a report Wireless Technologies and the National Information 

Infrastructure. 

Various reports on science and math education were written long 

before STEM ed became a popular topic. Health care policies and 

technologies were considered in depth, from the impact of health 

care reform on rural areas to the cost and benefits of artificial 

hearts. There were reports on cancer, on HIV/AIDS. There were six 

reports on women’s health. Before most people had heard of biodiesel, OTA was examining the potential environmental—this is 

the title—Potential Environmental Impacts of Bioenergy Crop Production. And before most Americans held concerns about identity 

theft or warrantless wiretapping, OTA produced a report on electronic surveillance in the digital age. All of these reports, and most 

of the 755 produced by OTA, are still relevant to issues being considered by this Congress 15 years later. Now, you might say, well, 

if all this work was done during the golden age, why are these 

problems still with us? Well, it is important to point out that the 

work done by OTA in a number of areas has really led to legislative solutions. I was talking with someone the other day who said, 

well, you are interested in OTA. I said yes. He said, you know, I 

do work, I am a Washington rep dealing with Alzheimer’s disease. 

Do you know what the bible is for Alzheimer’s policy in? It is an 

OTA report that was written 20 years ago. 

You will recall recently we passed the Genetic Nondiscrimination 

Act. Not a high-tech matter, it was really a workplace protection 

matter, an employee protection and citizen protection matter. Do 

you know the origin of that? It was an OTA study around 1990. 

Last year we passed in my committee on Education and Labor regulations on dust explosions in the workplace. You know who did 

the first work in Congress on that? OTA. A year ago few had considered the potential risks of the new computer-assisted mathematical models in our financial sector. What if during this 15 years 

that OTA did not exist if OTA had maybe written a report on 

mathematical models and derivatives in the financial industry? 

Likewise, would we have benefited over the last 15 years from reports on energy challenges and how to deal with global pandemics? 

What phenomenon or technologies will be leading the headlines 

and changing our world a year from now or 5 years from now? OTA 

cannot tell us that, of course. But OTA can and did help us start 

considering these possibilities. So let’s not wait another year to revive OTA for the benefit of every Member of Congress. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
354 

USING GAO FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Congressman 

Holt. You and I have been discussing this since the Legislative 

Branch Subcommittee was reestablished. As far as we have been 

able to go was appropriating $2.5 million and allocating that to 

GAO and having them conduct technology assessments. Why is it 

not sufficient to just expand GAO’s role in that regard, have them 

bring on more experts and handle the functions of the OTA 

through GAO? 

Mr. HOLT. Right. I think what one could do is set up a program 

with a bipartisan governing board. In fact, you know the governing 

board of OTA was scrupulously bipartisan, evenly balanced, and bicameral, and the members, most of them really took part in this. 

So we could set up in GAO, perhaps in the Library of Congress, 

an organization with a bicameral, bipartisan governing board that 

would have a permanent staff of many dozens or a hundred or 

more that convened outside panels both to review the scope of the 

work before it is undertaken and the text of the report before it is 

released. We could have these requested by members and committees. And what we would have done is invented OTA and placed 

it within GAO or CRS. One could do that. But as I say, we have 

done the experiment. The design of OTA by, you know, outside observers will find some nits to pick, you know, as I say, well, maybe 

there should be more coordination with GAO or the National Academies. Maybe individual members rather than committee chairs 

should be able to request reports. But those who have looked at it 

have said, you know, this design worked. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There is—— 

Mr. HOLT. And we would end up I think recreating that design 

if we started to design it from scratch. 

USING NATIONAL ACADEMIES FOR THE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No, I agree with you. And there is a 

constituency of members—there is not a constituency of one member, there is a constituency of members on both sides of the aisle 

that are supportive of the reestablishment of OTA. I will just point 

out to the committee that this is another example of something 

that is well within the responsibility and purview of the subcommittee when we have competing priorities that perhaps are not 

within what should be the purview of the subcommittee. So just an 

example that I point out. Another question is why we could not use 

the National Academies as an alternative to OTA? 

Mr. HOLT. Of course, we use the National Academies now for all 

sorts of things. The difference between OTA and the National 

Academies was OTA existed of and for Congress. It was part of 

Congress, it spoke our language, it fit into—I mean it understood 

both our peculiarities, I mean how Members of Congress work, and 

the schedule. And as I mentioned in my testimony, the presence of 

the staff on the Hill really elevated the discourse. I can just point 

to numerous examples when I was a staff member, just because 

they were here on the Hill and a creature of Congress, it elevated 

the discourse. We get good reports from the National Academies. 

It is not on the same time scale. And I would argue it is not and 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
355 

is not intended to be of the same legislative relevance that OTA’s 

studies were. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Mr. Aderholt. 

HISTORY OF OTA

Mr. ADERHOLT. You might have mentioned it, but when was the 

OTA first established? 

Mr. HOLT. 1973 or 1972. It was—1972, because it was 23 years 

until 1996. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What was the really the thing that sparked this 

office getting off the ground in the first place? Do you know offhand? 

Mr. HOLT. You know, I have read the history. I cannot tell you 

specifically. You know, this was a time when, remember, the EPA 

was created, the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were, some 

health care studies. It was a time when Congress realized it needed 

some in-house technological support. But I cannot tell you what the 

specific questions or emergencies—— 

Mr. ADERHOLT. It could have been a culmination of things that 

came together? 

Mr. HOLT. Yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. That is all. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. No questions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. 

GAO EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I look forward to working with you on 

trying to move this issue forward. Next we will hear from Ron La 

Due Lake of the GAO Employee Organization. Mr. La Due Lake is 

the President of that Organization. Your full statement will be entered into the record, and you can proceed with a 5–minute summary. Thank you and welcome to the committee. 

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2009. 

GAO’S FISCAL YEAR 2010 REQUEST AND ISSUES OF 

CONCERN TO AGENCY EMPLOYEES 

WITNESS 

RON LA DUE LAKE, PRESIDENT, GAO EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION 

TESTIMONY OF MR. LA DUE LAKE, GAO UNION

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Thank you very much. Good morning. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good morning. 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. In addition to being President of the GAO 

Employees Organization, the GAO union, IFPTE Local 1921, I am 

also a specialist in GAO’s applied research and methods team. I am 

pleased to have this opportunity to be here today. We are particularly grateful, Madam Chair Wasserman Schultz, for your personal 

commitment to work life balance for all Federal employees. Thank 

you very much. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
356 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

SUPPORT FOR GAO’S FY 2010 BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. We are very grateful for the support provided 

to GAO in the fiscal year 2009 budget. We also support GAO’s fiscal year 2010 budget request of an increase of 6.9 percent. As you 

know, GAO’s 2010 budget request allows for a 3.5 percent increase 

in staffing levels. We feel this is a modest and essential step forward. The number of congressional requests and mandates continue to increase significantly. We respectfully seek the support of 

the subcommittee for GAO’s fiscal year 2010 budget request in 

order to continue rebuilding GAO’s capacity to meet the needs of 

the Congress during this time of increasing oversight and accountability. We are also pleased to report that the GAO union membership just ratified the 2009 pay agreement that we recently negotiated that covers the performance-based compensation employees 

will receive. 

2009 PAY AGREEMENT

The compensation employees will receive is based on a negotiated budget factor of 2.65 percent. This is in addition to an 

across-the-board increase equivalent to the GS COLA annual adjustment by locality we negotiated earlier this year. We feel that 

this is a fair agreement. It assures that all GAO employees who receive the rating of meets expectations or higher will receive some 

amount of compensation based on their performance ratings. We 

are very concerned about GAO’s evolving plans to address the disparate treatment of minority employees at GAO. 

GAO PLANS TO ADDRESS DISPARATE TREATMENT OF MINORITIES

After a recent study documented disparities in ratings between 

African American and Caucasian analysts at GAO, GAO contracted 

with a firm to conduct facilitated conversations about race with employees and managers across the Agency. These facilitated conversations were held, and GAO recently briefed the union on the 

next steps planned for the Agency. The next steps include a primary focus on diversity awareness and sensitivity training for all 

employees. Further, an emphasis of this training will be for employees to seek feedback on their performance. It is disconcerting 

to us that in an agency where there is documented evidence of the 

disparate treatment of African Americans in their ratings, there 

would be a follow-up plan that places an emphasis on employees, 

including African American employees, seeking feedback on their 

performance. 

Though we are not at all opposed to diversity awareness training, we are reluctant to believe that diversity training is the only 

solution to the deeply held discriminatory behaviors and attitudes 

at GAO that have resulted in disparities in ratings between African 

American and Caucasian employees. In fact, GAO provided mandatory diversity training in the 1980s and the early 1990s, yet these 

problems are still in play in 2009. GAO also did not present any 

plans for benchmarking progress in this area. The union would like 

this subcommittee’s support by holding GAO accountable to a plan 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
357 

for addressing any disparities in ratings and professional opportunities that specifies criteria and concrete measures for recognizing 

and recording progress. 

COMPTROLLER GENERAL SELECTION

The GAO union has provided the U.S. Congress with our views 

on the critical selection process of the next GAO Comptroller General. While all the areas we have identified are essential in our 

view, today I would like to emphasize the importance of two. First, 

considerable experience, knowledge, and respect for the type of 

work we do at GAO in helping the Congress conduct oversight. And 

two, a demonstrated commitment and experience in working collaboratively with labor organizations. 

In closing, I would like to reiterate our appreciation for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee. All of my colleagues 

at GAO are very proud of being referred to as the gold standard, 

and appreciate the recognition and support offered by this subcommittee. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[Mr. La Due Lake’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
358 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 690 50439B.070
359 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 691 50439B.071
360 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 692 50439B.072
361 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 693 50439B.073
362 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 694 50439B.074
363 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 695 50439B.075
364 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 696 50439B.076
365 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 697 50439B.077
366 

GAO UNION’S PROPOSED SOLUTIONS TO DISPARATE TREATMENT

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. La Due 

Lake. On the issue of diversity training and the disparate treatment between minority employees and nonminority employees— 

certainly you can appreciate the value of diversity training, because 

I think that is always important. 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And I am really pleased that they 

have resolved the compensation issues, because that was a lot of 

heartache we went through for a period of time. And I know that 

the GAO has not completed their plan for addressing the issue. 

And I believe Mr. Dodaro is committed to righting the wrong that 

exists right now. But what additional steps does the union membership believe should be taken by GAO to address it? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. This is a very important question. It is a difficult issue. We feel that the results of the discrimination, of 

course, is the evidence that there is disparate treatment in ratings. 

We are certainly on board with diversity awareness and sensitivity 

training for all employees. Our concern is that the sort of problems 

that the Ivy Planning Group study, the Ivy report, identified included issues such as the ‘‘GAO Way,’’ which included unwritten 

norms and rules of behavior where some employees seem to fit in 

and some employees do not seem to fit in. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Unwritten? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Unwritten rules. The GAO Way was how the 

Ivy study referred to this. Our African American colleagues at GAO 

recognize this immediately in terms of their perception of missed 

opportunities in terms of their ratings, but also in terms of their 

opportunities for professional development. So our feeling is that 

we recognize this is a very difficult issue. But our feeling is strongly that in addition to diversity and sensitivity training, there need 

to be concrete steps that help to bridge these cultural gaps between 

employees from different backgrounds, from different cultural backgrounds. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Like what? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Like the difference in—for instance, one employee may take a comment from a supervisor like everything’s 

fine, you are doing fine, and assume that means they are doing 

outstanding and excellent work. Another employee may take that 

particular comment and assume I do not have enough details to 

know what that means, I am going to ask more questions and seek 

more information in order to know what ‘‘you are doing fine’’ 

means. 

So this kind of communication, and I think GAO has a sincere 

interest in pursuing this, we think plays into some sort of a gap 

or misunderstanding between some employees and—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Are you saying you attribute the communication gap, which sounds like what you are describing, to cultural norms in some instances? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Well, we think that plays into it. We also 

think that there is a difficult—it is a difficult problem at GAO in 

terms of candid, open, and constructive feedback to employees. This 

is very difficult before you introduce differences of race and culture. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
367 

This is a very difficult thing to do in a variety of ways. In one aspect, it is difficult because people are focused on the target, which 

is producing reports with worthwhile information to the U.S. Congress in a timely manner. So working with people ends up relegating you to a second. In another way it is very difficult because 

people have—they come from different backgrounds, and communicating about performance can be understood in different ways. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Are there enough opportunities for supervisors—do supervisors take enough opportunities to communicate with their subordinates regardless of their minority status 

about the need to improve their performance, or is that part of the 

problem? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. We think that is part of the problem. There 

are excellent supervisors who do this, Madam Chair. There are 

some supervisors who do not. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Isn’t that the case in any organization? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. I think that is the case in any organization. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So what is unique to GAO about the 

difference between minority employees and nonminority employees 

and that type of communication? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. I am not sure that there is anything unique 

to GAO in particular, except that this has been a long-standing 

problem that may or may not be unique to GAO. We are concerned 

that this kind of problem that is extremely sensitive and problematic sometimes historically has been addressed in a thin approach 

rather than a deep approach, really getting at the issues that create these kinds of gaps in understanding. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I agree with you that it needs to be 

a broad-based and comprehensive approach to come closer to ensuring that we can reduce the size of the problem and have it show 

in the more comparable evaluations of employees regardless of 

their minority status. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Aderholt. 

EXTENT OF DISPARATE TREATMENT

Mr. ADERHOLT. On the cultural differences that you are referring 

to, do you tend to see the biggest problems with African Americans 

as opposed to the other nationalities or different cultures? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Other racial or ethnic groups? That is an excellent question. The reason that we are able to speak about differences between African Americans and Caucasians is there has 

been long-standing concern about this on the part of employees, on 

the part of employees in Blacks in Government, who have been 

pushing GAO to address this issue. The Ivy Planning Group study 

particularly addressed African Americans and Caucasian employees. They looked at those differences in ratings since the revisions 

in our performance management compensation system since 2002. 

We do know that Hispanics and Asian Americans through their 

employee liaison groups at GAO also have perceptions of a glass 

ceiling at GAO in terms of their opportunities for advancement, but 

we do not have the kind of data that we have regarding African 

Americans and Caucasians as a result of the Ivy study. That kind 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
368 

of information we have not been able—the employee groups have 

not been able to obtain in order to look at those differences for particular Hispanics and Asian Americans over time. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. All right. Thank you. That is all I have. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Cole. 

PRAISE FOR GAO’S WORK

Mr. COLE. Just a comment really, rather than a question. I just 

want to thank you for the wonderful work that the GAO does. I 

probably had more occasions since I have been on this committee 

to see GAO studies than I did in my previous time in Congress. I 

really appreciate the high quality of the work. It is really superb. 

So thank you. 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Thank you very much. We appreciate hearing 

that. 

DATA ON HISPANIC GAO EMPLOYEES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Just to go back to the Hispanic employees—— 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. Why has there not been 

the ability to obtain that data? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. You know, I do not know exactly. The PAB, 

the appeals board that we have in place to handle appeal matters, 

has done a report recently that has identified this as an issue, and 

they have been able to gather some of this data. They have observed, for instance, that although the Hispanic population largely 

has grown over the last several years, the percentage of Hispanic 

employees at GAO has diminished, has become smaller. I do not 

have those numbers at the top of my head. In the context of the 

union, we have the ability to access data or information like this 

when we are actually engaged in negotiations over a particular policy. We hope in the course of our master contract negotiations that 

these kinds of issues we could address in some way in our master 

contract, and then we would be able to access this kind of information. Outside of that process, GAO has been very reserved about 

providing this type of historical information to employee groups to 

allow them to do analysis such as this. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Could you ask the Hispanic Employees Association to communicate with our committee staff so that we 

could get more information—— 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. And get their perspective? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. I will be happy to. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Thank you very much, 

Mr. La Due Lake. 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Thank you. 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Now we will hear from Dennis Roth, 

who is president of the Congressional Research Employees Association. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
369 

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2009. 

WORK ENVIRONMENT AT CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH 

SERVICE 

WITNESS 

DENNIS ROTH, PRESIDENT, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH EMPLOYEES 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ROTH. Good morning. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Roth, welcome. Your full statement will be entered into the record. You can proceed with a 5- 

minute summary. It is good to see you again. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ROTH, CREA 

Mr. ROTH. Thank you. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Aderholt, 

my name is Dennis Roth, President of the Congressional Research 

Employees Association, the union representing all employees of the 

Congressional Research Service. On behalf of all CREA elected officials and our members, I thank you for giving us the opportunity 

to testify this morning. In the fall of 2007, the Library, in its fiscal 

year 2008–2013 strategic plan, stated it would work to become ‘‘recognized as an employer of choice for public service through realization of human potential and high performance.’’ Over a year-anda-half later, efforts to achieve this outcome have been minimal. 

UPWARD MOBILITY FOR CRS EMPLOYEES

A long-standing Library and CRS workforce concern has been the 

paucity of opportunities for upward mobility. While a significant 

percentage of the Library workforce and CRS’s workforce continues 

to retire over the next several years, opportunities will abound. The 

Library needs to complete its Library-wide succession plan, identify 

future positions and required competencies. Then, hopefully with 

the assistance of its unions, the Library can develop strategies to 

address skill gaps for future positions that include the use of current staff. This would be a significant first step to becoming an employer of choice. In the fall of 2008, the Library took another step 

in this direction when it administered OPM’s Federal Human Capital Survey to measure employee perceptions whether, and to what 

extent, conditions characterizing successful organizations are 

present in the Library. 

However, this effort was minimized by the fact that the Library 

opted not to include a question to identify the service unit in which 

the respondent worked. Consequently, one cannot determine 

whether the findings are representative of the Library as a whole, 

and certainly not of any given service unit such as the Congressional Research Service. To try to correct this problem, the Library 

has requested the management of each service unit to consult with 

their staff to try to determine whether the aggregated results reported by OPM reflect the environment within their own union. 

These face-to-face discussions compromised the original strength of 

the survey, anonymity and confidentiality, and reduced the probability of frank and open participation. Any information gathered 

in this forum must be considered anecdotal rather than scientific. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
370 

TELEWORK AT CRS

A lot of time and resources have not been well spent. An employer of choice would offer workforce flexibility. This is not the 

case at CRS. Our current telework policy remains highly restrictive 

because of the director’s intractable belief that Congress regularly 

requires CRS staff to be able to come to your offices at a moment’s 

notice for face-to-face consultations. Other forms of communication 

would not be sufficient. While this could and does happen, such instances are infrequent, and should not serve as a ban for telework. 

Regardless, our telework program can be designed to accommodate 

such situations. 

Last week, OPM Director John Berry announced a broad 

telework plan for executive branch employees, including elements 

from House Bill 1722. The Library of Congress, including CRS, 

must have similar telework legislation. And while the bill would 

exclude employees whose duties and responsibilities require ‘‘daily 

face-to-face contact’’ with other people, you need to make it clear 

to the director of CRS that our face-to-face contact is occasional 

and not daily. The director must be informed that it is okay with 

you to give a flexible telework policy an opportunity to succeed. The 

perception of the need for face-to-face meetings at a moment’s notice has resulted in other workforce inflexibilities. 

These include an unwillingness to entertain the use of credit 

hours, an unwillingness to change starting times by as few as 30 

minutes, an unwillingness to consider job sharing, and an overall 

unfavorable attitude towards part-time work. 

TOP-DOWN MANAGEMENT STYLE

Another factor going against CRS being considered an employer 

of choice is the management style of its top level managers. Major 

decisions affecting working conditions are made without the input 

provided of staff. Staff feels that management makes decisions unaware or unappreciative of their concerns and professionalism. 

Management considers those who express their concerns as being 

overly resistant to change. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

rated highest in the survey I mentioned earlier. The reasons cited 

by management? Openness. This is what is needed at CRS. There 

is considerable speculation that President Obama will take steps to 

foster collaboration between Federal sector unions and management in the executive branch. We ask that when this happens, 

members of this subcommittee support similar actions for the legislative branch, and in particular encourage CRS management and 

CREA to take concrete steps to work more cooperatively. 

We would also like to acknowledge and support the Library’s request for funds to increase the transit subsidy to the full amount 

allowed by OPM. And one final thought. President Obama recently 

asked executive branch employees to offer suggestions on how to 

make their work more efficient and save money. We would like to 

see the same request come from our budget subcommittees, with 

you or a neutral party being the recipient of suggestions to protect 

anonymity. This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[Mr. Roth’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
371 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 711 50439B.078
372 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 712 50439B.079
373 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 713 50439B.080
374 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 714 50439B.081
375 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 715 50439B.082
376 

SUBCOMMITTEE ACTION ON CRS TELEWORK POLICY

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Roth. You 

know, I continue to be vexed by why CRS has not been able to resolve the concerns of the employees over telework and part-time 

work and job sharing. I mean, this is 2009. And other Federal 

agencies seem to be able to come up with a reasonable policy that 

allows workers who are parents or who have challenging family environments at home, whether it is caring for a sick family member 

or whatever the reason, seem to be able to work out a policy that 

is conducive to being able to be a good family member and a good 

employee. 

So I can assure you that because I have tried in the past to do 

it without language in the Legislative Branch Subcommittee bill, 

that now we will do it that way instead of through communication 

with the leadership at CRS. 

Mr. ROTH. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So I appreciate that. That is why the 

public witness hearing is important. And as I said, I have tried to 

do it through communication and encouragement and cajoling, and 

as someone who lives my life balancing work and family every day 

and knows what a struggle it is, and as someone who is a Member 

of Congress who understands that we do not need at a moment’s 

notice access to CRS employees, it is reasonable to expect that we 

can let you know that we want to have a briefing from a CRS employee on a particular subject, and that that can be planned for, 

and that instead of working from home that day that the employee, 

if they are needed to brief a Member of Congress, can actually 

schedule the time to come to the Member’s office instead of working 

from home that day. That seems entirely reasonable. 

Mr. ROTH. And employees who have, I will call it the hot topics, 

will not even volunteer to work at home. We will be here for you. 

LACK OF NOTICE ABOUT NEW OFFICE OF OPPORTUNITY

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. Individuals who cannot have 

that type of flexible work environment can have that be a part of 

the policy at CRS as well. So thank you for bringing that to our 

attention as continuing to be a problem again. The Office of Opportunity, Inclusiveness, and Compliance I know is being reorganized, 

and I had concerns last year about why it was being reorganized. 

But I have a clear understanding of the need to do it. You expressed concern about the slowness, and you are not the only component of the Library of Congress that has expressed that concern. 

So what has been the issue with the amount of access that employees have had to that office? 

Mr. ROTH. The access is there, but when people learn about the 

reorganization, they think the Office has basically disappeared. So 

there is a strong staff perception that there is nothing there now 

but dispute resolution and EEO claims. They have to search it out. 

No public announcement was made by Library management that 

changes are being made and here is what to do in the interim until 

the new system has been instituted. They still have not hired the 

new director for the office. The union presidents met with Jo Ann 

Jenkins probably just short of a month ago, and she told us she 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
377 

was in the process of doing reference checks. So it is over a year 

now, or will be a year since they promised to post and have this 

done in a short duration. And the staff that would be under the director will not be hired until the director comes in, because it 

makes sense for that person to be able to pick their own staff people. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I do not have anything. Thank you, Mr. Roth, for 

being here. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Ms. McCollum, did you have 

questions for the CRS? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. No, I did not, Madam Chair. I am not going to 

apologize for being with a large group of constituents who flew out 

here despite the economy and the H1N1, aka, swine flu. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No apology necessary. But I want to 

point out to you, I know this is an important issue for you as well. 

Mr. Roth in his testimony talked about the difficulty that the employees at CRS continue to have with establishing a reasonable 

telework, part-time, job sharing policy. And Ms. McCollum, in fiscal 

year 2009 we had a conversation with Mr. Mulhollan about trying 

to negotiate a better and more reasonable policy. That does not appear to have happened. So it is my opinion, working with Mr. 

Aderholt and the members of the minority, that we will need to 

come up with some language for our bill that will ensure that that 

process moves forward for the employees. Since I know that is an 

important issue for you, I did not want you to miss that. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. 

GPO POLICE LABOR COMMITTEE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Next we will hear from Alvin Hardwick, who is the chairman of the GPO’s Police Labor Committee. 

Mr. Hardwick welcome to the subcommittee. Your full statement 

will be entered into the record, and you can proceed with a 5- 

minute summary. 

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2009. 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE POLICE ISSUES 

WITNESSES 

ALVIN HARDWICK, CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE POLICE LABOR COMMITTEE 

TESTIMONY OF MR. HARDWICK, GPO POLICE UNION

Mr. HARDWICK. Good morning, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good morning. 

Mr. HARDWICK [continuing]. and Ranking Member Aderholt and 

distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name is Alvin 

Hardwick, and I am the chairman of the Government Printing Office GPO Police Labor Committee, Fraternal Order of Police D.C. 

Lodge 1. The GPO police force is now comprised of 45 officers who 

protect the buildings in Washington and Maryland. They have done 

a fine job protecting the vital and sensitive documents at these loVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00377 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
378 

cations which are needed for this country to function. They are also 

charged with safeguarding a number of HAZMAT vehicles that are 

stored at the GPO building by the U.S. Capitol Police in case of an 

emergency. The mission of the GPO police force is crucial to the security of Washington, DC. 

Despite the importance of the jobs done by GPO officers, they 

have been understaffed and underfunded for many years. The GPO 

police department should have 65 officers, the size of the force 12 

years ago. The number of officers has increased since the last time 

I testified before this committee, but it is barely two-thirds of what 

is needed. The GPO police force is one of the few police forces to 

have fewer officers since September 11th, 2001. The gaps in security at the GPO building in Washington, DC are astounding. 

At the entrance point for visitors, there are no GPO police officers, but instead merely private security guards. At the loading 

dock in the back, where most of the sensitive documents that pass 

through the GPO are located, there is at most one security officer 

and no GPO police officers. Furthermore, in the area where Capitol 

Police stores a number of HAZMAT vehicles, there are no GPO police officers which can respond when there is a need for an emergency. Instead of hiring more law enforcement officers, the previous 

Public Printer began privatizing the security force at the GPO 

building in 2004. He requested 15 private security guards, claiming 

that this would save 3.8 million over 4 years. However, the security 

gaps began to increase due to the understaffing of officers. 

The former Public Printer requested in December of 2006 an ad- ditional 22 security guards at an annual cost of $1.2 million, completely negating any supposed cost savings that he attempted to 

wring out of the Department in 2004. Using security guards to do 

the job of federally-trained officers not only does not save money, 

it also weakens security considerably. Indeed, these lapses at the 

GPO building represent a considerable security threat. Security 

guards do not have the training, the experience, or the wherewithal 

to protect that building. Although they are armed, they have not 

received training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, 

which every GPO officer is required to receive. They cannot assist 

other law enforcement agencies in case of an emergency, and have 

no authority to protect the perimeter of the GPO complex. The 

ramifications of this are considerable. There have been attempted 

rapes and murders outside the complex which GPO officers have 

assisted in preventing. The security aides can offer no such protection. 

Furthermore, because of the move to replace GPO police officers 

with private security guards, if there were an attack on an installation within a few blocks of the GPO complex, such as the Capitol, 

Union Station, or the myriad of buildings within a few blocks of the 

GPO, there would be few officers, few GPO officers available to assist. And again, these private security aides cannot act beyond 

GPO’s building. It is an egregious mistake on the part of the 

former Public Printer to think these public guards can provide better security than GPO police. What is happening to the GPO is not 

unique to Federal law enforcement. Over the past few years, we 

have seen a gradual shift in responsibilities, manpower, and funding away from highly trained, highly professional law enforcement 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
379 

officers to unqualified and poorly trained contract security guards. 

This cost cutting move has not only jeopardized the security of the 

installations where this has occurred, but it has shaken the morale 

of the Federally sworn law enforcement officers who have seen 

their job responsibilities irrevocably reduced. The officers at the 

GPO are trained at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, 

and are highly qualified to do their jobs. 

Contract security guards are not trained at FLETC, and are not 

held to the same rigorous standards as Federal law enforcement officers. Examples abound of the ineptitude of these contract security 

guards, and GPO has been ceding more and more responsibility 

over the past few years. Yet the contracting of private security has 

continued unabated. Since May of 2007, only 11 uniformed police 

officers have been hired at GPO, compared to approximately 24 security guards. From fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2008, personnel 

compensation and benefits for uniformed police officers has increased by $684,500, or 16.24 percent, while the budget for the security guards was increased by $1,411,500, or over 150 percent. 

In addition to not hiring enough officers, the Public Printer has 

sought to impose new and more stringent PT tests as a strategy 

to undermine the police force and implement more privatization. 

This new standard would be greater than the one required by Capitol Police, who have significantly higher pay and section 6(c) retirement benefits. This would make hiring new GPO police officers 

even more difficult when competing against the Capitol Police and 

other area departments. The Public Printer also is attempting to 

implement PT tests for promotions, and if the officer fails they are 

processed for removal. No other department in the Nation forces an 

officer to perform a PT test in order to be promoted. Other officers 

and I believe this process was set up to force the older officers off 

the job and keep them from seeking promotions. 

This hurts the police force morale and causes some officers to 

leave for other departments, who are then likely to be replaced by 

private security guards. Contract security is not, nor can it ever be, 

a replacement for a fully sworn law enforcement officer. Transferring responsibility to these security guards in these agencies has 

been the wrong thing to do, and the GPO would be wise to stop 

this course of action. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Hardwick, I am going to have to 

recess the committee for a half hour in a few minutes, and I want 

to be able to ask you some questions. So if you could begin to wrap 

up your remarks. 

Mr. HARDWICK. Okay. I can conclude. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I did not mean to stop you in your 

tracks. Did you have anything else wanted to add? 

Mr. HARDWICK. That is fine. You already have my statement for 

the record. 

[Mr. Hardwick’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
380 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 727 here 50439B.083
381 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 728 here 50439B.084
382 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 729 here 50439B.085
383 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 730 here 50439B.086
384 

PASSPORT FACILITY SECURITY

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Thank you very much. The 

committee appreciates your testimony of 2 years ago, when we 

were first reestablished, and you came to the public witness hearing and pointed out that security guards were actually guarding 

the passport facility, as opposed to sworn law enforcement officers, 

which the committee members on both sides of the aisle were 

shocked to learn. And subsequently, we included language in our 

bill that ensured that it would be sworn officers that guard the facility. And I am assured that that is the case today. Correct? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Partially so. Our local passport facility, yes, we 

do have officers, but in the Mississippi passport facility that is all 

contract security guards. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. That is interesting. I guess we 

were not specific enough. That facility was not open at the time. 

Mr. HARDWICK. Well, it was in the process. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. 

Mr. HARDWICK. And our management has a history of answering 

only what is asked. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Just like our kids sometimes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. HARDWICK. We had some follow-up with GAO, which was 

good, in reference to our last testimony. And some things in there 

were cleared up as to what has transpired since then. I know that 

since the last testimony GPO was directed to hire 17 officers. It has 

now taken them 2 years to hire them, and they still do not have 

the 17 people. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I know they are in the process of hiring now. 

Mr. HARDWICK. It shouldn’t take 2 years to hire 17 people. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No. 

Mr. HARDWICK. And with these increasing standards, these 

standards much higher than what is required of Capitol, Secret 

Service or Park Police, and we feel this is a way to discourage—— 

PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I know you need to get into some negotiations over making your PT requirements closer to the Capitol 

Police, correct? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Capitol Police do not have any PT requirements. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They do not have one at all? 

Mr. HARDWICK. They have an entry requirement, which all agencies do. At our agency they want to implement it annually. And 

what happens if the officer does not pass it, he is removed from his 

job. They have also attempted to implement a PT requirement for 

promotion, which no department in the country does. So our looking at the standards compared to other agencies and departments, 

they are much higher. I would understand if we had a response 

team or people who were required to SWAT team or what not. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is there anything unique about GPO 

officers that would make it necessary to have those PT requirements for promotion or hiring? 

Mr. HARDWICK. No, no. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
385 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You do not do anything particularly 

acrobatic at GPO? 

Mr. HARDWICK. We do not do anything that is required of any 

other officer on Capitol Hill or any other place. We have got officers 

who are specially trained to do specialized duties, but again there 

are no special PT requirements for those. 

GPO SECURITY GAPS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What are the biggest gaps in security 

that you think need the coverage by a law enforcement officer as 

opposed to a security guard? 

Mr. HARDWICK. The training that they receive as opposed to 

ours. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No, which facilities? Where you currently think—where GPO currently has security guards covering 

where you think it is inappropriate and it is not related just to the 

fact that you represent law enforcement officers. I am talking about 

safety and security. 

Mr. HARDWICK. At GPO we find that the biggest complaint is we 

have citizens come off the street, or even have the employees come 

in and the first person they make contact with is a security guard, 

who are improperly trained or will not respond in kind as needed 

for an emergency. We have not had any such incidents at the Mississippi facility as yet. However, if they had, it would definitely be 

brought to our attention. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The passport facility I would be more 

concerned about the vulnerability of the facility being covered by 

security guards, which is what the concern was 2 years ago. I am 

talking about the facilities here in terms of their vulnerability, and 

what it is that is inside them that would require instead of coverage by a security guard, coverage by a law enforcement officer. 

Where are those gaps that concern you? 

Mr. HARDWICK. In our entry areas and our response force. Right 

now our response force consists of two officers. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Two officers? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Two officers. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Response force in terms of what? 

Mr. HARDWICK. In terms of if there were an emergency in the facility, in the passport facility and the main facility. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They send two officers? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Two officers, that is their responsibilities. Now, 

many will respond if they are directed to, but for numbers sake, 

there are only two officers assigned. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is that part of your collective bargaining agreement or just the policy of GPO? 

Mr. HARDWICK. That is just what management came up with. 

Not a part of our collective bargaining. 

ROLE FOR CONTRACT GUARDS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Do you think that there is any 

role for security officers at GPO? 

Mr. HARDWICK. No. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
386 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So you do not think there should be 

security officers employed by GPO? They should be all law enforcement officers? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Why? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Because of the dedication to duty and responsibility and the dynamics of it. If something happens in the Mississippi facility, and at one time we were tasked with being sent 

there temporarily, we would also have to respond to our Maryland 

facilities. Security guards are responsible only for what is going on 

inside. They cannot respond outside. We have problems with them 

on the street or things that they are not doing, they are not supposed to be doing. We report just to management. It is heard with 

a deaf ear and a blind eye. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Has there ever been an incident that 

you can attribute that has occurred because there was coverage by 

a security guard as opposed to a law enforcement officer that would 

not have occurred if it was covered by a law enforcement officer? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Yes, as recently as 2 months ago, we had a person wander in off the street, make it to the elevators, and almost 

get upstairs because the security guards were there in the lobby 

and there were not officers there. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And this is a person that did not—— 

Mr. HARDWICK. Nonemployee, yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. What was their intention? They 

just wandered in off the street? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Wandered in off the street wanted to go into the 

building. The only thing that saved them was that the elevator 

took time to close to get upstairs, and an officer happened to be 

walking by the employee staff elevator. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Was that person determined to have 

had any negative intentions or—— 

Mr. HARDWICK. That was undetermined. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Maybe just escorted out of the building and let go? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Aderholt. 

NUMBER OF GPO POLICE VERSUS CONTRACT GUARDS

Mr. ADERHOLT. You said there are 45 officers currently—— 

Mr. HARDWICK. Yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT [continuing]. At GPO? 

Mr. HARDWICK. And 53 security guards. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. 53 security guards. Okay. That is all I have. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Ms. McCollum. 

GPO POLICE STANDARDS

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Out of the 53 security guards, are any of them 

former retired officers? 

Mr. HARDWICK. No. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Go over your PT requirement again. 

Mr. HARDWICK. Under the PT requirement, an officer is required 

to run a 330-yard sprint, mile and a half run, perform situps and 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
387 

pushups according to their age group. This standard is also above 

what the Academy suggests. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. To be a licensed police officer, what kind of educational requirements do you currently need to sit? For example—— 

Mr. HARDWICK. GPO police officer? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Yeah. 

Mr. HARDWICK. When I came before, you were required to have 

2 years of law enforcement experience with arrest authority. Now 

it is just 1 year and high school and some security background. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Really. So actually it has been lowered? 

Mr. HARDWICK. It has been lowered, yes. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. And you mentioned activities outside of the 

building. If this gentleman that was in the building had left the 

building, a security guard if they were to follow them out, could not 

arrest. 

Mr. HARDWICK. They do not have any authority in a public space. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. In a public space at all? You say you have two 

officers at Mississippi? 

Mr. HARDWICK. No, we have 30 officers in Mississippi. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Where do you only have two officers? 

Mr. HARDWICK. We have 45 here. Our response force is comprised of two officers. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. How do you deploy your response force? 

Mr. HARDWICK. They are assigned that duty, and they are assigned to rove the facility. And if there is a call for an emergency 

they respond. Additional officers will respond, but the response 

force is only comprised of two officers. 

AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATIONS

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Okay. And at any given time what is your relationship with Homeland Security if there is an incident? Are you 

in some kind of a pecking order to come in and back fill? Like if 

you were to close down the Government Accounting Office, secure 

it off, are you part of Homeland Security, for example, here—— 

Mr. HARDWICK. No. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM [continuing] At all? Are you any kind of a backfill or any kind of support integrated? 

Mr. HARDWICK. No, we do not. We have a working relationship 

with the Capitol Police if we need additional support. This is who 

we would call Capitol, if they could compare spare people or something like—— 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. But you are not additional support for anybody 

else? 

Mr. HARDWICK. No. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Why do you think that is? 

Mr. HARDWICK. One, it is management’s idea of what it is they 

want us to do or what it is they do not want us to do. They have 

police or security guards when it is convenient, but when it is inconvenient, they want to see us scarce. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I just think in this day and age 

with cross training, I mean, all of our municipalities are doing mutual aids and things like that, I can see that there would be some 

role, you know, either at a desk reception or something like that, 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
388 

and I do not know how that works with other employees. But Oklahoma City is an example of, you know, people do target Federal 

buildings for whatever reasons. So thank you for answering my 

questions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. As always, you have given 

us some very informed and helpful testimony, Mr. Hardwick. And 

we are going to follow up to make sure we can communicate with 

GPO about your concerns and if we need to include some changes 

in our legislation. 

Mr. HARDWICK. We have raised these concerns with management 

before and it is just—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is why you are here. That is why 

we do the hearing. Thank you very much for your testimony and 

your service. And please convey to the GPO police officers how 

much we appreciate their public service. Because I know it is often 

underappreciated. 

Mr. HARDWICK. Thank you very much. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The subcommittee is going to need to 

recess for 30 minutes because we have an Appropriations full committee meeting that the Democratic members need to attend. So 

the committee stands in recess for 30 minutes. [recess.] 

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We will reconvene this hearing of the 

Legislative Branch Subcommittee. Now we will hear from John 

Pare ́, who is the executive director for Strategic Initiatives for National Federation of the Blind. Mr. Pare ́, you can proceed with a 

5-minute summary of your statement. Your full statement will be 

entered into the record. 

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2009. 

TALKING BOOK PROGRAM OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY 

SERVICE FOR THE BLIND AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

WITNESS 

JOHN PARE ́ , EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR STRATEGIC INITIATIVES, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 

TESTIMONY OF MR. PARE ́, NFB 

Mr. PARE ́. Fantastic. Thank you, Madam Chair and other distinguished members of the committee. My name is John Pare ́, and I 

am executive director for strategic initiatives at the National Federation of the Blind. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 

this committee and to comment on the Talking Book program of 

the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped of the Library of Congress. The National Library Service is 

the primary provider of reading material for over 800,000 Americans who are blind or have physical limitations that make it impossible for them to read print. For only the third time in its 75-year 

history of exemplary service, the NLS is undergoing a transition in 

technology it uses to provide Talking Books. These books were 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
389 

originally produced on long playing records and then on cassette 

tapes. Both of these technologies are now obsolete. For this Nation’s Talking Book readers, the digital age has begun. At this 

time, 5,000 of the new digital Talking Book machines have been 

distributed to eight regional Talking Book libraries throughout the 

country for preliminary usage and testing by their most active patrons. These libraries are located in Florida, Texas, Missouri, New 

York, Los Angeles, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Utah. 

In addition to these players shipped to patrons for testing, two 

players have been shipped to each Talking Book Library within the 

United States for testing by their staff so they can familiarize 

themselves with the operations and features of the machines. Assuming all goes well with the pilot study, players will begin shipping to the remaining libraries in the NLS network by this August. 

The National Federation of the Blind is pleased to be in a position 

to support a project so carefully and thoroughly conceived and executed that the inspector general for the Library of Congress stated, 

‘‘Information we collected led us to conclude that NLS’s plans 

should enable it to successfully convert the Talking Book program’s 

primary technology from analog to digital format over the currently 

planned transition period. Specifically, our survey revealed that 

NLS is effectively managing its plans.’’ 

Further, the Library of Congress satisfactorily responded in several documents to a GAO briefing paper, resulting in no additional 

queries or requests. Madam Chair, I am happy to report that the 

NLS digital Talking Book program is on track. On behalf of America’s blind, thank you and this committee for all the work you have 

done to make sure that this program is adequately funded. Also let 

me take this opportunity to commend the Librarian of Congress, 

Dr. James H. Billington, and the NLS Director, Frank Kurt Cylke, 

for their hard work and commitment to providing quality digital 

Talking Books to NLS patrons and for bringing this program to 

fruition. All that is needed for the transition to be completed on 

schedule in 2013 is for the 2009 appropriation of $12.5 million to 

be included in each of the remaining 4 fiscal years of the transition. 

On behalf of the blind Americans served by this important program, I urge this committee to make sure that this happens so that 

there will be no disruptions in service for NLS patrons. Thank you, 

Madam Chair, for allowing me to come and address this committee, 

and for your continued support of the NLS service and the Talking 

Book program. 

[Mr. Pare ́’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
390 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 745 here 50439B.087
391 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 746 here 50439B.088
392 

FEEDBACK ON DIGITAL TALKING BOOK PLAYERS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome. And thank you for 

your testimony, Mr. Pare ́. I think it is important to note the lack 

of blind advocates in the room today, which is unlike other years, 

when there was significant concern about the ability to get this 

Talking Book program implemented and appropriated. And I am 

glad that we are on track to do that. I do want to ask you about 

the design and capabilities of the Talking Book player. Are you satisfied with it? Are the blind patrons that you work with satisfied 

with it? And what has been the feedback so far? 

Mr. PARE ́. It has been excellent. And we deal with thousands of 

blind people. And I personally talk to hundreds of people. And people are very pleased with how it is going, very pleased with the design, how it is working, and the schedule of things. So it is going 

to be a terrific success. 

COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good. One question that does come up 

each year is why we had to develop a unique Talking Book player 

as opposed to using ones that are commercially available. 

Mr. PARE ́. The copyright law requires that the machines be only 

available to people who are blind. So to help protect the intellectual 

property that is being distributed by the Library, it is important 

that the machines are not only delivering it in a specialized format, 

and also that it meets the needs of people who have limited access, 

dexterity of their fingers and so forth. So the cartridge is large and 

it is easy to work if you have low dexterity or if you—it has enough 

room for a Braille label for people who are blind and also has large 

print. So the buttons and all the things are all designed to meet 

the needs of this diverse group of people that it is targeted to be 

used by. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I see. Thank you. Mr. Aderholt. 

NUMBER OF TALKING BOOK MACHINES

Mr. ADERHOLT. How many Talking Book readers are there across 

the United States right now, the machines that have been implemented? 

Mr. PARE ́. The new machines? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yes. 

Mr. PARE ́. Just 5,000 have been shipped. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. 5,000. 

Mr. PARE ́. Yes, this is in the pilot study. Plus there is 102 local 

regional libraries. So two in each one of those plus the 5,000. And 

then once the pilot study is done, they will start shipping around 

24,000 per month starting in August. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. That is all I have. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. Thank you, 

Mr. Pare ́. Mr. PARE ́. Thank you. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PROFESSIONAL GUILD

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good to see you. Next we have Saul 

Schniderman, the President of the Library of Congress Professional 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
393 

Guild. Welcome back to the committee, Mr. Schniderman. Your 

statement will be entered in the record, and you can proceed with 

a 5-minute summary. 

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2009. 

SUPPORT FOR LIBRARY OF CONGRESS’ BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 

WITNESS 

SAUL SCHNIDERMAN, PRESIDENT, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PROFESSIONAL GUILD 

TESTIMONY OF MR. SCHNIDERMAN, LOC GUILD

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, 

Mr. Aderholt. I want to begin by saying that I am the President 

of one of four unions here at the Library of Congress. We have wall 

to wall collective bargaining representatives at the Library. And 

one reason that we do is because of the separation of powers. The 

legislative branch, which always has wanted to be independent and 

distinct from the executive branch, has meant for employees of the 

branch that we have not always had available to us some of the 

advances and improvements in conditions of employment that our 

colleagues have in the executive branch. 

So 30 years ago, employees at the Library founded unions there. 

I am proud to be part of the labor movement, if you will, at the 

Library of Congress. I am also proud to be here today, because 

when I come here not only am I enlightened to hear what my colleagues have to say and questions that you all ask and your comments, but also I feel like I am part of the community. So I feel 

good being here, despite the fact that I am a little nervous. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We do not bite. You do not need to be 

nervous. 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. My name is Saul Schniderman. I am president of the Library of Congress Professional Guild, which is affiliated with AFSCME, and I am here to testify in support of Dr. 

Billington’s budget request for fiscal year 2010. Because of your 

generous support and the support of your colleagues, the Library 

continues to be a leader in providing information services to the 

Congress, the American people, and to the world. Representing 

over 1,500 professionals at the Library, excluding those employees 

of the Congressional Research Service, I come before you today on 

their behalf to say thank you for your support of their work to 

make the Library of Congress a truly great Library. Last December, about 2,000 staff members participated in the Library of Congress employee survey, and the results have just been released. We 

are pleased to report to the subcommittee that these employees report high levels of job satisfaction, especially in the area of work 

performance. For example, over 80 percent of those surveyed said 

that, quote, the people I work with cooperate to get the job done. 

Over 70 percent reported that they were ‘‘held accountable for 

achieving results.’’ And about 80 percent of the employees rated the 

overall quality of work performed by their work group as positive. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
394 

Now, we were not surprised by the results of this survey, because 

we know the dedication and the commitment of Library of Congress employees. As a union of professionals, our mission at the Library is to establish a progressive, family-friendly workplace so 

that the staff can maintain a high quality of public service and performance. The attitudes expressed in the survey reveal the high 

level of professionalism which runs throughout the Library of Congress. I would like to point out to you, Madam Chair and Mr. 

Aderholt, that last week you and members of your subcommittee 

justifiably praised Dr. Billington when he testified here before you. 

And that is all well and good. But as management takes pride in 

the far-reaching programs at the Library, it needs to be pointed out 

that the success of these programs can only be achieved by hardworking employees, many of whom toil under trying circumstances. 

Today the most trying of these circumstances is taking place in 

the Copyright Office. While everyone agrees with the general vision 

of utilizing modern technology to improve processing, the current 

reengineering program has created a backlog of over 520,000 pending copyright claims, a backlog which continues to grow week after 

week. Now, I will not burden the subcommittee with a description 

of the stresses and strains with which the staff of the Copyright 

Office is now experiencing. In spite of them, these everyday heroes 

among the registration specialists manage to force out from a poorly functioning electronic system over 7,000 registrations in a typical week. 

And in the public information office, specialists there patiently 

field over 2,500 telephone inquiries a week from anxious remitters. 

Graded at the GS–11 and GS–12 levels, these front line Copyright 

Office staffers deserve to be praised for their perseverance and 

their ingenuity. There are many other everyday heroes who work 

at the Library of Congress, and some of their concerns are described in our testimony, which you have before you. I invite you 

to review our written testimony, and also to visit our Web site. And 

I thank you for this opportunity to share the concerns of the members of the Library’s Professional Guild. 

[Mr. Schniderman’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
395 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 755 here 50439B.089
396 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 756 here 50439B.090
397 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 757 here 50439B.091
398 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 758 here 50439B.092
399 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 759 here 50439B.093
400 

COPYRIGHT OFFICE BACKLOG

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Schniderman. I am 

also concerned and addressed the concern with the Librarian and 

his staff when they testified on their budget proposal about the 

backlog in the Copyright Office. And they did seem to indicate that 

they felt that by the end of the year, once all the employees were 

up to speed on the electronic transmission and processing process, 

that they would get rid of that backlog. You do not have the same 

confidence? 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. No. We do not share in their optimism. And 

the reason we do not is that the front line employees who work 

with this new system do not share their optimism. It was originally 

designed to be a useful tool for the registration specialist to get the 

work done more efficiently, but it has turned out, quite frankly, to 

become a nightmare, where actually it is more burdensome for 

them to get their work out. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would think that an electronic processing and submission system would be more efficient in the long 

run than doing it by paper. 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. Yes. And that is all well and good. And we 

support that. We support the reengineering and modernization of 

the Copyright Office. The problem is, Madam Chair, is that the 

backlog has grown to such proportions, over half a million, that 

even if we keep up to date with the registrations that come in we 

are not going to be able to tackle it sufficiently. It will always be 

there with us. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What is your proposed solution? 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. What we proposed in our written testimony 

was that the Library hire a contractor to evaluate independently 

a solution to this problem. But after being here today and listening 

to my colleagues at GAO, I wonder if a GAO study might be more 

appropriate. Our job, we see our job to identify and report problems 

to our managers and, quite frankly, to you so that you can help 

work with us to solve them. But we do have a major problem here 

in the Copyright Office. 

TURMOIL AT OFFICE OF OPPORTUNITY

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I appreciate you underscoring your 

difference of opinion with the Librarian on the likelihood of getting 

that backlog addressed. And it is one that needs to be addressed. 

We cannot continue to have that type of backlog just simply in the 

name of efficiency. The other subject I wanted to ask you about, 

which is something of an ongoing concern of mine across the agencies in the Legislative Branch in general, but specifically at the Library, is the Office of Opportunity, Inclusiveness, and Compliance. 

Clearly, if that Office is not up and running and functional, then 

employees that have a concern do not have a process in which they 

can pursue those concerns. How is the turmoil in the Office impacting your members? And how has it affected the ability to file complaints and redress grievances? 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. I appreciate your concern. That is the Office 

that we call OIC because we cannot figure out a way to name it. 

Well, there needs to be a director of that Office. And as you may 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
401 

know, the staff, most of the functions there have been contracted 

out. And so there is a wait time. We use it primarily for dispute 

resolution. There is a lag time in order to get a mediator because 

there are some administrative problems in the office that we hope 

will be resolved when a new director comes. Because as you know, 

justice delayed is justice denied. And we like to get most of our disputes mediated to conclusion. But the main beef that we have is 

on behalf of the deaf employees that we represent. There are about 

18 deaf employees at the Library of Congress, and they utilize an 

interpreting service that is managed, or in this case, being poorly 

managed by OIC, for lack of a better term. And last year we testified on their behalf quite extensively. 

We feel that in order for them to be able to do their work and 

to sustain a career at the Library in the same way that a hearing 

person is, that they need to hire a full-time staff interpreter. That 

also comes under the administration of that office. So it is the slow 

time, the administrative problems, they need to get a director in 

there, but more importantly, they really need to hire a full-time 

staff interpreter. And by the way, we think that that is cheaper 

than contract interpreters. 

LIBRARY WORK ENVIRONMENT

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Let me just ask you one 

more question. How would you characterize the environment in 

which employees at the Library work when it comes to equal opportunity and an environment free from discrimination? 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. Well, in our written testimony, we talk a little bit about the merit selection system. The Library has made advances thanks to the Cook class action case, and quite frankly, a 

commitment on the part of the Library to purge bias and subjectivity from that process. You can imagine how many people apply 

for jobs at the Library. And so we are pleased with that system. 

In regards to the ability to file an EEO complaint and to be able 

to have that mediated in a way where you can have some privacy 

in an office, that goes back to the Office of Inclusiveness and Compliance. I think I have got it right. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. And they are going to have to kind of rebuild, 

if you will, that administrative structure to allow that to happen. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. It has been a year, so it 

is certainly time for them to get that straightened out. Mr. 

Aderholt? 

LIBRARY FOOD SERVICE CONTRACT

Mr. ADERHOLT. I noticed in your testimony you talked about the 

Library plans to award a contract for the food services, I guess, 

what, in June? And of course, you mention in your written testimony that you want to make sure that the vendor who is chosen 

has employment practices that are fair and equitable. Is that in 

reference to problems there have been in the past, or is there a 

problem in the current system or what? 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. The Library let what they call a bridge contract to a small firm called I.L. Creations, whose term of contract 

is up, and in fact, very shortly, the Library will be announcing a 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
402 

new food service vendor. The problems with I.L. Creations have 

been, frankly, their ability to fairly deal with their employees and 

the union which represents their employees. These are private sector workers. They are represented by the Hotel and Restaurant 

Employees. But Mr. Aderholt, many of them worked there for the 

last 25 or 30 years, because with each successive contractor they 

stay on board. So they have had what we would say is labor problems. And it is mostly because of the employer’s intransigence. So 

we feel that when the Library, and shortly it will happen, decides 

on who the new contractor should be, it should be an employer that 

treats its workers fairly and treats their union fairly. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. All right. That is it. 

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. Thank you, 

Mr. Schniderman. Okay. Next up will be Thomas Susman, who is 

actually our last person to testify today, the Director of Governmental Affairs at the American Bar Association in support of the 

Law Library. 

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2009. 

SUPPORT OF THE FUNDING REQUESTS OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS AND THE LAW LIBRARY OF 

CONGRESS 

WITNESS 

THOMAS SUSMAN, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS OFFICE, 

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SUSMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Your statement will be entered in the 

record, and you can proceed with a 5-minute summary. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. SUSMAN, ABA 

Mr. SUSMAN. I certainly will. I am here today, Thomas Susman, 

on behalf of the American Bar Association in support of the funding requests of the Library of Congress and more particularly, the 

Law Library of Congress. It should not come as any surprise that 

the largest professional association in the world, the American Bar 

Association, representing over 400,000 members worldwide, would 

have a very special and long-standing relationship with the world’s 

largest repository of legal materials, the Law Library of Congress. 

My testimony today will emphasize 3 points. First, the unique and 

truly magnificent nature of the collection of the Law Library, but 

carrying with it commensurate needs to maintain and sustain the 

strength of those collections. Second, the ABA’s strong, really unwavering support for adequate funding for this national preeminent Law Library. And third, the desirability of looking beyond 

just the Federal funding relationship to create a foundation for an 

effective public-private partnership that will encourage private contributions to advance the mission of the Law Library. 

The Law Library of Congress has grown from modest beginnings 

in 1832 to become the world’s largest repository of legal materials. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
403 

As I indicated, the magnitude of this collection in both size and significance cannot be understated. Two years ago I joined an ABA 

group to take a tour of the Library, and in addition to some historical masterpieces in the collection, to go down to the basement and 

look at the rows and rows of shelves and its scale is something 

right out of Indiana Jones. It is phenomenal. But that scope renders not just unique but daunting the challenges posed in the daily 

growth and administration of the collection. I mean, these are national treasures. And the funding required to keep them current 

and serving at full capacity is a wise investment of taxpayer dollars. Last year the ABA’s representative told the subcommittee how 

much we appreciated and continued to appreciate the Congress’s 

historical support for the Law Library, but we are also concerned 

that these grand and valuable collections have been subject to reduced budgets, insufficient to meet core needs. 

The result has been an erosion of infrastructure, loss of institutional knowledge, incomplete collections. And each of these problems becomes costlier to address over time. The Law Library of 

Congress serves not only the Congress itself, of course, the most 

significant law-making institution in the world, but also other 

branches of government. In preparing for my testimony, I ran 

across a 1931 legislative establishment hearings where Justice 

Stone came across from the Supreme Court to talk about how important it was that the Law Library exists. He had just decided a 

case involving interpreting a Danish treaty that involved reference 

to a French historical treatise on French laws, and that the Supreme Court frequently has to go to the Law Library of Congress 

in its activities. 

Actually, all branches of the Federal Government, state governments, universities and law schools, corporate law departments, 

and of course, the lawyers of America use and depend on the Law 

Library of Congress. American businesses engaged in international 

commerce have discovered the law library’s massive, valuable initiatives such as the Global Legal Information Network, GLIN, that 

is comprised of statutes and other legal information from over 150 

contributing countries. And as a growing number of lawyers and 

businesses and government officials understand, American enterprise abroad and foreign investment at home depend upon a knowledge of current applicable laws. 

The Law Library of Congress is recognized now as the preeminent, maybe the ultimate and perhaps the only source for many 

of these international materials that the trade lawyer can depend 

upon and that anchor an understanding of the rule of law worldwide. Despite these rather impressive accounts, tight budgets mean 

that no one department, including the Law Library, is going to be 

receiving what it considers full funding. That is a fact of life right 

now. Next year, the bulk of the Library of Congress’s requested increase is really to adjust for inflation. We understand this. The 

Law Library is going to get an additional 4 million to perform necessary updates to GLIN, to support the recent assumption of responsibility over Thomas, to cover consequences of inflation, and to 

compensate for decreased buying power in terms of its acquisitions. 

And these are badly needed funds. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
404 

Last year the ABA supported additional funding for cataloguing 

and classification of several hundred thousand volumes to bring the 

collection up to date and under the industry standard classification 

system. That challenge still exists, that need still exists, and yet 

we understand the problem of coming up with the resources these 

days for all of the current needs. And fortunately, the Librarian of 

Congress has been allocating for several years surplus funds to 

help chip away at that cataloguing backlog. We hope that will continue. And for this year, I think we are restraining ourselves in 

supporting the Library’s increased request for 4 million for the Law 

Library as the best investment of taxpayer dollars. 

As I indicated, the ABA does not believe that the challenges 

faced by the Law Library are necessarily for Congress alone to 

remedy. Last year, legislation was introduced that would propose 

creation of a private-public foundation for the Law Library of Congress called the Meehan Act by Congresswoman Lofgren. It would 

establish a foundation that could receive contributions from the private bar, industry, to support the Law Library, and create valueadded enhanced services that could even be provided for a fee. 

This legislation has not been reintroduced this year, but the 

ABA’s support for it really reflects support for the underlying message, which is the need for enhanced resources and the need for 

flexibility of the Law Library to meet these many challenges that 

it faces. Our concern is simply that with the limitations on appropriations there is too little latitude to make additional allocations. 

So thank you for inviting the ABA to express its support, its concern, suggested solutions. We have worked with the Library of Congress closely for decades, and look forward to working with this 

subcommittee towards ensuring that these valuable and remarkable resources are maintained. 

[Mr. Susman’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
405 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 772 50439B.094
406 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 773 50439B.095
407 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 774 50439B.096
408 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 775 50439B.097
409 

RETIREMENTS AT THE LAW LIBRARY

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Susman. 

And we appreciate the ABA’s interests in the future of the Law Library. I have two questions. One is in previous years the ABA has 

raised the issue of the retirement problem with GLIN-trained employees at the Library. And you did not mention that in your testimony. So I am wondering where we are with that concern. 

Mr. SUSMAN. That is not on our radar screen this year, which 

may suggest that it is a problem that has been addressed. I will 

find out and get back to you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If you could. Because last year it was 

proposed as a dire situation that was going to obliterate access to 

the law libraries. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
410 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 777 50439B.098
411 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 778 50439B.099
412 

Mr. SUSMAN. I know that the Library, the Law Library has, for 

the last couple of years, been undertaking a revamping of GLIN to 

make it more valuable and more user friendly. There are more and 

more nations signing up, and more language readiness provided. So 

a lot of progress has been made. I do not know about the retirement issue. 

FUNDRAISING FOR LAW LIBRARY

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. And Ms. Lofgren’s legislation would also separate out, which you did not mention, the Law 

Library’s budget from the Library of Congress. I do not know if you 

have thought about it, but the two goals, a separate private fundraising entity and a separate budget might not be compatible. Because if you separate out the Law Library’s budget, it would be difficult to transfer funds into that budget as opposed to it remaining 

as a part of the LOC’s main budget. 

Mr. SUSMAN. These are issues that we have considered. I think 

the American Bar Association’s goal is additional resources, facilitating private participation, and flexibility for the Library. Separating the budgets is one way to achieve it. And frankly, greater 

transparency in the Library of Congress’s budget and what it allocates to the Law Library is another way. We understand that this 

last year for the first time the Librarian did separate out at least 

collections costs between the Library of Congress and the Law Library, but not personnel and other services. It is a step forward. 

And there is more than one way to achieve the kinds of institutional structural designs that would be welcoming to this kind of 

partnership that we are talking about. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We did raise the issue of the Law Library and your concerns with the Librarian when he was here for 

his budget hearing. And I look forward to continuing to work with 

you to address the concerns of the ABA and its patrons, the Law 

Library’s patrons. 

Mr. SUSMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Aderholt. 

MEEHAN ACT PROVISIONS

Mr. ADERHOLT. Now the Meehan Act, that creates the public and 

private partnership? 

Mr. SUSMAN. It would set up, among other things, one of its sections would set up a foundation that could be funded, where the 

funds would not go into the general Library trust, but would be 

specifically set up for the Law Library. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And dedicated to them? 

Mr. SUSMAN. And dedicated for the Law Library. That legislation 

also provides for additional funding for cataloguing, authorize additional funding for cataloguing, and then its approach would be to 

separate out the budget of the Law Library. But as I have indicated, we support that, but we also support simply what this subcommittee has been helpful with, and that is greater transparency 

between the two budgets. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. That is all. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SUSMAN. It has been a pleasure. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
413 

CLOSING REMARKS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We appreciate it. Mr. Susman, it has 

been good to see you. And we appreciate the input and testimony 

of all the employees that came before the Legislative Branch Subcommittee for the annual public witness and Member hearing 

today. We always appreciate hearing from you. The message I want 

to leave folks with is that the public witness hearing is not the only 

opportunity that you have to give us feedback and input. We encourage you to provide us with that feedback throughout the rest 

of the year. This is just your public opportunity to do that. So we 

appreciate the opportunity to work with the employees and the 

management of the Legislative Branch agencies. Thank you very 

much. With that, the subcommittee stands in recess until tomorrow 

morning at 10 a.m., when we will hear from the House of Representatives’ Officers on their fiscal year 2010 budget requests. 

Thank you. 

[Staff Note: The following written statement was submitted for 

the record by the American Library Association and the Association 

of Research Libraries.] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
414 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 783 50439B.100
415 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 784 50439B.101
416 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 785 50439B.102
417 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 786 50439B.103

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(419) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2009. 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WITNESSES 

HON. LORRAINE C. MILLER, CLERK OF THE HOUSE 

HON. WILSON S. LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS 

HON. DANIEL P. BEARD, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 

JAMES J. CORNELL, INSPECTOR GENERAL 

IRVIN NATHAN, GENERAL COUNSEL 

PETER G. LEFEVRE, LAW REVISION COUNSEL 

M. POPE BARROW, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL 

BRIAN MONAHAN, M.D., ATTENDING PHYSICIAN 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would like to call the Legislative 

Branch Subcommittee on the House Committee on Appropriations 

to order. This will be our last budget hearing for the fiscal year 

2010 cycle; not the last hearing, but the last budget hearing. 

And we are pleased today to have the officers of the House of 

Representatives to present their fiscal year 2010 budget. 

Let me just start by saying how much we appreciate your service 

to the House and to the American people. 

Let me also say that a 15 percent increase after a 10 percent increase last year is not sustainable. As much as you have proposed 

a lot of wonderful programs and good ideas, many of those are 

things that, in an economic environment like the one that we are 

in, are just not possible. 

So we are going to need you to help us prioritize the things that 

are must-do’s, the gotta-haves versus the nice-to-haves, which is 

how we characterize, how I characterize, things in a categorical 

way in this subcommittee. 

So I will have a number of questions for each of you. And I am 

sure Mr. Aderholt and the other members, or other member, will 

as well. We are becoming a regular trio here, and we look forward 

to hearing from you. 

Mr. Aderholt, do you have any remarks? 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. I will just be very brief. 

I just want to welcome the officers of the House and also everyone that is with them today. I thank all of them for their service. 

We know that the jobs that you perform, help us do our job. So we 

appreciate the work that you do and how you carry out your responsibilities. 

Of course, the request of $5 billion, which is 15 percent over fiscal year 2009, is—I share your concerns Madam Chair, with the 

economic situation we are in. We are not going to be able to do as 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
420 

much as we would like to. But at the same time, we look forward 

to hearing the priorities and making sure that the things that are 

the must-haves, as you refer to them, are the things that we try 

to make sure we get funded. 

So, again, we appreciate all of you being here, all your staff, and 

everyone that is involved with this hearing this morning. So we 

look forward to hearing your testimony. 

OPENING STATEMENT—LORRAINE MILLER

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. We will first hear from 

Lorraine Miller. 

Ms. Miller, your full statement will be entered into the record 

and you can proceed with a 5-minute summary. 

Ms. MILLER. Good morning, Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, 

Mr. Aderholt, and Mr. Cole. 

We are delighted to be here with you this morning, and I will be 

brief. 

We appreciate the subcommittee’s support for the past year. And 

I would like to take an opportunity to give you a snapshot of the 

House legislative activity and some highlights on some ongoing 

projects that we have. 

You have received our semiannual report for more detail, and if 

you would like a copy of it, we have additional copies here prepared. 

HOUSE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY

A view of the House legislative activity: As of January 6th, there 

have been 638 hearings so far in the House, in the 111th Congress 

through April 24th. 

There have been 230 roll call votes through May 4 of this year. 

There have been 2,774 measures that have been introduced in 

the House through April 30th. 

There have been 265 measures that have been passed by the 

House through April 30th. 

And there are nine bills that have been enacted into law through 

April 30th. 

So that means we have had kind of vigorous legislative activity. 

ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM

On ongoing projects, the Electronic Voting System. First of all, 

I would like to thank the subcommittee for its generous initial investment of $500,000 in the 27-month fund to begin a substantial 

overhaul and review of our EVS system. Our system needs to be 

upgraded in a very careful and methodical way. And so the subcommittee’s support in that effort is much appreciated. 

Bear in mind that our current main display, meaning the big display boards, was installed in 1976, some 33 years ago. In 1987, the 

doors and the wiring were replaced in our display boards. That was 

22 years ago. And in 2003, the vote indicator lights were upgraded 

to the LED technology. In December of 2008, we upgraded to 20 

new slots, anticipating new Members of Congress. So the Office of 

the Clerk is deeply involved in investigating alternatives as we upgrade the new technology of the system. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
421 

Given that, we have a budget request before you for $6 million 

in a no-year fund for the project, just for the EVS system. The first 

phase of this upgrade will be the summary boards, located on the 

east and west entries to the Chamber. We will work with the Parliamentarians to include additional information on the board, so 

that whatever bill is pending on the floor, there is more information available to Members and to people sitting in the gallery of 

what is actually pending. 

We are planning on June 4th to offer the leadership, our Oversight and Appropriations Committee staff, and Members an opportunity to see a demonstration of what the new summary board 

technology would look like and what we would like to do with the 

display boards. Your offices will be notified. And we will have all 

of this; the contractor, the vendor will be here. And we will have 

a robust discussion of what we want. 

Our plan is to do the summary boards first, and we are hoping 

that we can do it during the August recess. Our vendor tells us 

that we can do this comfortably within a couple of weeks, but we 

have a vigorous routine of testing. So it will take that amount of 

time to make sure that by the time we get back, on September 8th, 

that everything is up and running. But we will need a really quick 

turnaround decision of what Members want; what kind of bells and 

whistles you want on the new system; all of that. 

Then the second part of the upgrade will be the display boards. 

And that will take a little longer time. There are a lot of concerns 

about it, and then we have got to make sure that the timing of it 

is done just right so that we don’t interrupt the legislative schedule. Again, let me assure you that we will work hand-in-glove with 

the leadership, with our partners in this, because the AOC is very 

involved with us in planning this. And so everybody will know 

what we are doing, how we are doing it, when we are doing it, so 

that there are no surprises. That is one of the hallmarks. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Another topic that I would like to raise real quick is emergency 

preparedness. During the threat of the H1N1 virus, we have had 

the pleasure of working in cooperation with the Office of the Attending Physician, the Sergeant at Arms, and the CAO. We have 

been partners in this. We have also extended our cooperation with 

the Secretary of the Senate, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, and the 

Architect of the Capitol. This has been a real collaborative effort. 

We are doing these daily conference calls at noon, even on Sundays, trying to stay ahead of the curve and preparing our staff. 

We have a plan ready to disperse our Pages at a moment’s notice. We have gone into the minutiae of sending a list to CATO of 

where all of our Pages are from, so we can get them on an airplane, 

a train, bus, whatever, and quickly disperse them at need. So all 

of our essential staff has been notified, and everybody is on the 

ready if we have an emergency and we have to evacuate. 

ELECTRONIC RECORDS OF CONGRESS

The Electronic Records of Congress. This year, the Clerk became 

the Chair of the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress. 

We had our first meeting April 27th. And our Office of History and 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
422 

Preservation and the Center for Legislative Archives of the National Archives have been working on a long-term project to provide assistance and guidance to committees in transferring their 

records to the Clerk’s office and ultimately to the National Archives. 

In 2007, we established an Electronic Records Task Force that 

consisted of House committee staff, the National Archives and our 

staff in the Office of the Clerk. The Homeland Security Committee 

has given us, to date, 20 gigabytes; the Science Committee, 40 

gigabytes of records; and during this Congress, we project that we 

will receive 6,870 gigabytes of electronic records. So we have been 

meeting with all of the committees of the House, encouraging them 

to prepare their records that they give at the end of each Congress 

in electronic format. 

HOUSE PAGE PROGRAM

A quick note about the House Page Program. It is healthy and 

moving forward. June 5th is the departure ceremony for the current spring class, and our first summer class arrives on June 7th. 

Our second summer class arrives July 5th and departs August 1. 

The Page School has received a glowing recertification from the 

Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools with no comment, which is extraordinary. 

We have felt for the longest time that we needed to include some 

kind of academic program with the summer Page Program. So, this 

summer, we are moving forward to offer three seminar classes for 

our students. The seminars are Politics and Government; International Relations; and Leadership in Government. 

Going forward, we are going to focus on expanding work opportunities for our Pages beyond the House Floor. We have been talking 

to committees to see if there are opportunities that the committees 

may have to use a Page. 

And then we are going to increase training for our Page Program 

staff. 

SHIRLEY CHISHOLM AND FLORENCE KAHN PORTRAITS

A note about our Office of History and Preservation. In March, 

there was the unveiling of the Shirley Chisholm portrait that you 

find hanging in the hall here on the first floor. We expect the unveiling of our newest addition to the House portrait collection of 

former Member Florence Kahn. Ms. Kahn had a number of firsts. 

She was the first woman to serve on the Appropriations Committee. She was the first woman to serve on the Military Affairs 

Committee, and the first Jewish woman to serve in the Congress. 

We expect to have the unveiling of her portrait some time this 

month, and on the Clerk’s Web site is a tremendous amount of 

good information about our former Member. 

LOBBYING DISCLOSURE

A couple things for the good and order. Lobbying disclosure. Our 

lobbying disclosure operation is going very well. Currently, in the 

Office of the Clerk, we have registered with us approximately 

15,000 individual lobbyists; approximately 5,000 lobbying regVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00422 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
423 

istrants, representing 20,000 clients. So there is a big lobbying 

community here that is registered with us. 

On April 20th of this year, we received the most electronic filings 

of LDs—what we call them, lobbying disclosures—ever in one day; 

7,200 people registered with us, which is about 40 percent of the 

total filings that we are expecting. We have increased our computer 

and server resources to manage the volume. Next Friday, May 

15th, is the deadline for filing of Member financial disclosure statements which includes staff that have reached the financial threshold; May 15th, next Friday, financial disclosure. 

CLERK’S BUDGET REQUEST

Our overall budget. The budget request before you reflects the increased demand in services offered by the Clerk’s office. For fiscal 

year 2010, the Office is requesting a total of $33,901,000. The request includes about $22 million for personnel; about $5 million for 

nonpersonnel expenses; and of course, the $6 million request for 

the separate no-year fund to upgrade the House EVS and Chamber 

displays. 

Again, I draw your attention to our semiannual report for more 

detail. And I am anxious to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[Lorraine Miller’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
424 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 797 here 50439B.104
425 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 798 here 50439B.105
426 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 799 here 50439B.106
427 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 800 here 50439B.107
428 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 801 here 50439B.108
429 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 802 here 50439B.109
430 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 803 here 50439B.110
431 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 804 here 50439B.111
432 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 805 here 50439B.112
433 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 806 here 50439B.113
434 

OPENING STATEMENT—DAN BEARD

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Ms. Miller. 

Mr. Beard. 

Mr. BEARD. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Let me begin by taking this opportunity to express my gratitude 

to the members of the subcommittee for your support of all our efforts. We appreciate it, and we look forward to working with you. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

I would like to highlight some of the things that are in my testimony. The first is in the area of information technology. Last year, 

the Speaker and Republican leader directed my office to undertake 

a series of improvements in IT security efforts. As a result, we centralized IT security management and instituted a number of improvements, including the installation of over 200,000 patches to 

the software systems of the House to close about a million 

vulnerabilities in our system, and improved our security by 38 percent. 

Now we have also instituted a laptop and data encryption program to protect portable data and enhanced computer forensic systems that enable us to address the ever-increasing and, frankly, 

ever-more sophisticated cyber threats that we have to address with 

the House system. 

In fiscal year 2010, we request an additional $7 million to improve our back-end hardware and processes to keep up with the 

growing demand from our users for mobile data access anywhere, 

any time. The largest effort will be to significantly increase e-mail 

data storage. Most of you get these disturbing little e-mails that 

say, delete things from your inbox. We will be able to get rid of 

that with this year’s request. And it will enable us to transmit 

more data. 

The additional funds will also be used to enhance our ability to 

handle visual information, which has really placed a significant 

onus on our organization, as well as to improve our phone systems, 

including the use of voice-over IP, which will also reduce the cost 

to individual offices. 

STAFF BENEFITS

For fiscal 2010, in the area of employee benefits, we are continuing to request funds to initiate two new programs. The first is 

a tuition reimbursement program. Every agency in the legislative 

branch has a tuition reimbursement program. We do not. And we 

are also requesting funds for a commuter parking program to encourage our employees to take Metro. 

This is particularly important because our workforce is rather 

unique: 51 percent of our workforce is under the age of 35, and 81 

percent of those work for Members, and yet their term of service 

is generally about 3 years in Member offices. That is the going average. So we have a young, highly mobile workforce, and it is in 

the best interest of the institution that we keep and attract those 

people for as long as we can. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
435 

WOUNDED WARRIOR PROGRAM

The current job market poses some significant and formidable 

challenges for wounded veterans returning from the wars in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. Speaker Pelosi believes the House should honor 

the sacrifices of those veterans by initiating a Wounded Warrior 

Program where we have been funding a stipend for a 2-year program where veterans work in Member offices. So, to date, 11 

wounded warriors have been hired under this program, and another 12 are in the process of being hired. We are requesting $2.5 

million for this program, the same as last year, and 25 FTEs to be 

able to handle those veterans. 

HEARING ROOM MODERNIZATION

Since 2002, we have been involved with the House committee 

Chairs in undertaking an audio and video renovation program of 

each of the offices. To date, we have completed 14 committees, full 

committee hearing rooms. And we are requesting $10.2 million to 

complete six more, and this will complete the 20 full committees 

where they will at least have one hearing room with high-tech 

audio-visual equipment. 

BUSINESS CONTINUITY AND DISASTER RECOVERY

The 2008 hurricane season significantly damaged a number of 

district offices in the Gulf region. In Hurricane Gustav, we monitored 57 district offices that could potentially be affected. Eight of 

those were closed for various periods of time. In Hurricane Ike, we 

monitored 135 district offices, and we had 19 closures, again, some 

for significant periods of time. 

Without power, Internet connections, telephones and in some 

cases even office buildings, some Members in Louisiana and Texas 

were no longer able to serve their constituents. Congressman Paul’s 

office, for example, in Galveston was simply wiped out. Congressman Brady’s Orange, Texas office was filled with mud and was 

made virtually unusable. 

In consultation with the House leadership, my office responded 

to requests from the Members to provide administrative and operational support, and we deployed our mobile communications capability to both Louisiana and Baton Rouge; then later, with Hurricane Ike, to Houston, where we set up a regional district office outside of Houston. 

A picture is worth a thousand words. But this is the type of capability that we have. We have a facility that is self-contained, so we 

have our own power. We have our own capability and we have linkage to satellites to be able to get back to the House e-mail and 

House system. And we also have equipment that we brought with 

us. 

This is 8:30 a.m., Tuesday morning, outside of Houston. There 

was no electricity, no FEMA office, no nothing. So our folks went 

down over the weekend, set up on Monday, and Tuesday morning 

at 9 a.m., we opened up. 

These are the folks that were waiting at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday 

morning just to get to a telephone that would work or to e-mail 

connections. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
436 

Now the problem that they had was FEMA said that they 

couldn’t respond or they wouldn’t provide assistance unless there 

was a claim filed and you had a claim number. But the only way 

you could get that was online, and the only way you could get online was if you had electricity. And of course, there was no electricity. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That makes no sense. 

Mr. BEARD. So we were simply flooded and inundated with people. 

In looking at this picture—I looked at this picture before I 

came—and I couldn’t see any of our employees. What happened 

here was very strange. Volunteers suddenly appeared at this American Legion Hall. We tried to use the Air Force base, but it simply 

wasn’t able to accommodate constituents coming in. So we used the 

American Legion hall across the street from the base. And these 

photos represent people who just came in and wanted a computer, 

a telephone, somebody to talk to. And people, literally, volunteers 

just appeared and started to teach people how to use computers. 

So we had people that did that. 

This office was made available to all the Members of the Houston 

delegation, and to the Texas Senators as well who also worked out 

of this office because none of the office buildings in downtown 

Houston were useable at that time. 

The most important thing we did here is we had an exit strategy. 

With the assistance of the Capitol Police, we were there from Tuesday through Saturday, and then we closed down. Once FEMA got 

up and running and had service centers around the city, we left. 

This effort shows you the kind of investment we have made here 

in our business continuity and disaster recovery assistance, what 

it can lead to and how it can assist individual Members. So we 

monitor every twister, every hurricane, everything, to see that our 

district offices are taken care of. Since we have over 900 district 

offices, we have a lot to worry about in this institution. 

HOUSE MAIL

I also wanted to point out, in February of this year, the Chair 

and ranking Republican of the House Subcommittee on Capitol Security requested my office to undertake a review of the House mail 

program. I point this out because Mail Management is our largest 

vendor contract. After 2001, a number of changes were initiated to 

provide a much more secure mail system. The subcommittee feels 

it is time to review those decisions to see if they still need to have 

many of the initial requirements in place. 

We will be undertaking a comprehensive review of our existing 

program, assessment of alternatives, and make recommendations. 

We are joined in this effort by the Office of the Inspector General, 

and we expect to have recommendations for you by the 15th of September. This will have some budgetary impact and more than likely reduce our budgetary needs. 

GREEN THE CAPITOL

On April 22, the Speaker announced the next phase of our Green 

the Capitol program. In coordination with the Architect, we are 

working with Member and committee offices to encourage a numVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00436 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
437 

ber of energy conservation and sustainability actions. These actions 

could result in reducing energy consumption in Member offices by 

as much as 10 percent, at a savings of $1 million a year in our electricity bill. This effort will be undertaken by my office using existing personnel and resources. We do not require increased funds to 

implement the Speaker’s initiative in 2010. We are requesting $10 million in this budget to fund a series of 

energy conservation sustainability projects. This program is being 

undertaken with the Architect, Lawrence Berkeley Labs and DOE. 

We have received over 40 proposals to demonstrate innovative energy efficiency and conservation technology here in the House. We 

have received proposals for such things as LED lighting in our 

cafeterias; a solid oxide fuel cell generator to take over a portion 

of the electricity load in the office buildings; a proposal for integrated solar lighting, both in our warehouses and in loading docks; 

and, also, the innovative use of wind turbines. 

We have a team of people reviewing all these proposals and of 

course have to wait to see how much funding we have and how 

many we can support. The importance of this funding really transcends the House’s need to acquire better energy-saving technology. 

It is intended as an effort to support American companies that are 

on the forefront of green technology. By allowing these companies 

to showcase their technologies here on Capitol Hill, we hope to help 

them turn green job creation into a reality. 

Again, I want to thank you for your past support, and we think 

that our fiscal 2010 request will ensure our ability to meet our 

stated missions. 

We look forward to answering your questions. 

[Dan Beard’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
438 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 815 here 50439B.114
439 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 816 here 50439B.115
440 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 817 here 50439B.116
441 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 818 here 50439B.117
442 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 819 here 50439B.118
443 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 820 here 50439B.119
444 

OPENING STATEMENT—BILL LIVINGOOD

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Beard. 

Sergeant-at-Arms Livingood. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Good morning, Madam Chair, Mr. Aderholt, 

members of the committee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today to present 

the Sergeant at Arms budget for fiscal year 2010. I also want to 

thank each and every one of you and give you my sincere gratitude 

for the continued support throughout the year. My office and the 

Capitol Police could not exist without that. I mean that very sincerely. 

It has been both a busy and historic period since I last testified 

before you. Over the past year, the Office of the Sergeant at Arms 

has assisted in numerous events both on and off the Capitol campus. My office played a large role in both conventions and the opening of the 111th Congress and the planning of the 56th Presidential 

Inauguration and the Presidential Address. Just yesterday, for instance, we had three heads of state here going back and forth all 

day. 

SECURITY MATTERS

As Sergeant at Arms, I review all security matters affecting the 

U.S. House of Representatives. I actively participate in establishing 

policies designed to safeguard the Capitol Complex and its occupants. As a member of the Capitol Police Board, I have those responsibilities. 

I am also on the Congressional Accessibility Services Board, 

which is the group that oversees and conducts services for people 

with accessibility needs. Allowing the Capitol to remain open and 

accessible to all visitors without compromising security continues 

to be one of my most challenging and important tasks. My office 

is continuously examining technologies to aid in the improvement 

of the life-safety posture of the Capitol and the House Office Buildings. 

Some of the ideas we have gotten from committee members, and 

I appreciate the help, other Members, staff, other government 

agencies. Ideas range from the installation of cameras and emergency call boxes in the House Office Building stairwells. Some of 

that money is in the Capitol Police budget as we speak today, and 

I will be asking eventually for additional funding for some of that. 

EMERGENCY PLANNING

Simulation evacuation modelling assistance, something we have 

talked about for a while, but before, we were not in a position to 

be able to do anything about it because we did not have the responsibility for evacuations, which was given to us by the Speaker last 

summer. So now we have the responsibility. 

We have had dozens of meetings since then with technology providers to research the range of potentially useful systems. In order 

to bring better focus to this issue, a series of meetings was conducted with other government entities to evaluate their approaches 

to evacuation planning and execution. One of the principal lessons 

we have learned is that better information is needed to realistically 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
445 

predict the most effective and safe evacuation strategies and operations. And we have found some technology on several phases that 

may work with this, and we will be looking at that. 

Due to the ever-changing environment on Capitol Hill and the 

disruption inherent in conducting realistic evacuation drills, this 

computer model gives the opportunities to test and evaluate evacuation plans without having to have fire drills. That doesn’t mean 

we do away with them, but this is in addition. 

Other agencies with similar challenges are employing simulationbased decision support systems as a primary means of designing, 

testing and evaluating their emergency plans. The simulationbased decision support system provides an accurate and flexible 

method to assess evacuation plans without the disruption the drills 

cause. This allows for the evaluation of a wide range of evacuation 

scenarios. It also helps with other police problems, shooter in the 

building, chem, bio, other items such as that. It can be utilized to 

fine tune or evaluate current evacuation plans and conduct better 

drills. 

The goal is to do an end-to-end analysis of the technology requirement and, if appropriate, to seek the necessary funding to acquire the capability through a competitive process in the near future. 

BADGING SYSTEM

In fiscal 2010, the total funding requested for the Sergeant at 

Arms is $10,092,000. This includes $8,222,000 for personnel expenses, and $1,870,000 for nonpersonnel items. One of the nonpersonnel items is our purchasing of supplies for the 112th Congress, 

that is the new Member pins, license plates, staff parking permits, 

that type, IDs; and $525,000 is a new initiative. It is for the nonpersonnel funds. It is requesting to purchase a new identification 

badge production system. Our system is close to 13 years old. The 

new identification badge production system will provide the House 

with a more secure, stable and technologically advanced badging 

system. That will be also compatible with the Senate and the Capitol Police badging systems. 

Additionally, we hope that this new system will allow online requests, which will accelerate the production and issuance of identification badges. It will also include new equipment to replace the 

old existing hardware, as well as upgrades to the mobile badge production units stored offsite and utilized in a coop situation. 

Mindful of the sensitivity to any request for a funding increase, 

I want to reassure the members of the committee that these requests are designed specifically to enable the Office of the Sergeant 

at Arms to be more responsive to Members of Congress and the 

congressional community, augmenting and improving the services 

we offer. My goal and that of each of my employees is to ensure 

that we work together to support the community. 

In closing, I want to thank the members of the committee for the 

opportunity to present our budget and just to let you know that we 

remain vigilant daily and committed to ensuring the safety and security of the Capitol Complex and its occupants while maintaining 

the best possible fiscal responsibilities during these difficult ecoVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00445 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
446 

nomic times. As always, I will keep the committee informed of my 

activities. 

At this time, I am ready to answer any questions that you may 

have. 

[Bill Livingood’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
447 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 826 here 50439B.120
448 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 827 here 50439B.121
449 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 828 here 50439B.122
450 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 829 here 50439B.123
451 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 830 here 50439B.124
452 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 831 here 50439B.125
453 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 832 here 50439B.126
454 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 833 here 50439B.127
455 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 834 here 50439B.128
456 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much, Sergeant 

Livingood. 

And thank you all very much for all of your service and for the 

service of your employees. The House of Representatives couldn’t 

function without the staff and employees of each of your offices. 

I have questions for each of you. My first question is to Dr. 

Monahan if you could join us at the table. 

H1N1 VIRUS

Dr. Monahan, as the Attending Physician of the House, the outbreak of the H1N1 virus is of obvious concern, and I know you 

have been following the situation closely. 

Can you give the subcommittee an update this morning on what 

your office is doing to prepare for the various contingencies in the 

event, although it may be abating now, that we have to deal with 

a more significant outbreak? 

Dr. MONAHAN. Yes, Madam Chair. 

Our office has the posture right now to assume the virus has unpredictable severity. We assume the maximum of severe cases, as 

does most of the Nation. We work closely with the Centers for Disease Control. I have independent experts, independent of the Executive branch, that advise us with regard to infectious events in the 

world, are virus experts, and help advise us on specific threats in 

managing our community here on Capitol Hill. 

It has been my great privilege to work closely with the other 

House and Senate officers and have seen some really inspirational 

teamwork in putting together and executing the pre-prepared contingency plan we have for pandemic influenza. As you may know, 

about 2 years ago, a large working group at the Capitol devoted 

quite a bit of energy toward preparing for a potential avian influenza pandemic. This 2009 H1N1 threat, which we are now in, has 

served as a way to execute that plan and to flesh it out in more 

detail, to capitalize on its strengths, and to identify areas where we 

need to have continuous improvement. 

It has been a very good experience for our working group, both 

in the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms Offices respectively, to 

optimize the campus response. 

Presently, our state of operations here in the Capitol community 

is one of advanced preparedness, as it is in most of the Nation. We 

follow events very closely from the point of view of operating the 

facility with the tens of thousands of visitors every day, Member 

offices, the ongoing functions of our dining facilities and restaurants, our Page Residence Halls, our two high schools respectively. There has been quite a bit of a collaboration. We are now 

continuing to maintain that posture of readiness. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you have the resources that you 

need in the event that it becomes a pandemic? 

Dr. MONAHAN. Yes, we do. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good to know. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
457 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Sergeant Livingood, in terms of the needs that you have, particularly with contingency plans in the event that we can’t work from 

the regular Capitol facilities, do you have all the elements of an alternative site plan in the event that there is an outbreak? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes. We have been working with the three House 

officers and the Senate on contingency plans nearby and further 

away, if we had to, to deal with that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Good. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. And we continue to look at this. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM

I am going to go to my questions for the Clerk. In the last 2 or 

3 years, we have had a number of different problems with the voting system. So I am glad to see that we are taking the steps that 

I think are necessary to bring in a whole new system. How old is 

the current system that we are using? 

Ms. MILLER. We started in 1976. This is Goldey Vansant, our 

chief of our Legislative Computer Operations, resident expert on 

this. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Suffice it to say that technology has 

changed somewhat—— 

Ms. MILLER. Slightly. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. Since 1976, when I was 

in fourth grade, just by way of example. 

$6 million seems like a necessary expenditure. The other thing 

I am glad to see is that you are going to seek the input of the Membership because I am amazed at how little the voting system tells 

us when you walk in the Chamber. I know Members on both sides 

of the aisle use paper, which I am sure we would still use, to better 

explain what it is we are voting on. It is very difficult to discern, 

especially when you are running into the Chamber and trying to 

vote before the time expires, what you are voting on just by looking 

up at the summary boards. 

Ms. MILLER. Madam Chair, I hear it literally every day as I go 

to the floor for votes. Some Member will walk up and say, When 

are you going to get this done? 

What we are hoping to do on the summary boards, and there will 

be this new technology out there that we have been—Goldey and 

his shop have just been talking ad nauseam to different kinds of 

vendors. So we know that there is a three point and a six point. 

We think the four point is probably better, a little cheaper, a little 

crisper maybe in view. So what we are planning to do is to bring 

that technology to HC–5 on June 4th, and we will have the Members have an opportunity to come down and look at it. There are 

all kinds of bells and whistles. So on the summary boards, at least, 

we want to give more information. 

We went to Annapolis a few weeks ago to see a demonstration 

that they are doing for the Maryland Legislature, which is just 

phenomenal. We went to Kansas in December to see some of the 

technologies that are out there that legislatures around the country 

and around the world are using. It is just absolutely phenomenal. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
458 

So once you get a chance to see what we can offer, it is a matter 

of you telling us what you want and what kind of bells and whistles, and we can get this done. 

So the summary boards we are hoping to get done during the August recess. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It would just be the summary boards. 

Ms. MILLER. Just the summary boards. And then from that, from 

that decision—Goldey, correct me if I am wrong—we hope that the 

kind of technology that we would use for the larger displays would 

be the same. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can you do that, the summary 

boards, with no-year funds? Is that how you are planning on doing 

it? 

Ms. MILLER. With the $500,000 that you have already given us. 

We can do that. The summary boards are being done, and we will 

have that ready, barring that you tell us something different. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And the goal then is to change the 

summary boards over the holiday recess? 

Ms. MILLER. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And you anticipate you have enough 

time, given the system that you are looking at. Are you looking at 

a specific system, or are you still surveying? 

Ms. MILLER. We have surveyed. We have pinned it down, but it 

really is the process of—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just tailoring it. 

Ms. MILLER. To what you want. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will you have enough time by the 

time we come back into session in January to get it up and running? 

Ms. MILLER. We believe so. If the decisions are made quickly 

enough, we can do it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. The Sergeant mentioned 

the new ID badge system. I assume that your offices are coordinating the effort? 

Ms. MILLER. Yes. Because we produce the—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Great. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Let us go back to the voting system. You mentioned in 1976 is 

when it was first implemented. 

Ms. MILLER. Yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Is that when we first transferred it over to an 

electronic system? Prior to that were roll calls where all the Members were called? 

Mr. VANSANT. That is correct. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. So the board we see up there is the first? 

Ms. MILLER. Thirty-three years old, yes. 

HOUSE LIBRARY

Mr. ADERHOLT. You also mention in your testimony—you were 

talking about the House library. Please give us a little bit of overview about the modernization of that. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
459 

Ms. MILLER. Mr. Aderholt, in real practical terms, we don’t have 

a library. I am charged with maintaining one. We have a room on 

the second floor of the Legislative Resource Center that is a library. It is basically now a storage facility. It has been moved 

around over the years, and so that is where we are. 

So the idea is that we have our eye on some space, and so we 

are trying to work with the Architect and with the Leadership to 

see if we can acquire it. What we would like to do is not to reinvent 

what the Library of Congress is doing, but have a library that is 

digital, that has the transparency for our staff and for the Members on our legislative process. We have got all kinds of little 

things that we can do that will make it so much easier for staff 

and Members and the public that are looking for transparency of 

our legislative process. 

So that is what we are trying to do, but we are at a standstill 

until we can figure out where we would put it and get the signoff to get that done. But we have hired a first-rate—as a matter 

of fact, I guess, pilfered is not the word, but we borrowed—— 

Mr. HONDA. Liberated. 

Ms. MILLER. Liberated. Perfect, Mr. Honda. She was the assistant librarian at George Mason University. She has her master’s in 

library science, and she is a lawyer, so she understands what our 

needs are. And we have been talking with Mrs. Lofgren because 

she is very interested in what happens with the law library. So we 

are trying to combine this into a facility that will help not only our 

staff, but our leg counsel, Pope Barrow, and all these folks, with 

the kinds of resources that need to get the legislative work done 

as quickly and as efficiently as we possibly can. But we are kind 

of at a standstill until we get a sign-off on where we can do this 

so we can move forward. 

BADGING SYSTEM

Mr. ADERHOLT. Sergeant Livingood, let me address this to you. 

You talked about the identification badge production system. Will 

this be for House staff members? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Are these the badges that you would see that 

they would wear? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Replace that. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What are the advantages of the new system? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. It is faster technology. It is a little clearer technology. It is an upgrade of the equipment, and it makes it compatible with what we have now, what the Senate is doing, and what 

the Capitol Police are doing so we all have one type of system. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What is it that the Senate side, the Senate staffers’ IDs do that the House doesn’t? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Well, you could put, if you need to, a smart card 

in there or chip in there to make it compatible with the district offices. Some of them have trouble getting into their buildings because they don’t have capability to put a smart card in there. So 

we have had to work that out with each district, office by office, 

and the Senate has done that by going to this new system. Plus 

it makes it compatible if we ever need to to have the same type 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
460 

of system—not the same system, but type of—that the executive 

branch has for access to other places if we ever had to. 

And one big benefit: It would be much faster for us. And the second part of it is that you can do it online. We have never had that. 

We do not have that capability today. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I see. 

Mr. KAELIN. The ability to include biometrics, if necessary, down 

the road. The technology has changed so much since 1996. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. We are just trying to catch up. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. The current system was implemented in 1996? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes. 

ENTRANCE LINES

Mr. ADERHOLT. I am in the Longworth Building, and there was 

a line outside the Longworth Building, and if you had stretched it 

out, it would have been almost halfway to the Capitol. But I have 

noticed several times during the year that the lines going into 

Longworth have been extremely long. And I know a lot of the staff, 

of course, have to wait in those lines. But I notice there are several 

magnetometers in there, but it seems like only half of them are 

being used. What is the situation with that? Do you need some 

more resources to try to help alleviate that problem there? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. That is a good question. Thank you for asking 

that because that is a problem. 

Yesterday and today there were lines out there going—I went 

over there this morning and saw humongous lines. As I did yesterday, I called the Chief again and told him to put more people out 

there and open up those second—the first thing we do, I told him, 

move people, if you can, to another door if it is open; I mean, if it 

is not backed up. Yesterday, ironically, almost every door was 

backed up, not just Longworth. 

The second phase of that is to open the mags. They take supervisors sometimes and use them for that—for an hour or 2 hours to 

open those mags. 

And thirdly, I sent people from my office this morning when I noticed it. They are over there now, two of them, walking around, 

telling staff to move up, you don’t have to wait in line; telling the 

police, they have got big lines out here. They are supposed to be 

checking, too. I have pulled some of those people that were checking, put them on mags today, trying to speed it. 

But we periodically do have this problem, and without calling 

people in, because you don’t know day to day—unless you have an 

advanced notice there is going to be a huge group, then we can call 

people in. You have to take what you have existing and rearrange. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. But you have those people available in case you 

do need to open up that second? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. They are not just waiting. I have to take people 

from other areas, yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. But you have them where you can have access 

to them? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes. But that is a serious problem, and I 

empathize with everybody on that. We thought of putting out—we 

did one time. We put out a message, an e-mail, to all the offices 

saying, staff, please go to the front of the line. But I got calls from 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
461 

Members’ offices saying they would rather not see that, and just do 

word of mouth for various reasons. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I will have a follow-up question on my next 

round. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Honda. 

EVACUATION PLAN

Mr. HONDA. Thank you very much. 

Let me just say thank you to all of you for your services. Some 

of you spoil me, others pamper me, and some of you put up with 

me. But I appreciate all that. 

To Mr. Livingood, thank you very much for the work you have 

done on the evacuation plan. We are looking forward to seeing that 

come to fruition. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Mr. Honda, you were a help on that, too. 

Mr. HONDA. We knew that you had some barriers, so you worked 

it. 

BADGING SYSTEM CONTINUED

On the ID badge and the voting cards, why is it—are we moving 

towards where Members can have a voting card and a key to get 

into your offices and move around so that all our doors don’t have 

to have the traditional keys, and it can be electronically keyed so 

that new Members come in, you can change the code and everything else? But you also can track the number of times folks come 

in and out of the offices after hours, and that these keys are also 

available to staff, but our voting card has biometrics that allows us 

to vote and also used as a key here and at the—— 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. You are right on the money, sir. What we are 

moving toward—if we can configure their voting systems so we can 

have a Member’s ID card fit into that, but also it can be a prox 

card or a smart card. And eventually I want—we are doing some 

offices now. The problem is, quite frankly, funding. And it is not 

the highest priority. There are other priorities, but it is an important one. We will eventually, in my estimation, eventually have an 

electronic key for every office, and then we have some other areas 

that we are going to use those keys so that Members can have access. 

Mr. HONDA. I would imagine that the question is utility other 

than just on the Hill. Like if we have biometrics, then staff can 

move through the line by just flashing a card. We can get through 

the line or vote with our biometrics. Using the airport, they have 

Clear cards, and they check our ID cards all the time. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. There is no limit to what we can do. 

Mr. HONDA. At the Federal level, at least with the airlines, we 

should be able to—— 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. And it shows who you really are. 

Mr. HONDA. In that line—— 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. I agree. 

Mr. HONDA. If you would be looking at retinal research where 

the false negatives or false positives are almost zero, and the ability for us to keep records on who comes in and out even with visitors, it may reduce the lines, and it may allow us to move more 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
462 

freely through the hallways in ways that feels like it is less restrictive, I guess. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HONDA. Return back to the Hill a sense of this is your facility. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HONDA. So perhaps in the near future we might be able to 

get us back. 

Ms. MILLER. Madam Chairman, may I just add to that, since we 

produce the Member voting cards and ID cards, the combination, 

we always have a concern about security. In any given day, we can 

replace 10 to 15 Member cards—— 

Mr. VANSANT. Quite a few. 

Ms. MILLER. So we understand the convenience, but it is the security of it, too, because that is your voting card and your ID card 

all rolled into one. And so we want you to be mindful of that because sometimes Members have a tendency to leave them. 

Mr. HONDA. Yes, I know. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. I think if it was an ID card, they would watch 

it like a driver’s license. 

Mr. HONDA. But I think there are ways to have some security in 

there. 

Ms. MILLER. There are. Yes. 

FLU VACCINATIONS

Mr. HONDA. For the doc, thanks for everything you do. And at 

the avian flu time, I asked folks over at our cafeteria if the cafeteria workers were being immunized and being given flu shots, and 

they said no, because they are under contract. They are contractors. We have to push them really hard in order for them to be immunized because they handle our food. So is there a procedure now 

if anything like this happens, the first folks that should be hit are 

the food handlers and our staff. 

Dr. MONAHAN. Well, sir, as vaccine is available on a seasonal 

basis, we will immunize anyone who bears a Capitol ID card. We 

don’t ask who is a contractor, who isn’t. If they have a regular campus access card, we will vaccinate them. We send our teams out to 

the night shifts, the pages, the day shifts, and others. We make our 

availability wide open to those groups to try to make the vaccine 

conveniently available—— 

Mr. HONDA. Those food handlers, do they have cards? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes. 

Mr. BEARD. They have a vendor ID. They would be eligible. 

Mr. HONDA. Because there was a lot of resistance last time. It 

should be part of the contract, I guess, that these are the kinds of 

things that they are responsible for if they are going to handle food 

for our people. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Cole. 

STAFF BENEFITS

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to specify for the record, I was not in the fourth grade. 

I don’t want to be any more precise than that. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
463 

But let me begin first, I just want to thank all of you for the terrific job you and your staffs do. We are wonderfully well served on 

the floor, and we are wonderfully well served in the facilities, and 

obviously we feel awfully secure. So thank you very much. You lead 

really very well, and you lead your excellent staffs very well. 

I was particularly interested, Mr. Beard, in the point you made 

about the difference in benefit levels between some of our employees and the executive branch. If you would enlighten me a little bit, 

are House employees eligible for the same sorts of, let us say, educational benefits that our employees in our respective offices are eligible for? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. All employees of the House of Representatives 

are Title II employees. So whether they work in an office, or whether they work for the officers, committee or leadership, they are all 

Title II employees, and that means that their benefit package is determined by the House of Representatives itself. 

Our pay system is even different than the Senate. The Senate 

employees are paid every 2 weeks. We are paid once a month. So 

we have different pay systems. And we have different benefit packages as House employees than the executive branch employees 

have. They have a lot more benefits than we have, and that is because for Title II employees the authorization is with the Committee on House Administration, and the Oversight Committee 

handles benefits for executive branch employees. So when a bill 

goes through providing a benefit to executive branch agency employees, generally their benefits aren’t made available to legislative 

branch employees. So we are racing to catch up. 

The kind of benefits that we have been trying to propose and get 

for House employees are fair. We are not asking for anything that 

executive branch employees currently don’t get. That is the limit 

that we have placed on ourselves. For example, last year House 

employees could receive up to $6,000 for student loan repayment 

per year, but yet executive branch agencies got $10,000. So the 

subcommittee provided us the money to provide the additional 

money to provide up to $10,000 per year, and CHA changed their 

regulations to enable that. So now we are able to go ahead and do 

that. 

And the two benefits we are proposing in here, one is the tuition 

reimbursement program, which is currently available to Library of 

Congress employees, AOC employees, Capitol Police and the executive branch. Our employees do not get it, we do not have that kind 

of a program. We would like to offer tuition reimbursement because 

so many of our employees are young people just starting out. What 

we want to try to do is have a benefit package that encourages people to stay, because if employees stay, it is in the best interest of 

the institution. Members are more effective, committees are more 

effective, the legislative process works better. A constant turnover 

is just very difficult. 

Mr. COLE. So there is no difference between—and I hope there 

is not—between what our custodial employees get, for instance, 

and—well, actually I had a specific question about this from one of 

our custodial employees. And I just wanted to make sure he was 

eligible for everything that anybody else in my office would be eligible for. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
464 

Mr. BEARD. Assuming the custodial employee is not a contractor 

he or she is eligible. I also would add this caveat—and this is what 

makes things even more interesting—is that we have 441 Members, and each Member decides what his or her employees are paid 

and what kind of benefits they get in some cases. We also have 20 

committees, and then you have the individual officers. The officers 

have coordinated to make sure that all of our benefit packages are 

the same, but then you will have a difference with the Architect 

of the Capitol and Capitol Police. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you for working on trying to close that gap. 

You know, people are everything in any business. So I appreciate 

that. 

Yield back, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Cole. 

Mr. Ryan. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, and you guys are great. 

BADGING SYSTEM CONTINUED

One, I wanted to follow up, Bill, on the question of losing the 

IDs. I mean, if we are losing that many congressional IDs, do we 

have situations where people are getting ahold of these and trying 

to—— 

Ms. MILLER. No. We kill them instantly. Not the person, but the 

card. 

Ms. MILLER. When a Member asks for a new ID, it is one—whatever—we had one Member that had 25 cards. He found them, but 

they were all dead except for one of them. 

Mr. RYAN. Have we had a situation where somebody gets ahold 

of a card and tries to use it as an ID at some—— 

Ms. MILLER. Not that I am aware. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. We have not heard of that. 

Ms. MILLER. No. 

Mr. RYAN. That is interesting. 

Ms. MILLER. It has got your picture on it, and it is a little—unless you kind of look like Tim Ryan, it is a little hard to—— 

Mr. RYAN. I don’t wish that on anybody. 

STAFF BENEFITS CONTINUED

Just a little bit on the benefits package. I know you were talking 

about tuition reimbursement. Are there any other things that you 

are looking at as far as benefits go for the staff that maybe are on 

the back burner? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, yes. We are looking at a number of things. One 

is the student loan repayment program has been raised from 

$6,000 to $10,000 per year, per employee, which is very popular, 

and because it is centrally administrated, it is easier to divide. 

With the support of the Chair, we have proposed a low-wage 

child care assistance program, and we are asking for funding in 

that as well. This will be run by GSA and will provide assistance 

to our low-wage workers for child care. And that will be a benefit 

that is available both here in Washington as well as district offices. 

And I think that is very important, particularly for our low-wage 

workers. If you are a single mother with two kids, and you have 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
465 

got to find day care, and you are making $50,000 a year, it is 

tough. We are increasing our transit benefit package from $120 to $230 

a month. Now, that increase was provided in the stimulus bill. And 

then there’s parking benefits. What we are trying to do is initiate 

a program where if you park in a commuter parking lot either in 

a district office or here, you can receive assistance for parking. 

That is to act as an encouragement to get employees to take Metro. 

Here in Washington we have the unique situation of providing free 

parking to every employee who wants it. It is kind of a third rail 

of employee benefits. We can’t get rid of it, but you can sure encourage people to take another route. 

The other thing that we have been investigating to try to figure 

out how to do is a disability program. We have no short-term or 

long-term disability program for our employees. The only long-term 

disability program we have is to retire, and that just isn’t acceptable with a modern workforce. You know, the key is how do you 

finance it, and what kind of a package of benefits can you provide? 

But if we could just bring ourselves up to parity with other legislative branch agencies, I would feel better. I hope for us to work to 

match the benefits made available to executive branch agencies. 

GARAGE PARKING

Mr. RYAN. Two more quick questions. One, you brought up parking. I notice a lot of times in the garage there are cars that have 

been sitting there for—they have got dust on them, you know. I 

mean, like, people are writing with their finger ‘‘wash me’’ on their 

car. It has been in there. What is the process for people to be allowed to leave—— 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. The process is you must move your car every 30 

days. We have parking security going around looking at those spots 

where people have left them more than that. We send them a letter, and we send a second, and then the third time, if it is still 

there, it goes to the Committee on House Administration for them. 

And then sometimes I even call the owner of that vehicle and tell 

them; I suggest they move it before someone else— 

Mr. RYAN. We will talk after this hearing. I have a couple suggestions. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD [continuing]. Before someone else moves it. 

Mr. BEARD. We will find the offending Member and point them 

out to you. 

Mr. RYAN. I want to know who it is, too. 

ENERGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Lastly, on the demonstration projects, can you talk a little bit 

more about that? Is it just going to be that you have, for example, 

solar panels, different ones? I mean, how are you going to proceed? 

Mr. BEARD. What we did is we have put out a call for procurement proposals. 

Mr. RYAN. These will all actually be providing energy for the 

Capitol? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. Well, energy or energy-efficient technology. And 

the purpose here is the one advantage we have as a institution we 

can set an example. And this is a way in which we can bring in 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
466 

and demonstrate some new technology that can be integrated with 

an office environment that we have here and help promote the development of green technologies. 

We put out a call for proposals. We have received 40 proposals. 

We now have a technical team going through them to evaluate 

each one of them for their merits and what it is they demonstrate, 

their feasibility. And then we have requested funds to initiate the 

program this year. And we will wait to see how much money we 

have and then make the awards for the various projects. 

For example, we have had interesting proposals to use skylights 

in the Longworth cafeteria and LED lighting, both of which would 

significantly reduce our lighting costs in the Longworth cafeteria. 

Solar lighting and LED lighting at the loading docks in Rayburn. 

So there is a wide variety of proposals. I can’t really speak to the 

individual ones because we haven’t selected them yet. So they are 

still in the procurement process. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. 

Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I just want to be clear for the record, Ryan, Timmy, I will move 

my car. 

Mr. RYAN. I didn’t mean to make it public, but—I just don’t want 

it to happen again. 

ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM CONTINUED

Mr. LATOURETTE. I recognized your handwriting in the dust. 

Those are Ryan’s fingerprints all over my car. 

I want to thank you all for your service, and, Madam Clerk, especially to you. Sadly, I probably know more about the Electronic 

Voting System than I probably should as a result of our special 

committee. 

Ms. MILLER. It is a good thing. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. It is a good thing. 

Madam Chair, I might recommend that the Clerk gives a great 

demonstration about how the system works. And aside from the information that you were talking about, I would bet that less than 

10 percent of the Members know how the machine really works. 

And I think it is important. And the only observation I would make 

is that as you—and I know you will because of your dedication and 

commitment to getting it right—that the bells and whistles not impact the integrity of the system. Because the one thing about the 

Electronic Voting System that I learned is that every Member 

should have confidence that their vote is counted, and it is counted 

correctly. And, Madam Chair, I don’t know if you are a nervous 

voter like I am, but it not only records when you vote, but it 

records each time you put in your card to check your vote, and it 

is listed what time you did that. 

Ms. MILLER. There are 46 voting stations on the Floor, and if you 

vote in station number 1 and decide to check it in station 21, we 

know it, what time you do it and how long it took you to check it. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. It is a fascinating system. And I think 1976— 

I would say to my colleague from Ohio, I believe there is a fellow 

who played quarterback for the Cleveland Browns named Frank 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
467 

Ryan, who, when he retired, got a Ph.D. in mathematics, came and 

worked for the House Admin and helped install the Electronic Voting System. He was the better Ryan from Ohio. 

BADGING SYSTEM CONTINUED

Mr. RYAN. He was a Republican; is that what you mean? 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I don’t know if he was a Republican. 

Mr. Livingood, the discussion of biometrics. I am a big believer 

of biometrics. As I understand your upgrade, the new IDs will be 

biometric. It will be an add-on down the road, and it is not going 

to be included in what you currently—— 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. That is correct. It could be added on, which we 

don’t have the capability today. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I think that the people who make the 

magnetometers that are all over here, it is an Italian company, and 

they had a demonstration where you can walk through with the 

biometrics and the card. The officer can see that it is you; that you 

are, you know, 5–11, 210 pounds; that you have blonde hair. And 

maybe that goes to Mr. Aderholt’s difficulty with the lines. You 

know, they now have these Clear systems at airports if you are 

prescreened, and perhaps we could have a staff line, and they could 

go through with their biometric card, and that may help you reduce 

things, too. Have you explored the cost as you are adding on? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. We have looked at adding on with the smart 

card part, and biometrics would do that. It depends on how many 

we use and which ones. And we have been experimenting with various—for some time. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Is it significant, the cost? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. I don’t think it is that—— 

Mr. KAELIN. The actual cost of the cards themselves are significantly more expensive than what we pay now for the cards we use. 

And the rate of turnover—we reissue every card every 2 years—we 

will have to modify it, buy much more expensive cards. We will 

have to modify that process as well. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. When you are not busy, if someone could price 

it out, I would be interested in knowing how much it would cost 

for giving every staff member a biometric card. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If you could do that. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Madam Speaker, on the issue of the fellow 

with 25 lost cards, I saw a former Member here with a beautiful 

set of cufflinks that looked like the congressional pin. And he said 

he had them made every Congress. And I said, well, how do you 

do that? He said, I always go to the Clerk and pretend I have lost 

my pin, and then I have two at the end of Congress. 

Ms. MILLER. I don’t do the Member pin. That comes from the 

Sergeant at Arms. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I am telling you, there is a black market operation in Congress. 

Mr. HONDA. They make great tie clips. 

Mr. RYAN. I saw a pair of those cufflinks on that car, you know. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Oh, boy. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
468 

HEARING ROOM MODERNIZATION

Just the last question, if I may, to you, Mr. Beard, on modernizing the hearing rooms, $10.2 million. Will that complete the last 

six committees? 

Mr. BEARD. It will complete the last six committees. But then, of 

course, all the committee Chairs will come back and say they need 

to have their subcommittee hearing rooms done, and there is about 

29 of those. But the important thing, I think, for the Members, is 

every committee will have an up-to-date system, which is then fed 

into the House recording studio where we can preserve the record 

and then make it available to Members who want to clip it and put 

it up on YouTube or whatever else they want to do with them. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And do you give the committees the room that 

they ask for? Does the Chairman say, this is what I want, and you 

build it? Let me ask you why. I used to be on the T&I committee. 

In front of me there was a plug that I could have plugged in like 

a toaster and something else, and then there was a phone jack. I 

don’t ever remember taking my phone to—so did Don Young say, 

I have got to have a phone jack and a plug at every station, or 

did—— 

Mr. BEARD. No. What we do with the individual committees is 

a negotiation process with the committee Chair. And when they 

tend to go off in a very expensive direction, we tend to try to pull 

them back. It is a negotiation process because the cost generally is 

somewhere between $800,000 and $1 million for each room that we 

do. And now new technology is coming out, so everybody wants the 

latest. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome. 

I sense from reviewing weekly reports that there is a negotiation 

that the CAO engages in. I have seen commentary wherein the 

ideas of the committee Chairs come in far more expensive than was 

anticipated, and although I don’t see the give-and-take, you can tell 

that when it is being reevaluated, that perhaps the plans were too 

ambitious on the part of some Chairs. So thank you. 

CAO RESPONSIVENESS

I wanted to ask you about a couple of things on which we have 

gotten consistent feedback from Members. Do you have a standing 

procedure for meeting with Members and their staff, and for knowing how well you are serving their needs? I am not just talking 

about First Call. I am talking about your general responsiveness 

when a Member or their staff seeks assistance. 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. Any request that comes from a Member to meet, 

we meet with them immediately. And we respond to all requests. 

They are our customers. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you have a feedback system in 

place? Do you measure how Members are feeling about the responsiveness of the CAO’s office? 

Mr. BEARD. We do have feedback. We do have feedback systems. 

Maybe if I knew the particular issue, I could address it. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
469 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well it is not one, it is many; otherwise I wouldn’t be asking the question. 

Mr. BEARD. Well, what I would say is there are times when we 

have to say no to people, and many times Members don’t like the 

no answer. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. For example, do you meet with the 

Chiefs of Staffs regularly so that you are getting their input on a 

consistent basis? And are you responsive to requests? 

Mr. BEARD. We meet with the office administrators and bipartisan Chiefs of Staff organization, yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. How often? 

Mr. BEARD. They met 2 weeks ago. They meet once a month. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And you are there? 

Mr. BEARD. I haven’t been to that one, but I have been to the 

other Chiefs of Staff meetings. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. When you are developing your 

strategic planning process, are you incorporating anything related 

to outreach and feedback practices on the part of your office? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. Well, we have developed that, submitted it to 

the committee, and a number one priority that we have is to make 

sure that we reach out to the Members. Now we have HouseNet, 

we have electronic communications that we send. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. I am talking about face-to-face, 

contact and feedback and the opportunity for input on the part of 

senior staff and Members’ offices. 

Mr. BEARD. Well, all I can say is that we meet on a regular basis 

with anybody who would like to meet. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. How often is regularly? Is it every 2 

weeks, once a month, every quarter? 

Mr. BEARD. I guess I can’t put it into those words. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because it is not regular or because—— 

Mr. BEARD. I mean, the Chiefs of Staff meet, and they have 

issues they want to discuss with the CAO’s office. We send representatives. We send representatives from payroll and finance and 

try to address those issues. But once again, there are times when 

we have to go to those meetings, and we tell people things they 

may not want to hear, or we don’t give them the answer that they 

want, and that sometimes is where the rub occurs, that they don’t 

like the answer that they are receiving. 

One example was a training contract. Now, I had questions about 

the training contract and the procurement process that was used 

for that training contract, and the Chiefs of Staff wanted us to 

award that contract. Well, I wasn’t going to award the contract 

until I was satisfied that the procurement process was above board. 

So that was a rub. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. I would like to facilitate a 

meeting and ensure that the meeting happens with the head of the 

Chiefs of Staff association, because the feedback we are getting is 

that the Chiefs of Staff too often are reading about decisions that 

your office has made in Roll Call as opposed to getting advanced 

notice about them. It obviously makes it more difficult for a Member’s office to function if they are hearing about policy changes that 

way. Since there isn’t a clear understanding on your part, then 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
470 

there seems to be a lack of communication. If we facilitate a face 

to face meeting, we can ensure that would happen. 

PAYROLL AND FINANCE OPERATIONS

The other issue that I have I can tell you that I have gotten calls 

and written communications in my own office—is the problems that 

your office appears to be having with the payroll and finance operations. You have a very high turnover in that office, as I understand. What seems to be the problem with that particular—— 

Mr. BEARD. Well, I would split those in two. I think what you 

are talking about is the finance office. We did have problems with 

payroll. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I know. I participated in meetings related to that. 

Mr. BEARD. We think we have corrected the problems in the payroll office by changing personnel, moving people to other parts of 

the organization, bringing new people in. 

The new challenge we have now is in the finance area. We have 

had four vacancies that have occurred. And so yesterday we 

brought in a new manager for the group, and we are proceeding to 

undertake a series of changes in our personnel, the way in which 

we are allocating the work and undertaking the work. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you feel you have a system in 

place that makes your employees feel that you are responsive to 

them and their concerns? 

Mr. BEARD. I do, but I don’t think that we have had as strong 

a leadership in those areas that we really need to have, it needs 

both management and leadership. 

I think the other thing you have to understand here is that the 

individual finance clerks and payroll clerks develop a relationship 

with an individual office, and we will say to the office, you know, 

I may not like this, or I don’t like this, or this is happening to me, 

at which point the office says, well, we will go to bat for you and 

jump in. So I am sort of leading sort of a two-part war here; not 

war, but conversation between different groups in the finance area. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My time has expired, but I think it 

is imperative—and, again, I am raising this because it has been 

consistent feedback that I have gotten in my own office about the 

things that are occurring in yours—that you have a policy and a 

work environment in which employees feel that they can bring concerns and get them addressed. If you are acknowledging that you 

don’t think that process in your office is very strong, then that is 

something that I would like to assign you to develop and report 

back to the committee. How long do you think you need to report 

back to the committee? 

Mr. BEARD. Ninety days. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ninety days is too long. 

Mr. BEARD. Sixty days then. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We will come up with an appropriate 

date for you to follow up with the committee when you have gotten 

that system in place. 

Mr. BEARD. Okay. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Aderholt. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
471 

STAFF LINES

Mr. ADERHOLT. Let me just follow back up with Mr. Livingood. 

As my time had run out a little bit earlier, you mentioned the fact 

that you had instituted a policy where the Members can come into 

the front of the lines in the building. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Staff. Members can always. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Staff for the Members could come to the front of 

the line, but you had some push-back from some Members; what 

about establishing a dedicated door for the staffers? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. We have looked at that in the past, dedicated 

door for staffers, but sometimes, like when you have a lot of tourists, there are only four or five staff that want to come in, and they 

are the ones that are at the back of the line. But it is sort of a 

waste of personnel. You have to have your bag still and X-ray, so 

you are cutting another door down for visitors. 

We instituted several years ago, one of the committees asked us 

to institute a visitors door for a month, and we tried that. We did 

one at every building. So what that did was put a heavier load on 

the other doors for visitors. 

So we are constant. We talk about it quite often. It is not beyond 

our realm to look at that again. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. You said you wanted to get back with the Capitol 

Police. Maybe you could get back with the committee on some recommendations that you all—after talking to Capitol Police and Sergeant over there as to some alternatives that could help out. 

Like I said, that is one thing that I have probably heard the most 

about is the long lines, and also coupled with the fact—I know 

sometimes you will have an influx, and yesterday was sort of a 

weird day with the three heads of state that were here and a lot 

of visitors. But generally speaking, it seems like there has been 

some consistency in the Longworth Building. So I would appreciate 

your looking at that. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. You bet. I would be happy. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Also, I want to thank you for your work on the— 

I know we sometimes have a special request for groups that come 

in that have to get a special permit to do things that are out of 

the norm. So I appreciate your office working with Members on trying to help facilitate that. Just yesterday, we had—out at the Botanical Gardens we had the Brain Tumor Foundation mobile unit 

doing brain scans/MRIs for the last 2 days, and I know that is not 

something normally you have on the Capitol grounds, and it takes 

somebody special to look at that. And I appreciate your going the 

extra mile to look at that, because it was a great success. I was 

down there yesterday for the event by the Botanical Gardens, and 

they had a tremendous turnout from Members and staff, to my understanding. 

But again, thank you for taking the time to look at that and say, 

this is something legitimate. This is something that needs to be 

looked at. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. That is our purpose. That is what we should be 

doing. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I appreciate you paying attention to those things. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
472 

ENERGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS CONTINUED

Mr. Beard, let me ask you. I think in your request is $10 million 

for the energy conservation projects. What are some of the things 

that are going to be involved with that $10 million that is requested? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, this is specifically for demonstration projects of 

innovative energy, for energy conservation technology, as well as to 

demonstrate innovative approaches to providing electricity, and 

also to the operation of our existing systems. For example, one of 

the proposals we have received is for a wireless technology to monitor and to improve controls for heating and cooling, which will reduce energy consumption and provide greater flexibility. So we 

have a wide range of technologies. 

The purpose of this was to provide a location, for the House to 

be a location for innovative technologies, to demonstrate it and to 

demonstrate that these technologies can meet energy and conservation needs in a working environment. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. You talk about the lighting like in the Longworth 

cafeteria. 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. You mentioned the skylighting. 

Mr. BEARD. I did. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Of course, being in the location where it is, I 

guess it would be more difficult to do skylighting for the basement 

of buildings. 

Mr. BEARD. Well, actually in the Longworth cafeteria, that was 

a courtyard at one time, and a roof was put over it, and that is 

where the cafeteria came from. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So it could be—— 

Mr. BEARD. We are working with the House Superintendent to 

look at the possibility of a green roof on top of that, which would 

reduce energy costs and heating in that area; a green roof as well 

as harvesting sunlight, which would then eliminate or significantly 

reduce the need for artificial lighting, and the lighting that we 

would put in there would be energy-efficient lighting. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Would the gentleman yield for a second? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Sure. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. This proposal is to fulfill the requirements of the Wamp-Lofgren bill, correct? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes, it is. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just wanted to make sure. Thank 

you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I know also there are $17 million that are included in the Architect of the Capitol for doing similar things. I am 

just wondering how those compare to each other, what your $10 

million request is and their $17 million for the Architect of the 

Capitol, and how they are different in that respect. 

Mr. BEARD. Well, I can’t speak to the Architect’s request since I 

haven’t seen those particular items, but ours is a demonstration 

project. More than anything, what we are doing is taking technology that may not be totally within the marketplace and providing an opportunity for the companies to demonstrate their abilVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00472 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
473 

ity to meet needs in the marketplace. And so I guess if you would 

try to differentiate between the two, ours is a—I don’t want to use 

a higher-risk phrase, but at least it is more—trying to use more innovative technologies and approaches to dealing with these problems. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. But just to follow up on what you mentioned, you 

are saying that you are not sure exactly the details of what the Architect will be doing? 

Maybe, Chair, if I may just suggest some cooperation and coordination between the Architect and the Chief Administrative Officer 

as to things that maybe are duplicative efforts there that could 

be—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That has actually been something 

that I have been concerned about since the beginning, and I think 

there is duplication of effort in which we can sort out which one 

would be solely responsible for particular items. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. It would just make sense that they just work together because they are both working toward the same goal. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Beard and I have talked about 

that at a different time. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

HOUSE COMPENSATION SURVEY

To Mr. Beard, I just want to thank you for your meeting that we 

had March 18 where we got a couple of things cleared up. You explained to Congresswoman Davis and myself the dynamics behind 

the cancellation of the House Compensation Survey, which is being 

reinstituted. It is a great tool that our Chiefs of Staff use for planning, so I really appreciate that; and reinstituted some of the many 

service courses for our staff. That helps provide us training 

throughout the Capitol. And also the Diversity Day, the Track Caucus that we are looking at. We are very grateful for that information. So I just want to acknowledge that. 

Mr. BEARD. Thank you. 

PAGE PROGRAM

Mr. HONDA. To the pages, I am glad that you are looking at expanding some of the areas that they may be used in committee 

work and things like that. Has that ever been done before where 

a new crop of youngsters come in that come before the House and 

just sort of welcome them and, before they leave, thank them? 

Ms. MILLER. That has been done on a couple of occasions, once 

since I have been Clerk. It rarely happens. It is something we could 

do, but it is always an impediment to the Floor schedule, and you 

have to find the right time. We could probably do that. 

Mr. HONDA. It could just take a minute or two to have them 

stand up and us recognize them, because they spend a lot of time. 

Ms. MILLER. Mr. Kildee, who is our current Chair, I will mention 

it to him and see if we can work that out. 

Mr. HONDA. Because they love what they are doing. 

Ms. MILLER. Yes, they do. 

Mr. HONDA. And they have a lot of fun watching us. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
474 

Ms. MILLER. Well, they learn a lot. The young people had their 

U.N. project about 3 weeks ago. You would be surprised at how 

they mimic what the Members do on the Floor. Some of them were 

taking your—— 

Mr. HONDA. Oh. 

Ms. MILLER. They take your positions, and they would say to us, 

Oh, this is what Congressman so-and-so thinks about this, and this 

is the position. So they really do pay attention to what the Members are doing on the Floor. 

Mr. HONDA. Just to say thank you and welcome. It is just a matter of a couple minutes and just an acknowledgement. 

Ms. MILLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HONDA. I think it is appropriate. 

And then the courses that they take. I understand it is pretty 

rigorous. 

Ms. MILLER. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA. Are they also getting the kinds of instructions that 

we talk about in our committees where it is comprehensive instruction on, say, global warming, curriculum around that? 

Ms. MILLER. You would be surprised at the number of Members 

that take the time to come over. We have an energy course, and 

some Members from the Energy and Commerce Committee have 

come over and given little seminars in the morning to the Pages 

in their general assembly. So we integrate a lot of the Members in 

the curriculum, particularly when it dovetails with what they are 

studying and what is going on in the Congress. We take advantage 

of that, yes. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you very much. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

PRICES IN HOUSE CAFETERIAS

Mr. Beard, I want to go over something very personal to most 

House employees and people who are in the Capitol every day, and 

that is food. 

Most complaints that I hear, and I know Members hear from 

their staff and others, are concerns over the House cafeterias. We 

discussed this last year. Compared to last year, it seems to have 

gotten worse, at least in the feedback I have been consistently getting, particularly regarding the prices. Your staff provided some 

historical information on the cost issue that showed that the average check in the cafeteria increased by about 31 percent between 

January of 2007 and January of 2009. For example, the average 

cafeteria check in 2007 was $3.62, and the average in 2009 was 

$4.74. 

We also did some of our own research. For the three bidders for 

the food service contracts in 2006 that were asked to bid on the 

price of a Reuben sandwich, which was the example used for quality and pricing, the RA bid showed a cost of $5.50 compared to 

$4.50 and $4.75. Last week Restaurant Associates charged $6.25 

for a Reuben sandwich in the Rayburn deli. By comparison, that 

same sandwich sells today for $4.75 in the Star Deli in downtown 

Manhattan. 

That is pretty clear evidence of outrageous prices for the food 

here. And our staff are all public servants dealing with a salary in 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
475 

which, you know, their costs to feed themselves during the day 

multiple times, sometimes breakfast, lunch, and dinner because of 

the hours they work, is important. And, I mean, a 30 percent increase is really over the top. 

Do you have an explanation for that? Is there any way to work 

on that issue? It seems that the prices have gone beyond what we 

anticipated. 

Mr. BEARD. I don’t think they are beyond what we anticipated. 

A number of things have occurred during the period that you cited. 

As we provided the information to the committee, the Consumer 

Price Index for foodstuffs has gone up. You know, the highest increase in the last 20 years took place in the last 2 years, and in 

some cases it is for the basic ingredients, eggs, fat. They had fuel 

charges imposed on them as well. So as a result, instead of having 

a 2 or 3 percent increase in food prices, in some cases it was 14 

percent. I guess you could pick out individual items like a Reuben 

sandwich, but there are still other items. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, I just picked that because that 

is the item that we used to bid the contract. 

Mr. BEARD. I am sure. But what I would say is that, the kind 

of conditions that we impose on our vendor for this service and our 

clientele imposes on them is costly when we ask for better quality; 

we ask for nutritious meals; we ask for fresh food; we ask for 

made-from-scratch. We want local food. We want union staff. We 

want commissions to come to the House. We want a touch-and-go 

system that provides a 10 percent discount for Members, which we 

have provided. We have very onerous security requirements, an example is that you can’t really get a truck to just drive up here. It 

takes at least a half a day turnaround time for that. And we also 

have a clientele that I think is not shy about—voicing their opinions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I understand all that. But was a 30 

percent increase anticipated when we gave Restaurant Associates 

the contract? 

Mr. BEARD. No, but a 30 percent increase didn’t happen with all 

costs. In some cases, it may have gone up 30 percent, but in other 

cases, it hasn’t gone up 30 percent. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is the average, though. The average is 30 percent. 

Mr. BEARD. Did we anticipate that? No, we did not. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Why not? 

Mr. BEARD. Why not? I mean, I don’t think anybody could have 

anticipated in 2005 or 2006 that food prices were going to increase 

to the degree they have in 2007 and 2008. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. But I don’t think it is fair to 

our employees to expect them to sustain that type of an increase 

in the cost of food that they have to pay for every day. Is there anything that can be done about it? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What? 

Mr. BEARD. We can subsidize it. The simple answer is that we 

can subsidize the operation. Remember that the directive to us is 

that we are to make commissions. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
476 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Speaking of the commission, we make 

a 3 percent commission. Is that part of the cost? 

Mr. BEARD. In one portion of it, yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is double the historic commission and double that of the other bidders. How much money was 

paid to the House in commissions last year and how are those 

funds being used? 

Mr. BEARD. Approximately $1.1 million was made in 2008, but 

we invested that back into improvements in the cafeteria, greening 

costs associated with that, and some of those other items. That 

goes into the House Services Revolving Account, and we then made 

those funds available for improvements in the cafeteria. 

We are operating, under the previous contract and, the commis- sions were about $299,000 a year. So the short answer is, yes, we 

can reduce food prices, but what it would take is a reversal of our 

directive. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The only solution is subsidies? 

Mr. BEARD. I don’t know. You have a private-sector vendor, and 

I suppose we could order them to reduce the costs, but then that 

would decrease the revenue, which would then lead to changes, and 

they would have to cut costs as well. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. I will come back to you on that. 

CVC CAFETERIA

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. On the CVC cafeteria, we were hopeful last year and in this hearing you expressed the goal of the CVC 

cafeteria reducing traffic in the House cafeteria system. From what 

I have observed and from the feedback that we have gotten, I don’t 

think that the CVC cafeteria had any impact at all. That is very 

likely because the policy in place at the CVC cafeteria is to discourage House staff from going there. I started using the CVC cafeteria 

and found that the House touch-and-go system isn’t in place there. 

I don’t really understand why that is. When I asked I was told they 

don’t want Capitol staff going over there. Why is that? 

Mr. BEARD. I think the first answer is, you would have to ask 

the Architect, who is in control of that cafeteria. But the answer 

is it is a joint facility run jointly with the Senate. So all the decisions would have to be made with the Senate. The Senate doesn’t 

have the touch-and-go system that we have. And the reason it 

hasn’t decreased the traffic into our restaurants is our restaurants 

are less expensive than the prices in the CVC cafeteria. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I know that. 

Mr. BEARD. So, as a result, many people are encouraging tourists 

to go over to the Longworth cafeteria Cannon Cafe or the Rayburn. 

But the CVC restaurant is a facility run and operated by the Architect, not by the House. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The contractor is Restaurant Associates there as well. 

Mr. BEARD. It is the same contractor. 

FAIR TRADE COFFEE BRAND

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Lastly, what is the status of the fair 

trade coffee company that we use? I don’t drink coffee, but the concern that I have heard expressed is that we have a very small venVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00476 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
477 

dor that we are using for the fair trade coffee. There are many fair 

trade vendors that we could use that are larger, that have more 

employees. There have been a lot of complaints about this. Are you 

looking into those? What is the status of that? 

Mr. BEARD. No, but I can. The company is Pura Vida Coffee out 

of Seattle, and it is a fair trade coffee company. It is a nonprofit 

in that the profits from the company are made available to the coffee growers. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. This is an issue that Mr. Lewis raised 

last year. It appears to still be a problem. 

Mr. BEARD. In the selection of Pura Vida, what we did was layout the requirements that we wanted fair trade coffee, invited multiple vendors, and then we invited the House community to a taste 

off. We certainly can do that again. We can have employees come 

and taste the coffee and vote for their selection. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I don’t know if the opinion is universal. I just know that I have heard some feedback about it. That 

is all I have. 

TRAINING STAFF RELOCATION

Mr. ADERHOLT. Let me mention one thing about the House training staff. We understand that there has been movement of the 

training staff from the Learning Center in the Longworth Building 

to the Ford Office Building. And I think someone from your office 

has said that it was decided that the Greening of the Capitol needed to be in a more visible position being in Longworth. And there 

were some concerns maybe there was a higher priority put on the 

Greening of the Capitol program than the professional development 

training for congressional staff. I just wanted to ask you about 

that, and were those offices moved over to the Ford Building? And 

what was the reason behind that? 

Mr. BEARD. The primary reason behind it is that we have expanded our Green the Capitol staff. We need more space. We want 

to make sure that they were in the ring around the Longworth cafeteria; it is not necessary for the training staff to be outside the 

Longworth cafeteria. We have the space in the Ford Building and 

we have the facilities to be able to do that. It made sense to move 

some classroom space over, and then also move some of the staff 

over to the Ford Building where we already handle some of our 

training. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So the Greening of the Capitol staff is located 

near the cafeteria, is that what you are saying? 

Mr. BEARD. They are currently in B208—when you come up out 

of the Rayburn Building on the escalators and come out of the 

Longworth elevators, there is a room just to your left and that is 

where they currently are located. But they are piled inside there, 

and we think they don’t have enough space; they don’t have sufficient space for their needs. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I guess the question, is it necessary that they 

have to be in that location and moving the professional training 

folks out of there? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. I feel that they should be located there. Because 

I think that, you know, the question here was, I guess your question was, is it necessary to give them higher visibility? And my anVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:19 Jul 01, 2009 Jkt 050439 PO 00000 Frm 00477 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A439P2.XXX A439P2

tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
478 

swer to that would be yes. This is a high-priority program for the 

Speaker, and it is something that she has been very interested in 

accomplishing and promoting. I think that it makes sense to assist 

effort that by having the staff located in a central location and a 

very visible location. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Is it more important than the professional training development office? Has the Speaker put a priority on Greening 

over the professional training? 

Mr. BEARD. You would have to ask the Speaker what her views 

are. As far as I am concerned, it makes more sense to have the 

trainers in the Ford Building where they are needed, and people 

can easily access them. Of the 670 people who work for me, probably only about 100 are located up campus. The remainder are in 

the Ford Building. It has good facilities and ample room. 

And you know, this is a typical problem that we have with space. 

Our finance people, for example, are crammed into two different locations. It would be great if we could co-locate them. I just can’t 

find the space to do that right now. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So I guess it is just sort of a decision whether 

you put the professional development training staff in the Ford 

Building or the Greening, and you just made the decision to put 

the Greening staff in the Longworth. 

RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES

Does the same—going back to the restaurant food issue. Do the 

restaurant people who handle the contracts for inside the Longworth Building, do they also handle the Members’ dining room and 

buffet and all that? Is that all the same company? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes, all the catering. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Is under one company? 

Mr. BEARD. One company. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Because I have noticed the difference in the 

prices with the—I was down in the Capitol Visitor Center a few 

days ago and was a little bit shocked about the prices of some of 

the food in the Capitol Visitor Center. It is almost—but it was unbelievable. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Aderholt, I can tell you that the 

response I got originally about the difference; it is a separate contract but the same vendor. And Ms. Rouse’s answer was that the 

prices there are supposed to be competitive with other museum 

cafeterias, like the Smithsonian. Only at those cafeterias, there is 

choice whereas in the CVC, there isn’t. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. 

And then another thing, does the contractor that you deal with— 

and it is this restaurant association—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Restaurant Associates, yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Restaurant Associates, do they provide the eating 

utensils and things, forks and spoons? 

Mr. BEARD. It is a cost of doing business. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I am just saying, do they provide that, or does 

the House provide that? 

Mr. BEARD. We consult with them on which utensils are to be 

purchased, and then they just purchase it. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
479 

Mr. ADERHOLT. The reason I mention that, I have not personally 

experienced, but as far as the utensils, not holding up as far as 

melting and liquids and things like that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They are biodegradable. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. That is all I have. 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

GREENING THE CAPITOL

I have one more question. I am very supportive of the Greening 

of the Capitol initiative, but I hope we have a process in place in 

which we are evaluating which pieces of it are working and which 

aren’t, so that we can phase out the ones that aren’t. 

On the bike-sharing program, from what I understand, there are 

only three or four bikes being checked out right now every week, 

and you are asking for $200,000 for that program. Have you evaluated whether there are problems with that program or whether 

that is something in the greening program that we should phase 

out? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, we evaluated the program, did an analysis and 

presented it to the Committee on House Administration in December. The original money that we reprogrammed to undertake this 

was a pilot project, and we sought to do it. 

We now have 180 members. Usage goes down in the winter, of 

course, but it is my hope that we can build the program back up. 

One of the limiting factors has been our inability to have kind of 

a touch-and-go kind of system, and that is why we are requesting 

additional funds for next year to be able to have a different checkout system that can be done faster. The problem we have now is, 

you have to go in, get a key, go out, do it that way. 

So the major expense is just in the racking systems that we want 

to have. If we made it easier to use, I am convinced usage will go 

up, and I think it is a worthy investment. We have been undertaking it not so much as a greening issue but as a wellness issue 

because our employees sit all day, and if we can at least get them 

out to get them some exercise in some way, that’s great. It is a 

pretty low-cost way. I think we spent $25,000 on the program. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Maybe your employees sit all day. 

Mine don’t sit all day. 

Mr. BEARD. Many of our employees sit all day. So it, as a 

wellness issue, it really is something that is worthwhile. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is. I do support the greening program, but do you have a process in place for the greening initiative 

that evaluates components of it to see which ones are working and 

which ones aren’t working? 

Mr. BEARD. We meet once a week with the Architect of the Capitol to go over the 150 items that we jointly are working on in the 

greening process. We have a contractor in place, ICF, who has 

helped us develop a mechanism to be able to track and evaluate 

the success or failure of individual members and individual actions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Just to follow up on that line of questioning, in the 

evaluations, do you have a panel of scientists who are in that arena 

that does look at that and helps evaluate? 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
480 

Mr. BEARD. We have been using, as our technical consultants 

and help us evaluate things, Lawrence Berkeley National Labs out 

of Berkeley. I think we have been very pleased with the work. They 

also have enabled us to get assistance from the Department of Energy on a number of different issues. 

Mr. HONDA. Maybe we can work with the White House. They 

have got a lot of folks over there. 

Mr. BEARD. Well, they have actually come over here to see what 

we are doing. 

Mr. HONDA. Great. The knives and forks and spoons that were 

mentioned in the cafeteria, I understand those are biodegradable, 

so they have to be—you can’t leave them in hot water for too long, 

I guess. 

Mr. BEARD. We have run experiments where we have put them 

in boiling water to see what happens, and they haven’t disappeared. 

Mr. HONDA. They seem to hold up. 

The way it was rearranged, the Longworth cafeteria was to have 

a nice bright thing, and I think, a what do you call it, a skylight 

to add some natural light to it. And so I guess we are trying to do 

our part in terms of getting some of this biodegradable stuff out 

there. I feel less guilty. 

Mr. BEARD. Well, that is good. 

Mr. HONDA. In the science, the American Chemistry Society, yesterday I saw a project from a college student that developed biodegradable plastic cups, and maybe I would like to just have them 

give some of the materials and see if that is something we might 

want to look at. 

Mr. BEARD. Well, our water, the water that is sold in the House 

cafeterias is in a biodegradable bottle. And it is a corn-based product made in Iowa and then shipped to Virginia, where it is filled 

with spring water. And then all of our cups also are biodegradable 

and are integrated in with our composting program, where we take 

everything and compost it. 

But you know, we sell 100,000 bottles of water a year. So it is 

a lot of water we serve, one of the challenges we have is we serve 

240,000 meals a month. So our suppliers have to be able to meet 

pretty stringent supply requirements, because you have got to have 

a lot of volume, you have to keep up with our needs. 

Mr. HONDA. I didn’t know that. I guess the next step is to have 

waterless latrines. 

Mr. BEARD. Yes, that is easy to do, and they are commercially 

available in the marketplace. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Just to follow up, personally, I like eating with 

stainless steel that you can wash. I really don’t care to eat with 

plastic. I am just repeating feedback I am getting from other people. Maybe there is a way to get stronger biodegradable utensils in 

the cafeteria. 

Mr. HONDA. I know what you mean—— 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And the straws. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I hate the paper straws. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. But that is all I have. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
481 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. I want to thank each of the officers for being with us this morning and for your service again. 

And please take back to your employees how much we appreciate 

their hard work and the hours that they put in and the sacrifice 

that they make and that their families make to help make the 

world a better place. 

ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENTS FROM THE CHAIR

I do want to give you some assignments, Mr. Beard, before you 

go. The issue of creating a system for determining how well the 

CAO office is meeting the needs of Member offices and House employees is a customer service issue. I would like you to prepare a 

report for the committee by July 1st to describe your current feedback systems; what types of services are measured; how often these 

measurements are taken; and any inclusions that you believe need 

to be made to improve the CAO’s efforts to measure how well you 

are doing in serving Members and staff. 

Please also describe in the report your current model for reaching out to Members offices about any significant issues as well as 

any enhancements you believe may be warranted in that model. 

And when you prepare this report, please include a separate section on your system for receiving input from your own staff and 

employees within the CAO on issues and problems that they face, 

and your system for responding to those concerns. 

Mr. BEARD. Okay. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

With that, if there is no other Member or item before the committee, the subcommittee stands in recess subject to the call of the 

Chair. Thank you. 

[The prepared statements of the House Inspector General, Law 

Revision Counsel, General Counsel, and the Legislative Counsel 

follow:] 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
482 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 895 here 50439B.129
483 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 896 here 50439B.130
484 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 897 here 50439B.131
485 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 898 here 50439B.132
486 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 899 here 50439B.133
487 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 900 here 50439B.134
488 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 901 here 50439B.135
489 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 902 here 50439B.136
490 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 903 here 50439B.137
491 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 904 here 50439B.138
492 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 905 here 50439B.139
493 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 906 here 50439B.140
494 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 907 here 50439B.141
495 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 908 here 50439B.142
496 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 909 here 50439B.143
497 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 910 here 50439B.144
498 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 911 here 50439B.145
499 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 912 here 50439B.146
500 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 913 here 50439B.147
501 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 914 here 50439B.148
502 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 915 here 50439B.149
503 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 916 here 50439B.150
504 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 917 here 50439B.151
505 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 918 here 50439B.152
506 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 919 here 50439B.153
507 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 920 here 50439B.154
508 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 921 here 50439B.155
509 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 922 here 50439B.156
510 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 923 here 50439B.157
511 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 924 here 50439B.158
512 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 925 here 50439B.159
513 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 926 here 50439B.160
514 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 927 here 50439B.161
515 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 928 here 50439B.162
516 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 929 here 50439B.163
517 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 930 here 50439B.164
518 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 931 here 50439B.165
519 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 932 here 50439B.166
520 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 933 here 50439B.167
521 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 934 here 50439B.168
522 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 935 here 50439B.169
523 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 936 here 50439B.170
524 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 937 here 50439B.171
525 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 938 here 50439B.172
526 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 939 here 50439B.173
527 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 940 here 50439B.174
528 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 941 here 50439B.175
529 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 942 here 50439B.176
530 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 943 here 50439B.177
531 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 944 here 50439B.178
532 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 945 here 50439B.179
533 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 946 here 50439B.180
534 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 947 here 50439B.181
535 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 948 here 50439B.182
536 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 949 here 50439B.183
537 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 950 here 50439B.184
538 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 951 here 50439B.185
539 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 952 here 50439B.186
540 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 953 here 50439B.187
541 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 954 here 50439B.188
542 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 955 here 50439B.189
543 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 956 here 50439B.190
544 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 957 here 50439B.191
545 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 958 here 50439B.192
546 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 959 here 50439B.193
547 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 960 here 50439B.194
548 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 961 here 50439B.195
549 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 962 here 50439B.196
550 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 963 here 50439B.197
551 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 964 here 50439B.198
552 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 965 here 50439B.199
553 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 966 here 50439B.200
554 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 967 here 50439B.201
555 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 968 here 50439B.202
556 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 969 here 50439B.203
557 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 970 here 50439B.204
558 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 971 here 50439B.205
559 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 972 here 50439B.206
560 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 973 here 50439B.207
561 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 974 here 50439B.208
562 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 975 here 50439B.209
563 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 976 here 50439B.210
564 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 977 here 50439B.211
565 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 978 here 50439B.212
566 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 979 here 50439B.213
567 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 980 here 50439B.214
568 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 981 here 50439B.215
569 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 982/1200 here 50439B.216
(1) 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 001 here 50439P3.001
2 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2 here 50439P3.002
(iii) 

I N D E X 

U.S. Capitol Police 

Page 

10-Year Growth in Funding versus FTE ............................................................... 29 

Additional Assignment from the Chair (Staffing and Right-Sizing the Force) .. 39 

Bidding Process ........................................................................................................ 17 

Cameras to Assist in Evacuations .......................................................................... 23 

Capitol Police Courtesy ........................................................................................... 37 

Collective Bargaining Agreement ........................................................................... 37 

Communicating with Member Offices .................................................................... 19 

Conduct of USCP Officers ....................................................................................... 38 

Counter Surveillance Positions ............................................................................... 33 

Counterparts from Other Countries ....................................................................... 33 

CVC Security ............................................................................................................ 31 

CVC Security Savings ............................................................................................. 32 

CVC Staffing Review ............................................................................................... 31 

Encryption and Maintenance over Time ................................................................ 26 

Encryption Costs for the Radios ............................................................................. 22 

Fencing Radio Funds ............................................................................................... 28 

Flawed Staffing Model ............................................................................................ 34 

Growth in Compensation ........................................................................................ 29 

Homeland Security Grants ..................................................................................... 24 

Implementation of ELS Recommendations ........................................................... 29 

Implementation Timeline ........................................................................................ 18 

Indoor Coverage ....................................................................................................... 15 

Interoperability of the Radio System ..................................................................... 18 

New Employees to Replace Long-Term Contractors ............................................. 33 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schultz ..................................................... 01 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Aderholt ........................................................................... 02 

Opening Statement—Chief Morse .......................................................................... 03 

Accomplishments within Past Year ................................................................ 04 

Administrative Activities ................................................................................. 10 

Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 13 

Financial Management Advances ................................................................... 04 

Highlights .......................................................................................................... 08 

Operational Activities ...................................................................................... 09 

Overtime/Staffing ............................................................................................. 07 

Progress on GAO and OIG Recommendations ............................................... 03 

Overtime and the Utility of Officers to Stand Posts ............................................. 35 

Overtime Savings ..................................................................................................... 37 

Overtime Use during Core Hours ........................................................................... 34 

Prepared Statement—Chief Morse ......................................................................... 05 

Administrative Activities ................................................................................. 10 

Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 13 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
Page

iv 

Prepared Statement—Chief Morse—Continued 

Highlights .......................................................................................................... 08 

Operational Activities ...................................................................................... 09 

Overtime/Staffing ............................................................................................. 07 

Radio Modernization Project ........................................................................... 05 

Procurement and NAVAIR’s Role in Radio Procurement ..................................... 28 

Progress of Radio System Upgrades ...................................................................... 14 

Questions for the Record—Chair Wasserman Schultz ......................................... 40 

Additional Staffing Request and ELS Manpower Studies ............................ 48 

Attrition ............................................................................................................. 57 

Attrition ............................................................................................................. 87 

Building Screening Activities .......................................................................... 80 

Capitol Visitor Center ...................................................................................... 91 

Civilianization Effort ........................................................................................ 82 

Dignitary Protection Division .......................................................................... 89 

ELS Implementation Team .............................................................................. 70 

General Budget ................................................................................................. 43 

Inspector General Report on Travel ................................................................ 62 

Intelligence ........................................................................................................ 90 

Library of Congress Police Merger .................................................................. 63 

Library of Congress Transition ....................................................................... 93 

Miscellaneous .................................................................................................... 67 

Overtime ............................................................................................................ 53 

Optimum Staffing Level ................................................................................... 94 

Pay Parity ......................................................................................................... 60 

Radio Replacement Project .............................................................................. 40 

Recruitment ...................................................................................................... 84 

Staffing .............................................................................................................. 69 

Workbrain ......................................................................................................... 87 

Reducing Overtime .................................................................................................. 32 

Reliability of Cost Estimate .................................................................................... 25 

Shared Radio System .............................................................................................. 14 

Training on the Proposed System .......................................................................... 17 

Vendors and Specifications for the Radio System ................................................. 20 

Working with AOC and Timeline ........................................................................... 16 

Architect of the Capitol (AOC) 

Additional Assignment for AOC ............................................................................. 121 

Advance Reservation System .................................................................................. 119 

Bartholdi Park ......................................................................................................... 116 

Building Infestations ............................................................................................... 117 

Cannon Building Renovation .................................................................................. 115 

Capitol Complex—Status Update ........................................................................... 115 

CVC Operations ....................................................................................................... 117 

CVC Staffing ............................................................................................................ 118 

Deferred Maintenance ............................................................................................. 114 

Greening of The Capitol .......................................................................................... 120 

Opening Remarks on AOC—Chair Wasserman Schultz ...................................... 95 

Opening Remarks on AOC—Congressman Aderholt ............................................ 96 

Opening Statement—Stephen Ayers ...................................................................... 96 

AOC Accomplishments ..................................................................................... 96 

FY 2010 Budget Request and Planning .......................................................... 97 

Energy and Environmental Initiatives ........................................................... 97 

FY 2010 Operations Budget Request .............................................................. 97 

Praise for the Acting Architect ............................................................................... 120 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
Page

v 

Prepared Statement—Stephen Ayers .................................................................... 99 

Project Prioritization ............................................................................................... 116 

Questions for the Record by Committee on Appropriations—Legislative 

Branch Subcommittee .......................................................................................... 122 

Recent Accomplishments ................................................................................. 122 

Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Environmental CPP Requests ....................... 122 

Strategy To Shift Fuel Mix Away From Coal ................................................ 123 

CPP Long-Term Strategic Energy Plan .......................................................... 123 

Questions for the Record—Congresswoman Betty McCollum ............................. 125 

National Arboretum ......................................................................................... 125 

Questions for the Record—Congressman Steven C. LaTourette ......................... 125 

Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Backlog ................................... 125 

Building Maintenance and Rehabilitation Responsibilities .......................... 126 

Special Recognition .................................................................................................. 96 

Staff-Led Tour Calling Capacity ............................................................................. 119 

Staff-Led Tour Improvements ................................................................................. 120 

Staff-Led Tours ........................................................................................................ 118 

Utility Tunnel Update ............................................................................................. 120 

Congressional Budget Office 

Additional Assignment from the Chair (New Responsibilities under TARP) ..... 144 

Diversity Challenges ............................................................................................... 139 

New FTEs ................................................................................................................. 140 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schultz ..................................................... 127 

Opening Statement—Dr. Elmendorf ...................................................................... 127 

Budget Priorities .............................................................................................. 129 

CBO Mission Overview .................................................................................... 128 

CBO Staff .......................................................................................................... 128 

Financial and Housing Markets ...................................................................... 129 

Pay Back Debt ......................................................................................................... 143 

Salary Differences .................................................................................................... 140 

Statement of Douglas W. Elmendorf ...................................................................... 131 

CBO’s Work ....................................................................................................... 134 

Financial and Housing Markets ...................................................................... 133 

Growing Demand for CBO’s Analyses ............................................................ 132 

Health Care Issues ........................................................................................... 133 

Related Mission Support .................................................................................. 134 

Some Details of CBO’s FY 2010 Budget Request .......................................... 135 

TARP Issues ............................................................................................................. 141 

TARP Responsibilities ............................................................................................. 138 

Toxic Assets .............................................................................................................. 142 

Government Printing Office 

Additional Assignment from the Chair (Update on EEO Complaints) ............... 167 

Cost of Printing ........................................................................................................ 164 

EEO and Discrimination Complaints ..................................................................... 159 

EEO Goals ................................................................................................................ 160 

Electronic Access ...................................................................................................... 161 

Employee Recruitment and Retention ................................................................... 162 

Estimating Passport Production ............................................................................. 165 

Financial Situation .................................................................................................. 158 

Impact on Budget .................................................................................................... 158 

Increase in Congressional Record Volume ............................................................. 161 

New Business Development .................................................................................... 166 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
Page

vi 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schultz ..................................................... 151 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Aderholt ........................................................................... 151 

Opening Statement—Mr. Tapella .......................................................................... 152 

Other Travel Documents ......................................................................................... 166 

Prepared Statement—Mr. Tapella ......................................................................... 153 

FY 2010 Appropriations Request .................................................................... 155 

Results of FY 2008 ........................................................................................... 154 

Representation Fund ............................................................................................... 160 

Statutory Printing Requirements ........................................................................... 164 

Top Priorities for GPO ............................................................................................ 158 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

Activities Under the Presidential Transition Act ................................................. 202 

Comptroller General Annuity ................................................................................. 209 

GAO Pay System ..................................................................................................... 209 

GAO Workload ......................................................................................................... 208 

Improving the Efficiency of Recovery Act Accountability Measures ................... 203 

Initial Recovery Act Findings and Recommendations .......................................... 200 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schultz ..................................................... 189 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Aderholt ........................................................................... 189 

Opening Statement—Mr. Dodaro ........................................................................... 190 

GAO Work Covers a Wide Range of Issues .................................................... 190 

Prepared Statement—Mr. Dodaro .......................................................................... 192 

Overseas Presence ................................................................................................... 201 

Pandemic Issues ...................................................................................................... 204 

Questions for the Record ......................................................................................... 211 

Recruiting and Interns ............................................................................................ 205 

TARP Access ............................................................................................................ 206 

Tribal Recovery Act Grants .................................................................................... 207 

Union Relations ....................................................................................................... 210 

Office of Compliance 

Additional Assignment from the Chair .................................................................. 233 

Additional Office Space ........................................................................................... 231 

EEO Complaints ...................................................................................................... 230 

Hazards in Member Offices .................................................................................... 230 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schultz ..................................................... 221 

Opening Statement—Ms. Chrisler ......................................................................... 221 

Prepared Testimony—Ms. Chrisler ........................................................................ 224 

Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 228 

Prevention and Education ....................................................................................... 233 

Response to Additional Assignment from the Chair ............................................. 235 

Current and Abated Infrastructure Citations ................................................ 235 

Significant Infrastructure Issues .................................................................... 235 

OOC Current Caseload as of April 28, 2009 .................................................. 238 

Retention of Staff ..................................................................................................... 229 

Staffing Increase Requested ................................................................................... 229 

Utility Tunnel Workers ........................................................................................... 232 

Utility Tunnel Monitoring ....................................................................................... 230 

Library of Congress 

Acquisitions Policy and Workflow .......................................................................... 279 

Additional Assignment from the Chair (Digital Talking Books) ......................... 288 

Capitol Police Merger .............................................................................................. 279 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
Page

vii 

Contractual Services in CRS .................................................................................. 281 

Copyright Processing Backlog ................................................................................. 277 

Copyright Staffing, Training, and Progress .......................................................... 278 

CRS FTEs and Web-Based Services ....................................................................... 284 

CRS Internship Program ........................................................................................ 267 

Digital Library Audience and Usage ...................................................................... 274 

Digital Talking Book Status ................................................................................... 274 

Evolution of Digital Programs ................................................................................ 273 

Gateway to Cultural Knowledge ............................................................................ 264 

Hill Museum and Manuscript Library ................................................................... 266 

Importance of Ft. Meade Storage ........................................................................... 266 

Law Library Fundraising and Separate Line Item .............................................. 286 

Library’s Needs ........................................................................................................ 263 

Off-the-Shelf Products in CRS ................................................................................ 287 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schultz ..................................................... 239 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Aderholt ........................................................................... 240 

Opening Statement of the Librarian ...................................................................... 240 

Ft. Meade .......................................................................................................... 241 

Technology Infrastructure Requirements ....................................................... 240 

Outreach to Underserved Communities ................................................................ 272 

Oversight Options and Research Products ............................................................ 270 

Paper Products versus Online Access .................................................................... 288 

Peer Review in CRS ................................................................................................. 280 

Priorities and Technology Initiative ....................................................................... 262 

Public Outreach and Private Funding ................................................................... 265 

Publishing and Collections ...................................................................................... 279 

Questions for the Record—Chair Wasserman Schultz ......................................... 289 

Books for the Blind/NLS .................................................................................. 304 

Copyright Office Backlog ................................................................................. 311 

Digital Talking Book Program History ........................................................... 289 

Internal Audit Deficiencies .............................................................................. 309 

Miscellaneous .................................................................................................... 310 

Overall Budget Strategy/Strategic Technology Initiative ............................. 297 

Staffing/FTEs .................................................................................................... 301 

Section Research Managers in CRS ....................................................................... 269 

Security Breach CRS Reports ................................................................................. 285 

Separate Budget for CRS ........................................................................................ 284 

Space for Office of Compliance ............................................................................... 286 

Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan .......................................................................... 248 

Statement of Dr. James Billington ......................................................................... 242 

Additional Requirements ................................................................................. 247 

Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 247 

Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request ................................................................... 243 

Improving Access, Capabilities, and Services ................................................ 245 

Managing and Securing Collections ................................................................ 246 

Modernizing the Aging Technology Infrastructure ........................................ 243 

Reengineering Work Processes in Library Services ...................................... 246 

Statement of Marybeth Peters ................................................................................ 254 

Technology Funding versus Open World Funding ................................................ 262 

Thanks to the Library ............................................................................................. 267 

World Digital Library .............................................................................................. 264 

Open World Leadership Center 

Additional Assignment from the Chair (Fundraising Efforts) ............................. 334 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
Page

viii 

Cost Shares and Contributions ............................................................................... 330 

Discussion with Leadership in Congress ............................................................... 332 

Fundraising Efforts of Open World ........................................................................ 332 

Involvement of Members of Congress .................................................................... 329 

Judicial Branch Funding ......................................................................................... 328 

Need for Spending Reductions ................................................................................ 326 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schultz ..................................................... 315 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Aderholt ........................................................................... 315 

Opening Statement of Ambassador O’Keefe .......................................................... 315 

Effectiveness of Open World ............................................................................ 316 

Open World Strategic Plan .............................................................................. 316 

Powerful Tool for Congress .............................................................................. 317 

Other Russia Exchange Programs ......................................................................... 328 

Prepared Statement—Ambassador John O’Keefe ................................................. 318 

Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 323 

Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request ................................................................... 322 

Measures of Success ......................................................................................... 320 

Open World 2010 Plans and 2009 Activities .................................................. 321 

Open World and Congress ............................................................................... 319 

Open World and Shared Funding ................................................................... 322 

Open World Cost-Share Efforts ....................................................................... 319 

Program Countries .................................................................................................. 330 

Progress on Fundraising Efforts ............................................................................. 333 

Role of Legislative Branch in Open World ............................................................ 331 

Member and Public Witness Hearing 

American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) on GPO’s FY 2010 Request ..... 339 

Prepared Statement—Mary Alice Baish (AALL) ........................................... 343 

Publicizing the Federal Depository Library Program ................................... 351 

Testimony—Mary Alice Baish (AALL) ........................................................... 340 

Federal Depository Library Program ....................................................... 340 

Federal Digital System ............................................................................. 340 

American Bar Association (ABA) on the Library of Congress’ FY 2010 Request ...................................................................................................................... 402

Fundraising for Law Library ........................................................................... 412 

Meehan Act Provisions ..................................................................................... 412 

Prepared Statement—Thomas Susman (ABA) .............................................. 405 

Retirements at the Law Library ..................................................................... 409 

Testimony—Thomas Susman (ABA) ............................................................... 402 

Closing Remarks ...................................................................................................... 413 

Congressional Research Employees Association (CREA) on CRS’ FY 2010 

Request ................................................................................................................. 368 

Lack of Notice about New Office of Opportunity ........................................... 376 

Prepared Statement—Dennis Roth (CREA) ................................................... 371 

Subcommittee Action on CRS Telework Policy .............................................. 376 

Testimony—Dennis Roth (CREA) ................................................................... 369 

Telework at CRS ....................................................................................... 370 

Top-Down Management Style at CRS ..................................................... 370 

Upward Mobility for CRS Employees ...................................................... 369 

Congressman Holt on Reestablishing the Office of Technology Assessment 

(OTA) ..................................................................................................................... 351 

Testimony—Congressman Holt on OTA ......................................................... 351 

History of OTA .......................................................................................... 355 

Using GAO for Technology Assessments ................................................. 354 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
Page

ix 

Congressman Holt on Reestablishing the Office of Technology Assessment 

(OTA)—Continued 

Testimony—Congressman Holt on OTA—Continued 

Using National Academies for Technology Assessments ....................... 354 

Utility of OTA ............................................................................................ 352 

GAO Employee Organization on GAO’s FY 2010 Request ................................... 355 

Data on Hispanic GAO Employees ................................................................. 368 

Extent of Disparate Treatment at GAO ......................................................... 367 

Praise for GAO’s Work ..................................................................................... 368 

Prepared Statement—Ron La Due Lake (GAO Employee Organization) .... 358 

Testimony—Ron La Due Lake (GAO Employee Organization) .................... 355 

2009 Pay Agreement ................................................................................. 356 

Comptroller General Selection ................................................................. 357 

GAO Plans to Address Disparate Treatment of Minorities ................... 356 

Support for GAO’s FY 2010 Budget Request .......................................... 356 

Union’s Proposed Solutions to Disparate Treatment at GAO ....................... 366 

GPO Police Labor Committee on GPO’s FY 2010 Request .................................. 377 

Agreements with Other Law Enforcement Organizations ............................ 387 

GPO Police Physical Requirements ................................................................ 384 

GPO Police Standards ...................................................................................... 386 

GPO Security Gaps .......................................................................................... 385 

Number of GPO Police Versus Contract Guards ........................................... 386 

Passport Facility Security ................................................................................ 384 

Prepared Statement—Alvin Hardwick (GPO Police Labor Committee) ...... 380 

Role for Contract Guards in GPO Security .................................................... 385 

Testimony—Alvin Hardwick (GPO Police Labor Committee) ....................... 377 

Library of Congress Professional Guild on the Library of Congress’ FY 2010 

Request ................................................................................................................. 392 

Copyright Office Backlog ................................................................................. 400 

Library Food Service Contract ........................................................................ 401 

Library Work Environment ............................................................................. 401 

Prepared Statement—Saul Schniderman (Library of Congress Professional Guild) .................................................................................................. 395 

Testimony—Saul Schniderman (Library of Congress Professional Guild) .. 393 

Turmoil at Office of Opportunity .................................................................... 400 

National Federation of the Blind (NFB) on the Library of Congress’ Talking 

Book Program ....................................................................................................... 388 

Commercial Alternatives to Digital Talking Books ....................................... 392 

Feedback on Digital Talking Book Players .................................................... 392 

Number of Talking Book Machines ................................................................. 392 

Prepared Statement—John Pare ́ (NFB) ......................................................... 390 

Testimony—John Pare ́ (NFB) .......................................................................... 388 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schultz ..................................................... 339 

Statement for the Record—American Library Association/Association of Research Libraries .................................................................................................... 414 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Additional Assignments from the Chair (CAO Feedback and Reachout) ........... 481 

Additional Assignments from the Chair—Answers .............................................. 504 

Badging System ....................................................................................................... 459 

Badging System Continued ..................................................................................... 461 

Badging System Continued ..................................................................................... 464 

Badging System Continued ..................................................................................... 467 

CAO Responsiveness ............................................................................................... 468 

CVC Cafeteria .......................................................................................................... 476 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
Page

x 

Electronic Voting System ........................................................................................ 457 

Electronic Voting System Continued ..................................................................... 466 

Emergency Preparedness ........................................................................................ 457 

Energy Demonstration Projects .............................................................................. 465 

Energy Demonstration Projects Continued ........................................................... 472 

Entrance Lines ......................................................................................................... 460 

Evacuation Plan ....................................................................................................... 461 

Fair Trade Coffee Brand ......................................................................................... 476 

Flu Vaccinations ...................................................................................................... 462 

Garage Parking ........................................................................................................ 465 

Green the Capitol .................................................................................................... 479 

H1N1 Virus .............................................................................................................. 456 

Hearing Room Modernization ................................................................................. 468 

House Compensation Survey .................................................................................. 473 

House Library .......................................................................................................... 458 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schultz ..................................................... 419 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Aderholt ........................................................................... 419 

Opening Statement—Bill Livingood, House Sergeant-at-Arms ........................... 444 

Badging System ................................................................................................ 445 

Emergency Planning ........................................................................................ 444 

Security Matters ............................................................................................... 444 

Opening Statement—Dan Beard, CAO of the House ........................................... 434 

Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery .................................................. 435 

Green the Capitol ............................................................................................. 436 

Hearing Room Modernization .......................................................................... 435 

House Mail ........................................................................................................ 436 

Information Technology ................................................................................... 434 

Staff Benefits .................................................................................................... 434 

Wounded Warrior Program .............................................................................. 435 

Opening Statement—Lorraine Miller, Clerk of the House .................................. 420 

Clerk’s Budget Request .................................................................................... 423 

Electronic Records of Congress ........................................................................ 421 

Electronic Voting System ................................................................................. 420 

Emergency Preparedness ................................................................................. 421 

House Legislative Activity ............................................................................... 420 

Lobbying Disclosure ......................................................................................... 422 

Page Program ................................................................................................... 422 

Shirley Chisholm—Florence Kahn Portraits .................................................. 422 

Page Program ........................................................................................................... 473 

Payroll and Finance Operations ............................................................................. 470 

Prepared Statement—Bill Livingood, House Sergeant-at-Arms .......................... 447 

Prepared Statement—Dan Beard, CAO of the House .......................................... 438 

Prepared Statement—General Counsel ................................................................. 486 

Prepared Statement—Inspector General ............................................................... 482 

Prepared Statement—Law Revision Counsel ........................................................ 492 

Prepared Statement—Legislative Counsel ............................................................ 496 

Prepared Statement—Lorraine Miller, Clerk of the House ................................. 424 

Prices in House Cafeteria ....................................................................................... 474 

Questions for the Record—Chair Wasserman Schultz ......................................... 505 

Additional Questions for the Record ............................................................... 524 

Cell/Blackberry Coverage in House Expansion Space ................................... 522 

Electronic Voting Records ................................................................................ 505 

Employee Benefits ............................................................................................ 512 

Food Services .................................................................................................... 521 

Greening the Capitol ........................................................................................ 516 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING
Page

xi 

Questions for the Record—Chair Wasserman Schultz—Continued 

MRA/Employee Pay .......................................................................................... 509 

Standing Committees ....................................................................................... 514 

Swine Flu Preparedness .................................................................................. 507 

Wounded Warrior ............................................................................................. 522 

Questions for the Record—Mr. Aderholt ............................................................... 566 

Financial System Replacement Project .......................................................... 568 

FTE Vacancies .................................................................................................. 569 

House Services Revolving Fund ...................................................................... 567 

MRA ................................................................................................................... 566 

Restaurant Associates ............................................................................................. 478 

Staff Benefits ........................................................................................................... 462 

Staff Benefits Continued ......................................................................................... 464 

Staff Lines ................................................................................................................ 471

Training Staff Relocation ........................................................................................ 477 

Æ 


tjames on PRODPC75 with HEARING