U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

48–068 2008

MARKUP OF MULTIPLE BILLS AND TWO 

COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS 

MEETING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 30, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

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


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

Vice-Chairwoman 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

Ranking Minority Member 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM, Staff Director 

WILL PLASTER, Minority Staff Director 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(1) 

MARKUP OF H.R. 6339, H.R. 6474, H.R. 6475, 

H.R. 6589, H.R. 998, H.R. 6625, H.R. 6608, 

H.RES. 1207 AND COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS 

110–7 AND 110–8 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:28 a.m., in Room 

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Brady, Lofgren, Capuano, Davis of California, Davis of Alabama, Ehlers, Lungren, and McCarthy. 

Staff Present: Liz Birnbaum, Staff Director; Charles Howell, 

Chief Counsel; Jamie Fleet, Deputy Staff Director; Khalil Abboud, 

Professional Staff; Diana Rodriguez, Professional Staff; Kristie 

Muchnok, Professional Staff; Janelle Hu, Election Counsel; Jennifer Daehn, Election Counsel; Matt Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; Kyle Anderson, Press Director; Kristin McCowan, 

Chief Legislative Clerk; Daniel Favarulo, Legislative Assistant, 

Elections; Gregory Abbott, Policy Analyst; Fred Hay, Minority General Counsel; Gineen Beach, Minority Election Counsel; Ashley 

Stow, Minority Election Counsel; and Bryan T. Dorsey, Minority 

Professional Staff. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to now call the meeting on the 

House Administration Committee to order. 

We have many matters on the agenda today, as we are cleaning 

up before we take our August break. So we will try to get through 

them, hopefully. 

We have votes coming about 12:00 12:30. Maybe we can get lucky 

and not have to come back. If not, we will have to come back and 

take a recess when the votes are called. 

Okay, I would like to call the committee to order. 

For the information of the members, for any bills we report in 

the House of today’s meeting I will file a committee’s report when 

we return in September; and there will be plenty of time during 

the recess to prepare any individual views members may wish to 

submit. 

The first item on the agenda is H.R. 6339, the Federal Employees Deserve to Volunteer on the Elections Act of 2008, or 

FEDVOTE. Introduced by Vice Chair Representative Lofgren, this 

bill will provide leave for Federal employees to receive training to 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
2 

serve as poll workers. It would also direct the EAC to make grants 

to States for poll workers’ recruitment and training. 

The bill was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as the primary committee, with an additional referral 

to us to consider provisions relating to EAC. 

Without objection, I would like to submit several letters in support of the bill for the record at this point. 

Hearing no objection, I will submit them. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
3 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 7 48068.001
4 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 8 48068.002
5 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 9 48068.003
6 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 10 48068.004
7 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 11 48068.005
8 

The CHAIRMAN. I would now like to recognize Ms. Lofgren for an 

opening statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, let me offer my apologizes to the members of the committee. Both Mr. Lungren and I were in a markup in the Judiciary 

Committee that went longer than we thought. In fact, it is still 

going on. So that is what made us tardy, and I do apologize for 

that. 

The bill as proposed would entitle the Federal employee to receive administrative leave for up to 6 days a year to serve as a poll 

worker for a State or local government on Election Day and to receive any mandatory training that is permitted. 

The Office of Personnel Management in the bill is tasked with 

setting the regulations. As we know, poll workers are variously 

called judges, booth workers, precinct officials, board workers and, 

of course, poll workers; and the person in charge of the polling 

place on Election Day can be called a precinct captain, chief judge, 

supervisor or presiding judge, to name just a few. 

Consistent with the EAC’s manual on poll worker recruiting, 

training and retention, this legislation uses the term poll worker 

to refer to all workers in a polling place. It provides grants to 

States for recruiting and training poll workers using the EAC manual on successful practices for poll worker recruiting, training and 

retention. 

The grants are not used to pay poll workers but to train and recruit them, and it requires grantees to report to the EAC and the 

EAC to report to the Congress on the grant program. It authorizes 

$75 million for the grants, and it also exempts the EAC from the 

Paperwork Reduction Act which will make it easier for the agency 

to request information from the public by not requiring approval 

from the Office of Management and Budget first. 

As we know, this has received support from a variety of sectors; 

and you have already added the letters of support into the record. 

I would note that Federal employees are permitted to use administrative leave, for example, for jury duty. This would simply allow 

another reason to use administrative leave. It is not a new benefit. 

It is just a new way to use an existing benefit. 

We know that we have a shortage in this country of poll workers. 

We have had hearings on this, and I think we all share in the desire to make sure that we have enough volunteers on Election Day 

so that we have a smooth election. This is one way to help, as the 

Federal employees we know are literate and responsible and would 

be potentially a good source of reliable poll workers. 

And I will have an amendment that strikes the word 

′′nonpartisan′′ to conform to Section 3. Because some States organize in a very different way than California does. We need to make 

sure that there is training in all cases and a report in all cases. 

So I will do that at the appropriate time. And I thank the chairman for recognizing me and yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the lady. 

I would now like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers, 

for an opening statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. And these are just opening statements 

on each bill separately, correct? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
9 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. EHLERS. Okay, thanks. 

We have heard many times in this committee about the struggle 

to find young, technologically savvy poll workers; and I think it has 

been very clever on the part of local clerks to hire students who 

tend to be technological and more savvy than some of the older 

people who have worked here. That is certainly one way to handle 

it. 

I am also intrigued by this proposal to have Federal workers, although this bill does seem to primarily address Virginia, D.C. And 

Maryland, where there are an abundance of Federal poll workers 

and does not help the backwaters of the United States, so to speak, 

where there are no Federal agencies. 

I sort of like the idea, but I think there are a number of problems 

here that we haven’t cleared up yet. One, for example, is these Federal workers will receive full pay, as I understand the bill, during 

their serving as poll workers. Are we then going to allow them also 

to receive the poll worker pay from the local unit or does that get 

reimbursed to the Federal Government? I haven’t seen that clearly 

specified in here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am thinking really to model after a jury duty. 

I mean, in California, for example, there is a small stipend for a 

juror. We don’t take it away from the employee. But it is like using 

your administrative leave in a different way, as if you were called 

to jury duty, because this civic duty is as important, really, in some 

ways as serving on a jury. 

And I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. In fact, I was drawing exactly the same parallel, but I live in a State with less money than California, and we 

are not allowed to double-dip there. The State employees who serve 

have to turn in their jury duty to the State or not receive salary 

for that time. And I think every State does it differently. In other 

words, I don’t think it is appropriate for anyone to double-dip for 

doing this, because that provides a motivation you don’t want. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Ehlers, if I could ask you to yield again. 

Thank goodness for staff. The attorney who has been working on 

this has advised me that Federal employees cannot accept the pay 

for jury duty; and, therefore, as drafted, they would not be able to 

accept the pay for serving as poll workers, either. 

Mr. EHLERS. So they would serve free of charge as far as the 

local jurisdiction is concerned. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That would be correct. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. 

The other concerns that I have involve the items in here regarding the Election Advisory Commission, in particular the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. And I am concerned about, as I understand the bill, 

it is essentially a permanent exemption from the Paperwork Reduction Act. I can certainly understand that we might want to do it 

for a year or two and help them get their feet on the ground. But 

I am very concerned about giving them permanent exemption from 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, and so I will be offering amendments 

on that. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
10 

Other than that, I think that covers the points; and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 6339. 

Without objection, the first reading is dispensed with and the bill 

is considered as read and open for amendment at any point. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
11 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 48068.006
12 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 48068.007
13 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 48068.008
14 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 48068.009
15 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 48068.010
16 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 48068.011
17 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 48068.012
18 

The CHAIRMAN. I would now like to recognize the lady, Ms. 

Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

As noted in my opening statement, I do have an amendment that 

might be distributed from the desk. Have members been provided 

with the amendment? 

Mr. EHLERS. I haven’t seen an amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do we have an amendment? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Can we provide the amendment to Mr. Ehlers? 

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that the amendment has been distributed. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. Make sure that Mr. Ehlers has it. 

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The amendment strikes the word ‘‘nonpartisan’’ 

before poll worker in Section 3. That would conform with the language in Section 2. The training should not be limited to nonpartisan poll workers because, in some States, they are partisan 

workers; and they all need to be trained. 

Pursuant to State law, this would not impose a new mandate on 

States. It would recognize that States organize in different ways. 

States should not be required if they have partisan workers—California does not—to have two sets of trainings. We should allow 

them to do one set of training. 

And then we should, for poll workers of a political affiliation, we 

want a report from them—on them as well as the nonpartisan. It 

is really—you know, I am so in favor of California’s nonpartisan 

approach, and sometimes I forget that not every State does it in 

the same way. But we need to defer to those States that do it differently and allow them to do the training as they do in their 

States. 

Mr. EHLERS. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Certainly. 

Mr. EHLERS. We also don’t have any partisan workers in the 

polls in Michigan. Can you give me an example where partisan 

workers are used? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I believe in Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania and 

some other States. I don’t have a full list, but I am aware—here. 

The list, Alabama—let’s see. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Wherever the best example—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. If I can give you this rather than read it aloud, 

Mr. Ehlers, I think that would be more efficient. 

Mr. EHLERS. My staff just told me that Maryland has it, too. So 

I will yield on that, and I have no problem with the amendment. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Also, without, objection the amendment is 

considered as read. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
19 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 48068.013
20 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on Ms. Lofgren’s amendment to 

H.R. 6339. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? 

No opposed. The amendment passes. 

Any further amendments? 

Mr. EHLERS. I have several amendments. Does Ms. Lofgren have 

any more? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I don’t have an additional amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. I recognize Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. I have several amendments. The first is dealing 

with the paperwork exemption or exemption from the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

As I said earlier, I think it would be appropriate to have a trial 

period where you have an exemption from the Paperwork Reduction Act while they are still going through their growing pains. I 

would just rather have this—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read. I am sorry. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
21 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 48068.014
22 

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. Thank you. 

The amendment will simply remove—strike Section 4 of the bill, 

and I urge adoption of that amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I rise in opposition to the amendment; and maybe 

there is a way to find some common ground here, Mr. Ehlers. 

Here is the concern. The Paperwork Reduction Act actually creates a lot of paperwork and bureaucracy, and we want this to be 

smooth. I understand that because it is a departure there is an interest in not making a permanent change. Here is my concern. 

That if we do this, the EAC, as we know, has had problems organizationally, and they are going to have to change some things administratively. I would hate to have them do that for one year and 

then have to redo it. 

But I do understand your desire to have kind of a test period and 

see how this works. I wonder if we were to limit this, say, for 4 

years and get a report. That would allow for a test, at least two 

elections, to see how it worked and for us to make changes if necessary, but it wouldn’t require them to redo their process in a 12- 

month time period. 

We didn’t have a chance to talk about that privately, so maybe 

it is not fair to toss it at you, but it just struck me as I was listening to your discussion. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, if we are going to bargain here, I will suggest 

1 year. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, 1 year is the problem. By the time they finish, it will be all over again, so that is the concern. And if we 

could—you know, I pulled 4 years out of the hat because it would 

be two elections, but I wonder if we could find a common ground 

on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I hear 1. I hear 4. Going on, Mr. Ehlers? 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, I would suggest 2 to match the election cycle. 

How is that? 

Ms. LOFGREN. So we just have one election. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well—— 

Mr. EHLERS. It would be a less stressful election. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I oppose the amendment, but since this has just 

come out I would suggest that we defeat the amendment but we 

talk further about this between now and the floor and try and 

reach an agreement based on the election schedule which I am just 

sort of ad hoc’ing here with the hope and intention that we would 

reach an agreement on a suitable trial period, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do I hear 3? 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, Mr. Chairman—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Perhaps we could withdraw and discuss between 

now and the floor. 

Mr. EHLERS. I will just say I have been the recipient of many 

kind offers like that, and usually the promises are forgotten before 

they reach the floor of the manager’s amendment. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I do not forget my promises. 

Mr. EHLERS. I am pleased to hear that. I think this is something 

we should be able to work out as long as we end up with 2 years. 

The CHAIRMAN. So we will—— 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
23 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, with an intention to agree, but we will have 

to see if we agree. 

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. I will withdraw my amendment with the understanding that we will work in good faith to come to an agreement on this issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Any other amendments. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes, indeed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered 

as read when offered. 

Mr. EHLERS. The others were different terms, so we have bypassed that issue, so that is the last amendment on this. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is the last amendment on this one here. 

Okay. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, may I strike the requisite number 

of words? 

The CHAIRMAN. You are recognized. 

Mr. LUNGREN. If I could address the question to the gentlelady 

from California, you said that since this is amending the already 

existing law and that does not allow payment for jury duty, therefore, it wouldn’t allow payment for poll working, I don’t see that 

anywhere as I look in the law. Are you saying that that is something that can be done by virtue of regulation by the Office of Personnel Management? 

Ms. LOFGREN. It is my understanding that the rule for use of administrative leave at this point precludes payment while using that 

leave. That is the rule for jury duty for which administrative leave 

is provided; and the rule on the use of administrative leave, I am 

told, would be the same for this other civic purpose. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So it would be pursuant to regulation by the Office of Personnel Management. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Then I would hope that in the committee report 

we would urge the Office of Personnel Management to do that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think that is a good suggestion. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The second thing, in your presentation, you said 

this adds nothing in terms of—I believe you said adds nothing in 

terms of an additional cost to the Federal Government because we 

are just adding another basis upon which people can use administrative leave. But, as I read it, this is administrative leave up to 

and including 6 days a year without loss or reduction in pay, leave 

or—to which someone is otherwise entitled. So, as I understand it, 

this does add an additional potential 6 days of administrative leave 

that does not currently exist, is that not correct? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think you are correct. You are correct, and I 

stand corrected. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So, in essence, what we are suggesting is an additional potential 6 days as long as they used it for this purpose. 

Ms. LOFGREN. It is not an additional cost, but it is an additional 

reduction in service, essentially, because these are salaried individuals, and you are correct. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I would argue that if you have people who are not 

working for 6 days for your job you probably have to pick it up 

somewhere else. If I have got an employee and it doesn’t matter 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
24 

whether they show up for 6 days or not, maybe that employee 

doesn’t need to be there. In most cases, they do need to be there, 

and they have to have someone to take up the slack. So I just 

wanted to make it clear that this is not without some expense to 

the Federal Government when you are adding 6 additional days. 

As I understand it now, they would be prohibited from using 6 

days administrative leave, but they could use 6 days of vacation 

or—well, they could use vacation days. 

Ms. LOFGREN. People can use vacation days whichever way they 

wish. It is also subject to scheduling. 

But the EAC has called for—if the gentleman would yield—recruiting 2 million poll workers for this November; and I am feeling—I think we all do—a sense of urgency that we as a Nation are 

going to be able to respond to this incredible event. 

Mr. LUNGREN. And this would be training as well as actual service as a poll worker, is that correct? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Pardon me? 

Mr. LUNGREN. This would include training time as well as service as an actual poll worker? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank the gentlelady. I thank the chairman. 

Mr. EHLERS. It seems to me there are a lot of details here that 

we are not quite sure on yet. And I would like to ask that the negotiations on the first item I brought up, that is, the length of time 

in the paperwork reduction, that in addition we discuss the other 

issues that may come up today, as I believe we need some clarification on this point. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If the gentleman would yield, I would be happy to. 

I think any further productive discussion would be warranted and 

useful. 

Mr. EHLERS. If we can agree to work together and try to develop 

a manager’s amendment that would clarify it, I think we would feel 

much better. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think that a lot of these issues are actually covered by the personnel policies, but we can flesh that out to our satisfaction. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes Ms. Lofgren for the purpose of making a motion. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to report H.R. 6339 favorably to the House with an amendment, and noting the addition to 

the committee report that Mr. Lungren had. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion. All those in favor, 

signify by saying aye. Any opposed? With one opposition. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

The bill will be reported to the House without objection, and the 

motion to be considered is laid upon the table. 

The next item is H.R. 6474, introduced by Ms. Lofgren. The bill 

would authorize the Chief Administrative Officer of the House to 

carry out a series of demonstration projects to promote the use of 

innovative technologies in reducing energy consumption and promoting energy efficiency and cost savings to the House of Representatives. 

I would like to recognize Ms. Lofgren for an opening statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
25 

This bill would authorize the CAO to carry out demonstration 

projects to promote the use of innovative technologies in reducing 

energy consumption and promoting energy efficiency and cost savings to the House. It authorizes the CAO to enter into contracts 

consistent with current House Administration regulations and requires a report to be submitted to the House Administration and 

Appropriations Committee analyzing the project in the extent that 

it reduced energy consumption and promoted energy efficiency and 

cost savings to the House. It authorizes $5 million for each of the fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to carry out the projects until expended, or $10 million over 

2 years. It is limited in scope. It is to help the House determine 

which technologies are best suited to its needs. 

Not only would this further prove our commitment to environmentally sustainable practices, but it could also lower the cost of 

House operations, a significant savings for taxpayers. 

On April 28, 2008, I hosted a panel discussion and meeting with 

Silicon Valley industry leaders titled, How Going Green Saves 

Money, Jobs and Improves Lives at the Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose. At the panel discussion, the private sector and the 

public sector shared the steps that they are taking to reduce their 

carbon footprint by creating new ways to use energy more efficiently and generate power in more sustainable ways. 

The benefits of going green are not limited to improving the environment. Companies have also improved efficiency and lowered 

costs. 

Applied Materials, a company I am very proud of in our community, estimates that by installing solar panels it will create 900 

jobs. 

Adobe Systems, which has just shy of one million square feet in 

downtown San Jose, installed 23,000 sensors on their office towers 

and was able to monitor and control electricity consumption. The 

sensors paid for themselves in 8 weeks’ time for Adobe, and the entire move that Adobe made to get the highest rating of energy efficiency paid for itself in 18 months. 

So there is tremendous opportunity in the retrofitting of buildings, the use of new technology to save a tremendous amount of energy and, therefore, to save a tremendous amount of money. 

Adobe also made the switch to nontoxic cleaning products, which 

saved them money and kept their cleaning crew healthier and also 

spared Adobe employees from harmful effects of being exposed to 

noxious fumes. 

At our request, Chief Administrative Officer Dan Beard attended 

the discussion. Because Silicon Valley is ground zero on what is 

happening on the pivot of technology to a green economy. And with 

the cooperation of his office I believe that the straightforward, innovative recommendations that we made as a product of the report, 

the report that we have, would help in the sustainable operations 

for the House community. 

I am proud to say that this is a bipartisan measure, and it is also 

a measure that has attracted the support of not only the authorizers but the appropriators, something that isn’t always the case. 

I was happy that Mr. Wamp of Tennessee was eager to work on 

this with me. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
26 

I have been made aware only this morning—and I don’t know 

the details, and I hope it will not be part of the discussion today 

because it is a personnel issue, not a policy issue—that there is 

some angst about the individual who currently holds the position. 

But this is a policy issue on whether we can allow innovation to 

occur in a rapid manner that I think and hope we can all support. 

And with that I would thank the chairwoman for his introduction 

and yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I would like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers, for an 

opening statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I certainly support the spirit of this bill; and I must say, in spite 

of an article which appears to have been planted which questions 

my green credentials, I have been conserving energy for over 30 

years. I am a physicist. I know a lot about energy, and I have applied that knowledge. 

I have spent a considerable number of hours crawling around my 

attic to properly insulate it, because it seems even the insulators 

who get paid to do it don’t understand how to really do it right, 

and I cut one-third off my heating bill every year because of the 

work that I did. Now, if you live in Michigan, that is substantial. 

That is about a $400 savings every year. Certainly worth doing. 

I drive a hybrid automobile. I have just every way possible tried 

to conserve energy, and so I am entirely in agreement with the 

spirit of this. 

But what I question is why would we give financial resources to 

the CAO to do this. We have already by law in this House and Senate charged the Architect of the Capitol with very stringent requirements that he has to meet with regard to energy efficiency requirements. He has worked very hard on those. He has made considerable progress. He has done it without publicity or press releases. And perhaps we should publicize what he has done, or at 

the very least we should ask him to appear before this committee 

and give us a review of what he has accomplished and what he 

would do. 

So I will be offering an amendment that will replace the CAO 

with the Architect of the Capitol and also increase the amount allocated from the $5 million to $10 million each year for the next 2 

years. 

This is a very important issue. I support it. There is an immense 

amount we can do around the Capitol and particularly the House 

to conserve energy. 

If I take my own office, for example, currently, it is operating between 70 degrees and 71 degrees. I see no reason in the world to 

keep it that cool. I have it turned to the maximum high temperature that I can with the air conditioner in my office. It drives me 

crazy. I would be happy to work in an office that is 74, 75, maybe 

even 76 degrees, no problem. Just think of how much energy we 

would save. And then multiply that by all the offices around here. 

We would save a considerable amount of energy just on that. 

I see endless opportunities around this campus for conserving energy, and I say let us do it. But we have already given the job to 

the Architect of the Capitol. I am not sure why we would want to 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
27 

give it to the CAO, unless we do it in a fashion that says the CAO 

is to lend all possible assistance to the Architect of the Capitol in 

achieving the goals that have already been established for him. 

So I am opposed to this bill as it is written, simply because it 

is the wrong approach and it will cost us more than necessary, 

given the fact we already have an organization working on this 

problem. 

With that, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Yes, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I move to strike the last word—— 

The CHAIRMAN. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. And to oppose the amendment. The 

bill is just—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me call the bill up first. 

I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 6474—That was 

the opening statement. 

And I would like to commend my ranking member for keeping 

his thermostat on 74. I wish I could. Mine doesn’t work, so I can’t 

keep it on that. I am at the will of anybody that wants to heat or 

air condition my office. But we have to look into that. 

I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 6474. Without 

objection, the first reading is dispensed with and the bill is considered as read and open for amendment at any point. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
28 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 48068.015
29 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 48068.016
30 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 48068.017
31 

The CHAIRMAN. I believe the committee relies upon the CAO to 

place the highest priority on projects that are cost-effective on increasing energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

So I would now like to recognize for 5 minutes the gentlelady from 

California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think procedurally I jumped the 

gun, because Mr. Ehlers wanted to—he has discussed his amendment and probably wants to officially record—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I will recognize the ranking member for any 

amendments that he may have. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Before the committee. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered 

as read. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
32 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 48068.018
33 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 48068.019
34 

Mr. EHLERS. And the sense of the amendment is pretty much as 

I have described, to simply take the text of the bill but modify it 

so that the assignment for the work to be done is given to the Architect of the Capitol. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the lady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I strike the last word. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I oppose the gentleman’s amendment. 

I do commend him for his efforts in saving energy in his office, 

and I have a suggestion. We could save some energy in this room 

if we would turn the air conditioning up. I mean, this is the coldest 

room in the Capitol. I can’t understand why it is this cold. So that 

is a suggestion that we can all make. 

But on the amendment itself, this bill, the Lofgren-Wamp bill, is 

for a pilot program. It is not involving changes to House facilities. 

The CAO is tasked with the Green the Capitol Program, not the 

Architect. And the Architect is only putting in meters. I mean, they 

are not really—they are not aggressive on this. It took a letter from 

the Speaker and the language of the December ’07 energy bill to 

get them off the stick to start putting in meters. The Department 

of Energy estimated it could be done for under $1 million in 3 

months, but the Architect wants to take a year and spend over $3 

million. And we need a quicker, more aggressive pilot project to see 

what can happen. 

I will note that when we checked with the private sector and we 

sent a report on this form we had in Silicon Valley, that you can 

do this stuff quite promptly and save a lot of money. And this 

was—we had Mr. Lungren’s constituent, the Marquiss Wind Power 

participated. 

And the ability to move quickly is what this bill is all about. 

When Adobe put in their sensors, I mean, it was massive, it was 

quick, and it paid for itself in 8 weeks. 

And we can’t wait for a pilot project to take a year. It is just unnecessary. And we will find out, because Mr. Wamp suggested this, 

and I thought I incorporated his request, that we will get reports 

both to the Appropriations Subcommittee and to this committee on 

how these pilots are working so that we will be able to monitor our 

success or if we are not meeting with success. And I think that that 

is something I look forward to. 

And we know that we have an energy—we all know that we have 

an energy challenge in this country. But the quickest hit is conservation. And what has been done on the private sector is astonishing and what is going to be doable in even the next 6 months 

is terrific. 

So I want us to be part of the process of being life, of being agile, 

of taking these steps as a pilot project so that we can be leaders; 

and it is clear that the CAO is able to do that. The Architect has 

a very different role to play; and I therefore, with respect, oppose 

the gentleman’s amendment. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I recognize Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
35 

First of all, I will agree that—and I have preached this for years 

because my dad was a preacher so I have inherited that characteristic—but there is no quicker, cheaper way to resolve energy 

issues in this country, including gasoline prices, by the way, than 

conservation. There is no question about that. 

I have to rise to the defense of the Architect when you say he 

hasn’t done anything. He has reduced the energy consumption on 

this campus by 6 percent each of the last 2 years. That means we 

are down 12 percent already. Can we do more? Of course. We are 

going to have to appropriate a lot of money to do that, and I think 

part of the problem the Architect has is we have given him the 

task but not a great deal of money to really attack it vigorously. 

He has to work within his budget. But, nevertheless, 12 percent reduction in 2 years’ time, that is very commendable. 

And before we run off half-cocked and say we are going to do it 

a different way with different people, at the very least we should 

know what the Architect is doing and what he has accomplished 

already. And I suggest bringing him before the committee or just 

having an informal meeting with interested committee members 

and find out from him what he has done, what remains to be done, 

how we could speed it up, and what role the CAO can play in helping this happen. 

But to simply toss the ball to the CAO without recognizing what 

is going on and making sure that everything meshes, particularly 

since I am not—and I have been very, very careful not to criticize 

the CAO publicly in spite of the fact we have had some differences—but since this has come up here I do have to comment 

that paying $700,000 just to develop a plan for the lighting of the 

Dome, that is called the greening of the Dome, when the annual 

electricity bill for that is only about $13,500 or something, why 

would we spend $700,000 to examine a problem like that? 

There are a lot worse problems, as have been mentioned here. 

The air conditioning in these buildings. If we are going to spend 

$700,000, let us combine it with the Architect and see what we can 

accomplish. 

I just don’t think it makes sense to have two different entities 

working on the same problem, using our money and without any 

coordination, without having them work closely together. And I 

urge the adoption of my substitute. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute. 

Mr. Chairman, as the largest single energy consumer in the 

United States, the Federal Government, beyond the House of Representatives, has both a tremendous opportunity and a clear responsibility to lead by example with smart energy management, as 

the gentlelady from California has suggested. And while the government has made some considerable progress improving its use of 

energy, even here at the Capitol, much more remains to be done. 

All you have to do is walk by at night and see all the lights that 

are left on. If you just had motion switches rather than manual 

switches, we could probably save a considerable amount in the 

House of Representatives without having to do a study on it. 

In general, I like the concept of this resolution because it is pushing the envelope to pursue cleaner and renewable energy in an effiVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:08 Mar 31, 2009 Jkt 048068 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A068.XXX A068

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
36 

cient manner. I think it is important for us to try and do everything we can to increase energy savings and production in an environmentally friendly and stewardship-minded fashion; and I have 

worked with the gentlelady on a number of issues, including a couple of them coming up later today. 

But I am not sure if I can support this measure without the 

Ehlers amendment. My concern is that it provides very broad authority of the CAO, does not specifically state what projects will be 

executed, nor require any coordination with the Architect of the 

Capitol who is, we must be reminded, our facility manager. It does 

not provide a return on investment standard, plus it might conflict 

with the Architect’s ongoing contractual or planning efforts. 

I know the Architect of the Capitol has an overall campus master 

plan along with numerous low-hanging fruit energy projects sitting 

on the shelf ready to execute with known returns on energy savings which would make a significant difference. They also have an 

ongoing energy saving performance contract, plus several in the 

works. I would hope that this legislation coordinates with that, 

rather than interferes with that. 

I have done numerous telephone town halls in the last couple of 

months, and one of the biggest complaints I hear from my constituents is we are not doing enough to resolve America’s energy issues. 

This bill is in some ways a baby step in the right direction, but I 

think folks want us to be transformational here. 

I looked it up and found that the Federal Government will spend 

at least $2 billion over the next 10 years on energy expenditures 

for electricity, natural gas, coal and fuel oil for more than 120 large 

facilities, including at least two major utility plants in our Nation’s 

Capitol just here, Federal buildings, $2 billion. And we have had 

some discussions with the executive branch, GSA and others, and 

wondered if it would make sense for us to try and get together with 

the power plants we have here with the rest of the Federal establishment and see if we can conserve energy to make it more efficient and build some redundancy in the system. 

I also found that it is extremely difficult for our branch to be 

talking with the executive branch or even the executive branch’s 

various departments to be talking with one another, and we are 

wasting a tremendous amount of energy as a result of that. So I 

would ask the Chairman, might we consider a hearing on this issue 

that would broaden it a little bit such that we could entertain some 

suggestions from the Department of Energy, from others, to see if 

we might be able to have some compatibility and maybe some cooperation? You would think that has happened before, but my investigation suggests it hasn’t and it probably won’t happen unless 

we urge it to occur. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would have no problem entertaining that and 

having the right and proper people come in from all the other organizations that can help us try to conserve our energy. We will start 

with having somebody come to my office and fix my thermostat. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Very good. Thank you. 

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LUNGREN. I will be happy to yield. 

Mr. EHLERS. I just want to tag on to that. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
37 

I totally agree with the comments made. I would love to seriously 

address the energy consumption of the Capitol. I would love to 

carry it even beyond that to whatever extent we have jurisdiction. 

We just don’t take this problem seriously as a government, as a 

Nation, and it is crucial. It is absolutely crucial. The gas price issue 

now is bringing it home that we do not have an infinite supply of 

energy, and we have to develop new sources, alternative sources, 

and we have to use what we have wisely and conserve as much as 

we can. 

I would love to have a complete examination of the type that Ms. 

Lofgren has described is taking place in California. This bill doesn’t 

do it. And I would be happy to work with the author of the bill and 

make it more comprehensive, make it really hard-hitting and really 

get the job done. 

We talk about air conditioning in this room and our offices. 

There are endless examples I see around here where we can make 

substantial changes with not much money and certainly things 

that will pay themselves back. But this bill is not the answer. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I thank the gentleman for the time. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are welcome. 

The question is on Mr. Ehlers’ amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 6474. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. 

Mr. EHLERS. Ask for a recorded vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. 

We ask for a recorded vote. Would the clerk please call the role. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brady. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The yeas are three; the noes are five. The amendment fails. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, the Chair recognizes Mr. Ehlers for his 

amendment. 

Mr. EHLERS. My second amendment would be—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered 

as read. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
38 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 48068.020
39 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. 

The second amendment is: Page 2, insert after line 21 the following: 

Role of Architect of the Capitol. If a demonstration project under 

this section includes a modification of any building or grounds 

under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, 

the Chief Administrative Officer shall consult with and obtain the 

approval of the Architect of the Capitol before the modification is 

made. 

And some minor technical amendments with that. I urge the 

adoption of the amendment. This would ensure they work together 

appropriately. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any further discussion on the amendment? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Briefly. 

The purpose of the bill that Mr. Wamp and I have introduced is 

for short-term pilot projects done quickly to show us how we can 

get substantial savings in energy in a quick time period. Although 

I am sure that the motivation of the gentleman’s amendment is the 

very best, I believe that the additional requirements would simply 

slow down progress on this and really prevent the success that Mr. 

Wamp and I hoped would be the product of this bill. And, therefore, I do oppose the amendment while respectfully recognizing 

that the motivation is the best; and I would yield to Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. Thank you for yielding. 

Frankly, whether we adopt it or not, this is going to happen. The 

CAO, I don’t believe, is going to be able to perform modifications 

of the buildings on the grounds because all of that is already under 

the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol; and so it is just recognizing the responsibilities that have already been entrusted to 

the Office of the Architect of the Capitol. 

So I am disappointed that you are not willing to accept it. It is 

just saying, this is the way it is, folks. It has always been that way, 

and the CAO should be able to work with this. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Reclaiming my time. 

The gentleman makes my point. There is an existing requirement that there be coordination. Creating still another permission 

process I think would slow down what Mr. Wamp and I hope to 

achieve with this pilot project bill, and that is why I do not support 

it. 

Mr. EHLERS. If the gentlelady would yield. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. EHLERS. I am trying to prevent cowboy action here, where 

someone says, good grief, we are going to do this, and bingo, and 

it is in contradiction with what the Architect of the Capitol is 

doing. I am trying to avoid that conflict. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on Mr. Ehlers’ amendment number two to H.R. 6474. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, 

say no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. 

Mr. EHLERS. Roll call vote. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
40 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask the clerk for a roll call vote, 

please. 

I apologize, we have one—this is amendment number three. Mr. 

Ehlers, we are voting on for a roll call right now. The clerk will 

call the roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brady. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The noes are five; the ayes are three. The amendment fails. 

Hearing no other amendments, I would like to recognize Ms. 

Lofgren for the purpose of making a motion. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to report H.R. 6474 favorably to the House. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the bill is reported to the House without objection, and the motion is considered. 

Mr. EHLERS. I am sorry. You zipped by my third amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry. You have another amendment? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will go back and hear Mr. Ehlers—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion 

to report. 

The CHAIRMAN. Until we move the motion—unanimous consent 

to hold the motion to report the bill out for Mr. Ehlers’ amendment 

number five—we are back to number two. Number two we skipped. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
41 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 48068.021
42 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Mr. Ehlers is recognized. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is just a very simple amendment reinforcing the responsibilities of the Chief Administration Officer. And it simply says that, 

in carrying out such projects, the Chief Administrative Officer may, 

upon approval by the Committee on House Administration, enter 

into contracts with entities which have developed new methods of 

using energy more efficiently, generating electric power in a more 

sustainable manner, or improving the efficiency and lowering the 

costs of existing renewable power systems, in strict adherence to 

the regulations promulgated by the Committee on House Administration for contracts entered into by the Chief Administrative Officer in order to ensure best value for the House of Representatives. 

This is just reinforcing what is currently the requirement on the 

Chief Administrative Officer, and this is I think important to insert 

in because we have had a recent example where he has negotiated 

something after we have approved a contract without seeking our 

approval for the revisions to the contract. So I urge that we adopt 

this and make clear what the requirements of our contractual process are. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on Mr. Ehlers’ amendment number two to H.R. 6474. Those in favor, signify by saying aye; those 

opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. 

Mr. EHLERS. A roll call. 

The CHAIRMAN. A roll call is requested. The clerk will call the 

roll. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Can I just clarify? This is existing 

today, correct? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brady. 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

The noes are four; the ayes are three. The amendment is not 

adopted. 

I would now like to recognize Ms. Lofgren for the purpose of 

making a motion. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
43 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to report H.R. 6474 favorably to the House. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion. All those in favor, 

vote aye. Those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

Mr. EHLERS. Roll call. 

The CHAIRMAN. We would like to have a roll call. The clerk will 

call the role. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gonzalez. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis of Alabama. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brady. 

The CHAIRMAN. Aye. 

The ayes are four, the nays are three, and the bill without objection passes. The motion will be considered as laid upon the table. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. There may be an opportunity at some 

point, I am not sure that within this session because things are 

running down, but I certainly would be delighted to listen to both 

the Architect and the CAO together talk about what they have 

done. I think they are coordinating, and so it would be good to just 

hear some of that interplay as well. I think that would be a concern. I would like to make our mark on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will do that. We will do that as soon as possible. I do not think we can get that done before Friday. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Unless you want to stay here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, I love it here. I love it in my hot office, yes. 

But we will try to get that done. I will work to get that done before we do break for our November break. 

The committee will now take up H.R. 6475, a bill introduced by 

Ms. Lofgren and Mr. Lungren to establish the Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Program. 

I would like to recognize Ms. Lofgren for an opening statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This bill, the Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Act, has 

been introduced by myself and Congressman Lungren. It provides 

for congressional clerks to serve in various offices of the House and 

Senate. When legislation was introduced last year by Mr. Lungren, 

it had the support of many of the Nation’s top law schools. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
44 

I would note that clerks are selected for the other branches of 

government, and these are prestigious posts where the top graduates of law schools across the country aspire to serve. The House 

has not had the equivalent clerkship. 

These clerks would be chosen from a pool of law school graduates 

who possess excellent academic records and who have demonstrated a commitment to public service and a strong interest in 

public policy. It creates a selection committee comprised of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on 

House Administration to select no more than six congressional 

clerks to serve as employees for a 1-year period in their respective 

chambers. Clerks will be compensated at the same rate as judicial 

clerks in the U.S. District Court for D.C. 

As you may know, many law school graduates, top law school 

graduates begin their legal career as judicial law clerks; and these 

law clerks go on to become leaders of their profession in private 

practice or later serving as judges or as law professors. The Daniel 

Webster Congressional Clerkship Program will do a lot, we believe, 

to improve understanding and appreciation of the legislative process within the legal profession and in the country as a whole by 

providing leaders of the legal profession their first formative experience in Congress. And given that clerks in the judicial branch 

often go on to become judges themselves I think it is particularly 

important that there be an appreciation for the legislative branch 

for high-quality clerkships. 

I don’t know whether Mr. Lungren would like his own time. I 

would be happy to yield to him for his comments. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lungren is recognized. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I appreciate that, and I thank the gentlelady from 

California for working with me on this bill. 

The genesis of this bill was a visit I received from the Stanford 

University Dean of the Law School probably 2 years ago. His name 

is Larry Kramer. 

While he has great respect for the judiciary and judges, he also 

has tremendous respect for the legislative branch; and so these are 

his words: Clerking for a trial or appellate judge provides young 

lawyers with an invaluable insider’s understanding of the decisionmaking process. Not surprisingly, judicial clerkships leave young 

lawyers with a highly court-centered view of the law and the legal 

system; and precisely because these are the top law school graduates, former law clerks go on disproportionately to assume leadership positions in the bar and in the profession, explaining in part 

why the legal profession in this country is so heavily tilted towards 

the courts. 

And what he was trying to convey as a dean in one of the outstanding law schools in the United States was that it is frustrating 

to him to see that lean towards the courts and not a proper balance 

to the other branches of government, particularly the legislative 

branch, not to any animus on the part of these individuals but because of their experience. 

And his thought was if we had a comparable experience in the 

legislative branch to which top graduates of our law schools would 

aspire that would help introduce a different experience path for 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
45 

some of these outstanding young people and he thought over time 

would result in a greater respect for the work that we do. 

I am reminded of a conversation of a member of the United 

States Supreme Court some years ago when, in a discussion on an 

issue that the Court decided, a particular individual after the 

Court had decided said, well, why did you decide that way? Congress clearly intended something else. 

And the response of this member of the Supreme Court was, 

well, Congress never considered that. 

To which this person who had studied the issue said, well, yes, 

they did. As a matter of fact, there was a colloquy on the floor of 

the House about that very issue. 

To which this member of the Supreme Court said, oh, that 

doesn’t matter. They don’t write their own stuff, anyway. 

Now that is maybe just an anecdotal example, but it evidences 

a lack of appreciation for the work that we do. And this is just a 

small thing that we can do that I think may begin to address it. 

No fewer than 12 clerks per Congress would be selected to serve 

in the offices of various committee chairs and ranking members. It 

would be highly competitive. It would be bipartisan. It would be in 

the Senate and the House. 

The number of congressional clerks assigned to offices of the 

House will not be less than numbers assigned to the Senate. The 

number assigned to the House and Senate office affiliated with the 

majority party shall be equal to the offices affiliated with the minority party. We are trying to make it as bipartisan as possible. 

I would hope for unanimous support of this. 

I was pleased that a dean of a law school would come to me with 

this suggestion, recognizing the lack of appreciation for the work 

done in the Congress by many on the court, and I hope we can support this. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Reclaiming my time, although I was an undergraduate at Stanford, the dean of the law school has been a great 

advocate, as my colleague has described. But he is not the only advocate. This has received support from top law schools across the 

country. 

Mr. Lungren is correct; it is a way over time for the legislative 

branch to gain a little more clout in the judicial ranks than we 

have today. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 6475, 

and in the interest of time, I will submit a written statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 

6475. Without objection, the first reading of the bill will be dispensed with. Without objection, the bill is considered as read and 

open for amendment at any point. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
46 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 here 48068.022
47 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 here 48068.023
48 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 here 48068.024
49 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 here 48068.025
50 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 here 48068.026
51 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 here 48068.027
52 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 here 48068.028
53 

The CHAIRMAN. Any debate? Any amendments? 

If not, I recognize Ms. Lofgren for the purpose of offering a motion. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to report the bill H.R. 6475 

favorably to the House. 

The CHAIRMAN. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

All those opposed? 

The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. Without objection, 

the motion to reconsider is laid on the table and the bill is reported 

to the House. 

The next item is H.R. 6589, introduced by Ms. Lofgren and Mr. 

Lungren, to provide financial support for the operation of the Law 

Library of the Library of Congress; and I would like to recognize 

Ms. Lofgren for an opening statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, this bill, the Charles H.W. Meehan 

Law Library Improvement and Modernization Act, was introduced 

by myself and Congressman Lungren. The bill and the private-public partnership embodied within the bill is named after Charles 

Meehan, who was the first Law Librarian at the Library of Congress. 

The Law Library of Congress maintains a unique and actually 

world-renowned collection, and this bill will ensure that the Law 

Library will have the resources needed to maintain and expand its 

collections while, at the same time, modernizing its systems. The act includes $3.5 million for maintaining and administering 

the operations of the Law Library, including the cataloging of the 

collections of the Law Library, which unfortunately is way behind 

and therefore not highly usable at the moment. The provision includes language which allows, to the extent practicable, efforts to 

catalog and archive nonproprietary material in the collections electronically in a nonproprietary and nondiscriminatory format to ensure the widest use. It also provides a line item to the Law Library 

to ensure the autonomy and ability to improve the Law Library. 

I would note also we have worked very closely with the American 

Bar Association and other legal groups who want to help maintain 

this Law Library, and it is their judgment that when they go out 

to try and solicit private funds for the support of the Law Library, 

having a line item is going to be crucial for them in whether or not 

they succeed. 

The creation of this program will provide enhanced special services for the Law Library, and the Librarian will carry out the program through agreements and partnerships entered into with other 

government and private entities. 

As I mentioned, the American Association of Law Libraries is 

joining with the American Bar Association in the effort to provide 

funds, both donations of money and also in-kind contributions, in 

support of the program. 

It requires an annual report, and it authorizes to be appropriated 

for the program an amount equal to 40 percent of the amount of 

the donations accepted by the Library of Congress trust fund in 

support of the program’s 60–40 private-public split. 

The Law Library really is an invaluable resource, both to the 

Congress and the Nation, and I think we have an obligation to future generations to provide for its continuation through the estabVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:08 Mar 31, 2009 Jkt 048068 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A068.XXX A068

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
54 

lishment of the Charles H.W. Meehan program. Not only does it 

have the ABA and the American Association of Law Libraries’ support, but probably because of Mr. Lungren and myself, the Northern California Association of Law Libraries has taken a bold step 

forward in support of the bill. 

Some have wondered why should we have a law library, but it 

has a unique collection that is unavailable anywhere else in the 

United States and, in some cases, the world. It has been neglected. 

And I want to mention specifically former Congressman Bill Orton, 

who has volunteered and, I think, has met with both of us as part 

of the ABA committee that is paying attention to this. 

This is obviously bipartisan and important, and I hope we can all 

support this unanimously. 

I yield to Mr. Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I agree with you, the Law Library at the Library 

of Congress ought to be the premier Law Library of the Nation because it has the capacity of getting international legal journals and 

texts, as well as those from around the country. 

Unfortunately, in the last 10 to 15 years, I fear that budget restraints have caused the Library to have to make some very tough 

choices. The Library has had to cancel subscriptions and refrain 

from acquiring important legal materials in order to stay within 

their budget. 

People might say that happens with all libraries, and so forth, 

but the effectiveness of a law library is the timeliness of the receipt 

of the latest legal decisions; and in this case, when they are trying 

to scan the world, that is a difficult task. 

In addition, there are approximately 680,000 volumes of legal 

material that we have been informed the library has acquired, but 

has not yet had the resources to catalog and, thus, make available 

to the public. Once again, not timely. 

It is important that the Law Library have adequate funding in 

order to develop, maintain and make available its comprehensive 

and unique legal collections for the future, as well as protect its 

rare and historic materials that chronicle our heritage. 

This act addresses these concerns, authorizes immediately $3.5 

million so it may renew cancelled subscriptions and purchase needed treatises, as well as work the catalog and classify the materials 

more quickly. 

Giving the Law Library a separate line item in the Library of 

Congress budget will allow the Law Library to have better control 

over its collection and be directly accountable to us, the Congress. 

In addition—and this is important, and I would just like to underscore what the gentlelady has said—it allows a mechanism for 

the Library to receive private and charitable donations to help with 

keeping its collection up to date. And we have every reason to believe from those who have testified before us, as well as those who 

have talked with us, that this will be done. 

There is a recognition of the importance of this library, and we 

think that private and charitable donations will come forward. 

The legislation is timely and needed. And for those who might 

be concerned that this sets a precedent for other elements of the 

Library of Congress spinning off, that is not my purpose, and I 

would not support that. I want to make that very clear. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
55 

Ms. LOFGREN. Reclaiming my time, I agree with that. This is not 

intended to be the first of many line items or changes in the structure. This is a unique situation, and I concur that I would not be 

interested in pursuing additional alterations. 

I yield again to the gentleman. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Therefore, I urge the committee to support this, 

and I thank both the gentlelady and the chairman of the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I just want to say that 

I support the effort of both of our colleagues, Congressman Lungren and Congresswoman Lofgren, to augment and maintain the 

Law Library within the Library of Congress. Given what we have 

had with the last two bills and the wonderful agreement between 

the two Members of Congress, perhaps we should assign them the 

job of writing the energy conservation bill as well. 

But I do just want to state a caution, and that is, by authorizing 

a separate line item in the Library’s budget, we are not implying 

that we wish to begin segmenting other items in the Library’s 

budget. Doing so would limit the ability of the Library to manage 

its own resources, and that would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. 

With that clarification and understanding, I would be pleased to 

support the bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair now calls up and lays before the committee H.R. 6589. 

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
56 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 here 48068.029
57 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 here 48068.030
58 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 here 48068.031
59 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 here 48068.032
60 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 here 48068.033
61 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 here 48068.034
62 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 here 48068.035
63 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to recognize Ms. Lofgren for a technical amendment. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that on page 

2, line 6, would strike the word ‘‘building’’ from the bill; and I believe this is a technical amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered 

as read and the gentlelady from California is recognized. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
64 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 here 48068.036
65 

Ms. LOFGREN. This is a technical amendment. We are not really 

building anything, we are maintaining and administering. We want 

to clarify that. 

It corrects a jurisdictional issue as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any further discussion? 

If not, without objection the amendment is agreed to. 

Any further amendments? 

The question is on Ms. Lofgren’s amendment to H.R. 6589. All 

those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

All those opposed? 

The ayes have it. 

The Chair recognizes Ms. Lofgren to make a motion. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to report H.R. 6589 favorably to the House with an amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

All in favor, signify by saying aye. 

Any opposed? 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The bill with the 

amendment will be reported to the House. Without objection, the 

motion to reconsider will be laid on the table. 

We have a vote, but we will try to get through the next bill before the vote. 

The next bill is H.R. 998, the Civil Rights History Project Act. 

And I will forgo all of my statement, and I will submit my statement for the record, and I recognize the ranking member, Mr. 

Ehlers, for an opening statement. 

[The statement of Mr. Brady follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROBERT A. BRADY 

The Civil Rights History Project is an important step toward 

completing the recorded history of that important era. The Library 

of Congress and Smithsonian Museum’s National Museum of African American History will work together on this project. They will 

gather firsthand accounts from the citizens who fearlessly fought 

for equal rights, lending a unique and untold perspective to what 

we already know about the Civil Rights Movement. 

Building on the success of the Veteran’s History Project, the Civil 

Rights History Project will highlight the efforts of those who would 

otherwise go unacknowledged. We know a lot about Martin Luther 

King, Junior and Rosa Parks, but countless others were also involved in securing fair and equal treatment for African Americans. 

This project will tell their story. 

We have a letter from the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian explaining how they will work together on the Civil Rights 

History Project. Without objection, I will include that letter in the 

record. 

I would now like to recognize the Ranking Republican Member, 

Mr. Ehlers, for an opening statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. I will also enter my statement in the record, but I 

do want to mention that I am offering a minor amendment just to 

ensure the accuracy of the data, and that is based on a lot of experience. 

If you wish, I may go directly into describing the amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. I need to call up the bill. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
66 

The Chair now calls and lays upon the committee H.R. 998. 

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. 

The bill is considered as read and open for amendment at any 

point. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
67 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 107 here 48068.037
68 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 108 here 48068.038
69 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 109 here 48068.039
70 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 110 here 48068.040
71 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 here 48068.041
72 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 here 48068.042
73 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 here 48068.043
74 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 here 48068.044
75 

The CHAIRMAN. And now I would like to recognize Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
76 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 48068.045
77 

Mr. EHLERS. As many of you have dealt with stories from people 

who have lived through events, often there are inaccuracies that 

appear, and so the amendment just requires that they review and, 

to the extent practicable, verify the authenticity and accuracy of 

the recordings and other materials that are obtained; and to create, 

catalog and index the collection of such recordings and materials 

in a manner that the Secretary and Library consider appropriate. 

I urge adoption of the amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have the amendment to the Civil Rights History Project. 

I respectfully ask for a ‘‘no’’ vote on this amendment. Rather 

than going through all of the talking points, I would just call for 

the vote on the amendment. 

Mr. EHLERS. Would the gentleman just summarize the objections? 

The CHAIRMAN. To verify the recollection of stories and experiences of the real-life accounts of those who participated in the Civil 

Rights Movement of the 1950s and the 1960s is not the job of the 

Library of Congress or the Smithsonian Institution. 

History is for people to interpret; and mainly, we can’t ask the 

Library to insult the dignity of a person by asking them to provide 

documentation of a story of terrible beatings or attacks by dogs and 

fire hoses way back when in the Civil Rights Movement. 

And how do you verify? We would be doing it forever and forever 

to have them verify everything that was coming in. In some instances, their physical scars still remain. But in countless other 

cases, the emotional scars still exist, and it is hard to verify any 

emotional scars. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, as the oldest person on the panel, 

I can vouch for the fact that memories weaken as you get older. 

And the verification is simply to get two statements from two different sources. Then it is verified. 

This is not an attempt to argue with the authenticity of things, 

but simply to try to accumulate enough data so that scholars can 

find out what is the real story in any given event. There is certainly no intent to question the integrity of people’s memories. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, I respectfully ask for a ‘‘no’’ vote on this 

amendment. 

Mr. LUNGREN. If the gentleman would yield, I would just ask Mr. 

Ehlers: The genesis of this amendment was the experience we had, 

and have, with some of the oral histories dealing with veterans, 

where we had some people making claims they were Medal of 

Honor winners and so forth; and there was a concern that there 

not be an effort by some to have inappropriate information here. 

And that is why Mr. Ehlers drafted this ‘‘to verify to the extent 

practicable.’’ 

I believe that is the only purpose for his amendment, as I understood it, not to require people to relive their histories or to put 

them through third-degree investigation, but rather, to try and 

avoid what we had with the other experience. 

I would just offer that for consideration. 

Mr. EHLERS. If I may give an example, I was with a group of veterans once. There were four veterans from the same battle who 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
78 

fought side by side, and they started telling their stories, and there 

was constant correction back and forth. 

‘‘No, Joe, that’s not the way it was. Remember, the plane came 

in from over the hill instead of through the valley.’’ 

‘‘Oh, yeah, that’s right.’’ 

That is the sort of verification I am talking about. 

The CHAIRMAN. And that just proves the point, there is no practical way for the Library of Congress to accomplish that, in my 

opinion. 

Mr. EHLERS. It states ‘‘to the extent practicable.’’ 

Ms. LOFGREN. There is a Veterans Administration. There is a 

way to find out whether somebody actually did get the medal or not 

get the medal. I think this is a much more complicated question 

here, which is why I agree with the chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. All those in favor of Mr. Ehlers’ amendment signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed? 

In the Chair’s opinion, the noes have it. The amendment is not 

agreed to. 

Mr. Ehlers, do you have another amendment? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. I have a simple amendment to change some 

dates, 2007 to 2008, et cetera, just to extend the timeline and give 

them time to put it together. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
79 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121 48068.046
80 

The CHAIRMAN. This is my amendment, but I could give it to you. 

All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

Mr. EHLERS. That’s the only way I will get one passed. 

The CHAIRMAN. You’ve got this one. The amendment is agreed to. 

Any further amendments? 

The chairman moves the committee reports H.R. 998 favorably to 

the House with amendments. All those in favor say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The motion is 

agreed to, and the bill with an amendment will be reported to the 

House. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 

table. 

We will now break to go vote and come back when the votes are 

over. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
81 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGinsert graphic folio 123 48068.047
82 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGinsert graphic folio 124 48068.048
83 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to recognize myself for a brief statement on H.R. 6625. 

I am proud to sponsor this bill, which requires the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs to allow States to designate a VA facility as a 

voter registration agency under section 7 of the National Voter Administration Act. In addition, VA facilities are required to provide 

voting information, assist veterans with registering as well as voting, and work with election officials to ensure proper delivery of 

voting materials. 

The bill also prohibits the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from preventing nonpartisan organizations and election officials from providing veterans with voting information at VA facilities. 

Our veterans have dedicated their lives to protect our country, 

and many have been seriously wounded doing so. They deserve 

every opportunity to participate in the political process. 

Recent policy decisions by the VA that interfere with veterans’ 

registration are simply an outrage. This bill would direct the VA 

to provide the voting assistance our veterans deserve and ensure 

that those with the most expertise and election officials and nonpartisan voter education groups can assist them in the voting process. 

Without objection, I would like to enter into the record some letters of support received from groups that represent over 6 million 

veterans and hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
84 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGinsert graphic folio 127 48068.049
85 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGinsert graphic folio 128 48068.050
86 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGinsert graphic folio 129 48068.051
87 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGinsert graphic folio 130 48068.052
88 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGinsert graphic folio 131 48068.053
89 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGinsert graphic folio 132 48068.054
90 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGinsert graphic folio 133 48068.055
91 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGinsert graphic folio 134 48068.056
92 

The CHAIRMAN. I will now recognize the ranking member, Mr. 

Ehlers, for an opening statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I have often stated 

in the past, I believe it is extremely important that we ensure that 

every vote is counted and that every eligible person is able to cast 

a ballot and that no one’s vote is weakened by someone else casting 

an illegal vote. 

As a part of that effort, I am pleased to join Chairman Brady in 

support of this bill which would designate veterans’ facilities as 

voter registration agencies. Doing so will allow those who have 

risked their lives for our freedom an opportunity to register to vote 

and make their voices heard. 

I do wish we had had the opportunity to have a full hearing on 

this bill, rather than having it introduced yesterday and then 

marking it up today. This is an important issue, and I would have 

preferred we receive testimony from the relevant parties on both 

sides as to the potential impact of this bill before we vote on whether or not to move it forward. 

In particular, one of my main concerns with this bill is the language that states that nonpartisan groups may have reasonable access to veterans in order to encourage voter registration. The word 

‘‘reasonable’’ means different things to different people, and I would 

hate to see a veteran who wishes to convalescence in a private setting be intruded upon by an activist from a voter registration 

group, however well-intentioned they may be. 

I would ask that we more clearly define the boundaries that are 

considered reasonable, or strike this language altogether to prevent 

these types of interactions or intrusions from occurring. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, if I may make a brief comment, 

thanks for the bill. 

And in support of your bill, I think it was in my county that, at 

least as far as I am aware, this first came to a head when volunteers attempted to register veterans at the Palo Alto VA hospital 

and were turned away. Those volunteers have now sued the Veterans Administration. And as your letters indicate, the veterans 

groups support what you are doing here. 

So I appreciate that if we succeed here, we will avoid the need 

for litigation to resolve this and we will legislatively make sure 

that our veterans get the help they deserve and need. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

I call up and lay before the committee H.R. 6625. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill is considered as read and open for amendment at any 

point. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
93 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 48068.057
94 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 48068.058
95 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 48068.059
96 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 141 48068.060
97 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 142 48068.061
98 

The CHAIRMAN. Any debate? Amendments? 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered 

as read. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
99 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 144 48068.062
100 

The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, this amendment would strike from section 4 

of the act language requiring VA facilities that are designated as 

voter registration agencies to make available absentee ballots upon 

request. 

Although we question the propriety of imposing upon veterans 

facilities additional burdens beyond those required of other NVRA 

section 7 voter registration agencies, we are aware of the potential 

for fraud inherent in absentee voting. And I can give numerous examples of that if you wish. 

We do endorse full enfranchisement of our Nation’s veterans and, 

where appropriate, via absentee voting. Accordingly, we believe 

that those who are eligible to vote absentee under the laws of their 

State should be offered absentee ballot applications at voter registration agencies. 

However, we do not support the notion of VA facilities, which are 

Federal offices, administering elections by having absentee ballots 

on site for disbursement to voters by VA personnel. Such ballots 

should be sent to the voter by a State or local election official pursuant to State law. 

Therefore, under the language of this amendment, VA facilities 

that are designated as voter registration agencies under NVRA section 7, would still be required to provide information relating to the 

opportunity to request an absentee ballot and make available absentee ballot applications and provide assistance in completing 

such an application. 

In other words, I am encouraging absentee balloting, but absentee ballots should not be available and kept on hand at a facility; 

they should always be under the control of an election facility until 

they are mailed out to the appropriate person requesting them. 

I offer this amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Any statements in reply? 

Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, although I don’t doubt the good intentions of the amendment, I think that the amendment would 

weaken a very good bill. I think that our veterans have risked life 

and limb to protect our freedom and the right to vote; especially 

soldiers who returned home impaired because of injury should have 

whatever help is necessary. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

I also agree that these men and women fought for us. There 

could be some loss of sight and mobility, and maybe they cannot 

get to register or to an agency that will provide an absentee ballot. 

I don’t see anything wrong with the absentee ballot being made 

available to them, done in a proper way; and I don’t see why we 

can’t allow them to fill out the absentee ballot with a nonprofit or 

with somebody from their veterans home that would assist them, 

just like on that ballot, they would ask for assistance if they got 

an opportunity to vote, and if not, they would be able to vote via 

absentee ballot. 

So I would ask for a ‘‘no’’ vote on this amendment. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
101 

Mr. EHLERS. Just continuing on with my comments, I don’t 

know, perhaps you misunderstand what I am saying here. I am not 

disagreeing with you. 

The facility should provide applications for persons to apply for 

an absentee ballot. An institution should assist veterans in filling 

out the forms and putting it in the mail. And once it is received, 

the facility should assist the veterans in looking at it and, if necessary, assist them in voting if they are incapacitated in some way. 

The objection is simply to having a stack of absentee ballots in 

the facility. I don’t know of any other place which would just allow 

a stack. 

For example, a nursing home is very similar. No one would ever 

think of having the local clerk of elections drop off 100 absentee 

ballots at a nursing facility and say, Here, give them to whoever 

wants them, and they can fill them out. 

There is a process under State law by which absentee ballots are 

processed. Every State has their own law. I believe that the VA facility should operate under State law just like a nursing home 

would. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, under section 7 of the Voting 

Rights Act, it actually requires assistance agencies—I don’t know 

if the VA is included—to actively go out and recruit voters. I think, 

whether or not—and I can’t do this from memory—they are included, certainly the spirit of what is intended in NVRA is honored 

by the bill which you have introduced; and certainly nothing in this 

bill changes the requirements that are present in State law. 

I won’t get into the jurisdictional issue, but there is nothing in 

this bill that changes the State eligibility requirements. 

The CHAIRMAN. According to State law, they would have to fill 

out an application. They could do that by presenting an application 

to them, and then they would receive the ballot in the mail to them 

at the nursing home. 

All we are saying is that we think they need to be assisted in 

applying for it, and we think they should have assistance in filling 

it out. They are not given a stack of ballots to take with them. 

They have to apply for them like anywhere else. 

Mr. EHLERS. I am simply saying they should apply, as anyone 

else. 

NVRA, for example, just to make clear, does require the distribution of voter mail registration application forms, and I am just trying to make this comply with the NVRA law. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, with all due respect, it is the same thing 

happening here. Nobody is walking into a nursing home with a 

stack of absentee ballots and passing them out. Anyone anywhere 

can have an application. I can walk around with an application. 

Mr. EHLERS. I don’t contest that. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is what we are doing here. 

Mr. EHLERS. No. The way it is written, it states absentee ballots 

will be available, not applications. 

That is my concern. That is what we are trying to change. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, I don’t read it that way. I would be opposed to this amendment. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
102 

The question is on Mr. Ehlers’ amendment No. 1 to H.R. 6625. 

All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, if I may have the privilege of a comment. I think there may be a misunderstanding here between what 

my amendment is trying to do and what the bill is trying to do. 

I would be happy to sit down with you and your staff and our staff 

and try to make sure that we, first of all, understand each other 

on this and what our concern is. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will be more than happy to do that. 

Mr. EHLERS. I don’t think we are apart in what we are trying 

to do, but I think we are getting tangled up in the language here. 

The CHAIRMAN. We can do that in the clarifying language in the 

report in September. I will be willing to work with you on that. 

The amendment was not agreed to. 

Now opening up again for any further amendments. 

Mr. EHLERS. I have a second amendment. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
103 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 151 48068.063
104 

Mr. EHLERS. Amendment No. 2 provides clarification that nothing in this act may be construed to waive any requirement under 

State or local law regarding an individual’s eligibility to receive an 

absentee ballot or vote by absentee ballot. And this is necessary because the act, as drafted, is vague as to whether section 4, which 

provides absentee ballot application, et cetera, be made available 

upon request, and establishes a new basis for eligibility to vote absentee which may conflict with State law. 

Again, we don’t disagree with what you are trying to do. We are 

simply trying to clarify the language to make certain that it agrees 

with current law and State law. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have no problem in accepting this amendment. 

Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I am with you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We accepted Ehlers’ amendment No. 2. 

I recognize Mr. Ehlers for amendment 3. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
105 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 153 48068.064
106 

Mr. EHLERS. Amendment No. 3, this amendment exempts from 

eligibility to be designated as a voter registration agency any VA 

facility where the voluntary service provides for the provision of 

voter registration and voting assistance services. 

To comment on that, this will ensure that the VA offers voter 

registration and voting assistance in a nonpartisan manner and 

with minimal disruption to facility operations. This service should 

be coordinated through the agency’s voluntary service office at each 

medical facility. 

We should encourage State and local government officials to 

work with the voluntary service officers to provide coordinated, accurate, and timely voter registration information and services; and 

where the voluntary service provides these services, we think it is 

unnecessary for States to designate such facilities as voter registration agencies. 

The CHAIRMAN. I do appreciate again the gentleman’s amendment. The only problem is that it does cut the cord of the bill. 

I am not comfortable with the VA having anything to say in regulating in any way, shape or form how a nonprofit can come into 

the veterans home, simply because the director already is saying 

that they cannot without having a conversation with any one of us; 

and that is the purpose of this bill. 

Again, I think it cuts the cord and I think it cuts the ability and 

the right of our men and women that have been in harm’s way, 

while we are here in either our too-air-conditioned offices or nottoo-air-conditioned offices; and we are trying to impede in any way, 

shape, or form, as the veterans administrator did when they impeded their right to get an opportunity to vote absentee or to be 

registered to vote at all. 

I would ask for a ‘‘no’’ vote on this. 

The question is on Ehlers amendment 3 to H.R. 6625. All those 

in favor, signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. 

I would like to recognize Mr. Ehlers for amendment No. 4. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
107 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 156 48068.065
108 

Mr. EHLERS. Amendment No. 4, this amendment prohibits the 

provision of certain services at VA facilities that have been designated as voter registration facilities under NVRA section 7 where 

the provision of such services would be detrimental to the health 

of or interfere with the provision of services to any patient or beneficiary. 

The goal here is to protect the well-being of our veterans. We are 

concerned by the stark differences between other voter registration 

agencies, such as public welfare agencies on the one hand, and VA 

facilities where injured veterans go to receive health care services. 

We simply want to protect the health and dignity of patients, and 

accordingly, we want to ensure that the provision of assistance 

with absentee ballots does not do harm to veterans in any way, 

under the care of the VA. 

So it is just saying, if someone is very ill and they shouldn’t be 

disturbed, then they shouldn’t be disturbed by people trying to get 

them to vote either. 

The CHAIRMAN. I can understand and appreciate the intent, but 

the problem with this is that, again, it goes back to our veterans 

administrator, who put out that directive that can say at any point 

in time they can exclude an entire facility. 

Our intent is not to disturb or bother or cause any hardship on 

these men and women, but allow them their rights. I want to ensure that no one—I can’t imagine how you would try to bother or 

impose upon any veteran that is there, that can’t or won’t be able 

to or have the ability at that particular time to fill out an absentee 

ballot, to register to vote. 

The problem I have is excluding an entire facility. Again, it was 

at the direction of the veterans administrator, who I have no faith 

at all in, in allowing our veterans to be registered and being able 

to vote via absentee ballot. And so, again, I ask for a ‘‘no’’ vote on 

the amendment. 

Mr. EHLERS. So I take it, Mr. Chairman, you would like a new 

administrator? 

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure we will have one, one way or another. 

The question is on Ehlers amendment No. 4 to H.R. 6625. All 

those in favor, say aye. 

All those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The amendment is 

not agreed to. 

I recognize Mr. Ehlers again for amendment No. 5. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
109 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 48068.066
110 

Mr. EHLERS. Amendment No. 5 would simply limit the scope of 

the applicability of the requirements of section 4 to those VA facilities where patients reside. 

I don’t know if I have to really say much more about that, but 

the whole idea is, we are doing this for the patients, and it 

wouldn’t have to apply to VA facilities that don’t have patients. 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, I oppose this amendment. 

We should allow an outpatient that would have the opportunity 

to come into the Veterans Administration for any type of medical 

procedure, any type of medical update, any kind of prescriptions; 

they could probably have their appointments the same day, making 

it a one-stop shop when they know there is registration being held 

and have the opportunity to make it easier for them. 

Just because they are outpatient, I don’t want to discriminate 

against them—again, to afford the luxury of making it easier for 

them to absentee vote or register to vote. 

So again, I ask for a ‘‘no’’ vote on this amendment. 

The question is on Ehlers amendment No. 5 to H.R. 6625. All 

those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. 

The Chair moves to report H.R. 6625 favorably to the House with 

an amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

All those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The motion is 

agreed to, and the bill is reported to the House. 

Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. 

We will next consider H.R. 6627, the Smithsonian Institution Facilities Authorization Act for 2008. 

H.R. 6627 represents an agreement between our committee and 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to move two 

Smithsonian projects. We agree to release the bill at this point in 

order to get around jurisdictional dispute with other committees. It 

sets no precedent for future Smithsonian bills. 

Ranking Member Ehlers has joined me in cosponsoring this bill 

introduced by Chairman Oberstar. The House Administration Committee was given an additional referral to consider section 2. 

That section authorizes a project at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Maryland, on the Chesapeake Bay. H.R. 6627 will authorize a total of $41 million over 3 

years for design and construction of the Mathias Laboratory renovation and trailer replacement project. $3.5 million will be used 

to design the project for fiscal year 2009, and has been included in 

the House Interior appropriation bill. Construction is then expected 

to cost $37.5 million over the following 2 fiscal years. 

The current Mathias Laboratory exceeds its capacity by 40 percent, and is considered unsuitable for missions and safety of staff. 

The project will modernize the facility, a building that was constructed in seven phases between 1978 and 2000. The Smithsonian 

will also demolish a series of trailers and other ad hoc structures, 

some more than 30 years old, which pepper the site. 

The bill will also be considered by the Transportation Committee 

in its markup tomorrow. They will consider a SCRC project. And, 

also, section 3 of this bill deals with the Smithsonian Tropical ReVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:08 Mar 31, 2009 Jkt 048068 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A068.XXX A068

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
111 

search Institute in Gamboa, Panama. I also support that project, 

which was inspected by committee staff from both sides last January. 

I would now like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers, 

for an opening statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am proud to have cosponsored this bill which will enable additional research to continue both at the Smithsonian Environmental 

Research Center in Edgewater, Maryland, and at the Smithsonian 

Tropical Research Institute in Panama City, Panama. 

In the interest of time, I will not read the remainder of my statement, but submit it for the record. But I simply want to agree with 

the Chair’s comments. 

These are very valuable facilities, particularly the research institution in Panama, which is a worldwide center for research. I have 

visited this in the past under the auspices of a different committee, 

and I know that our committee staff has gone down and visited the 

facility in Panama. 

I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you organize a codel 

some time during this year to examine perhaps both facilities, but 

certainly the Tropical Research Institute in Panama. It is a great 

asset to the entire world, and I think the members of this committee should be completely aware of what a wonderful gem we 

have there and what we can do. 

I was surprised. I didn’t even know about it when I went down 

there, as I said, under the auspices of another committee; and I 

was just astounded what an excellent facility it is. I certainly support the bill and respectfully suggest a codel. 

[The statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:] 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that and I take your recommendation. We will put together a codel going down to Panama. 

The Chair now calls up before the committee H.R. 6627. Without 

objection, the first reading is dispensed with and the bill is considered as read and open to amendment. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
112 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 48068.067
113 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 48068.068
114 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any additional debate? Are there any 

amendments? 

If not, the Chair will move to report H.R. 6627 favorably to the 

House. 

The question is on the motion. All those in favor, say aye? 

Those opposed. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The bill is reported 

to the House. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on 

the table. 

Our next bill is H.R. 6608, a bill I introduced with Mr. Ehlers. 

This bill would replace lost income for military reservists working 

for the House of Representatives when they are activated for more 

than 30 days. 

I introduced this important bill after discussing with several 

House employees who have also served as members of the armed 

services. With our country engaged in mismanaged wars without 

end, some reservists or National Guard members are now being deployed for the second or third time. When they are called up, these 

men and women must leave their homes, families and jobs, often 

for an indeterminate and unpredictable amount of time. While on 

active duty, these men and women earn the wages of full-time servicemen and forfeit their regular salary. 

We know that many companies have helped families continue to 

survive during this difficult time by continuing to pay the difference between their annual salary and their active pay. This bill 

would do the same thing for House employees. It requires the CAO 

to provide debt supplement for House employees when they are activated involuntarily. 

This is a good bill that honors the devoted public service of our 

House employees who not only serve as stewards of our democracy 

at home, but as defenders abroad. 

I would now like to recognize the ranking member for any statement he may have. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your 

leadership on this issue, and I am proud to join with you as a cosponsor of this important bill. 

I think it is extremely important for us to help our Armed Forces 

in any way that we can, and we have an opportunity to do so with 

our own House staff, and we can set an example for the Nation by 

doing so. 

I submit the rest of my statement for the record in order to save 

time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Any other statements? 

I now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 6608. Without 

objection, the first reading of the bill will be dispensed with. Without objection, the bill is considered as having been read and open 

for amendment at any point. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
115 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 48068.069
116 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 48068.070
117 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 48068.071
118 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 48068.072
119 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 48068.073
120 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 48068.074
121 

The CHAIRMAN. Any debate? Any amendments? 

If not, the Chair will move to report H.R. 6608 favorably to the 

House. The question is on the motion. All those in favor, signify by 

saying aye. 

All those opposed? 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the bill is reported to the House. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is 

laid on the table. 

The next item is H. Res. 1207, which directs the Chief Administrative Officer to give House employees the option of receiving receipts of pay and withholdings electronically. This is a commonsense step to the modernization of our pay system. Not only will 

it simplify pay records, it will reduce paper and waste and support 

the Speaker’s Green Capitol Initiative. 

I now recognize our ranking member for an opening statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I fully support this bill. 

I think it achieves a number of goals. As I am sure everyone does, 

virtually all of my personal banking and financial work is done online, and the check that I receive from this institution goes to my 

bank. I never see it. 

By passing this bill, we can extend the electronic use even further and save time and paper. I believe it is a good bill. 

I submit the remainder of my statement for the record in the interest of time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I now call up and lay before the committee H. Res. 1207. Without 

objection, the first reading of the resolution is dispensed with. And 

without objection, the resolution is considered as read and open to 

amendment any point. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
122 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 48068.075
123 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 48068.076
124 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any additional debate? 

Mr. EHLERS. I am sorry. I do have an amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Your amendment is now in order, Mr. Ehlers. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
125 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 48068.077
126 

Mr. EHLERS. Page 2, line 11, strike the period and insert the following, ‘‘the option of viewing electronically the individual’s employee statement required under section 6051 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and the option of revising electronically (to the 

extent permitted under applicable law and regulations) the individual’s number of deductions and withholdings under that statement 

and information relating to the deposit of the individual’s funds 

with the financial institution to which the electronic funds transfer 

is made.’’ 

I am just adding a few more things to improve the bill, and so 

if we want to change the number of dependents, instead of having 

to go down to the service’s office or have them mail the form, we 

can get on line and enter our code and change our number of deductions, reduce or increase, whatever. 

We are just adding three different things, in other words, to 

make it an even better bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I would ask the committee to agree to Mr. Ehlers’ amendment. 

The question is on Mr. Ehlers’ amendment to H. Res. 1207. All 

those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

All those opposed? 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

Any additional amendments? 

If not, the Chair moves to report H. Res. 1207 favorably to the 

House with an amendment. 

The question is on the motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the resolution 

will be reported to the House. And without objection, the motion 

to reconsider is laid on the table. 

The next item of business is Committee Resolution 110–7 related 

to shared employees in the House of Representatives. 

In May, the House inspector general told us the results of his investigation of how the system of shared employees affects the 

House. The IG made several recommendations regarding what we 

can do to secure House funds, and I would ask my statement be 

entered in the record for the sake of time. 

I would now like to recognize our ranking member for his opening statement. 

[The statement of Mr. Brady follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROBERT A. BRADY 

In May, the House Inspector General told us the results of his 

investigation into how the system of shared employees affects the 

House. The IG made several recommendations regarding what we 

can do to secure House funds and data. 

Some of the IG’s recommendations just required action by the 

CAO’s office. We wrote to the CAO shortly after the hearing and 

asked him to take steps on disclosure and to educate Members and 

staff on the rules governing shared employees. But some of the IG’s 

recommendations required additional regulations from this committee that we are taking up today. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
127 

These rules would require employees who work for three or more 

offices to provide additional disclosure. They would be required to 

tell their employers who else they are working for. And they would 

be required to file annual financial disclosure forms. In addition, 

the regulations would require that shared employees read the 

Shared Employee Manual that the CAO is now preparing. They 

would have to certify that they are complying with the mandatory 

laws and rules listed in the manual. This requirement would only 

take effect after the Committee approves the manual. 

Finally, these new rules would make it clear that House staff are 

not permitted to market anything back to the House. We believe 

that this prohibition is already part of existing rules, but the IG’s 

report suggested that we should make it more explicit. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member for his opening statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased we are instituting these changes to the guidelines for shared employees. 

Most of our shared employees are very hardworking men and 

women who provide valuable services to many Members, but there 

are few individuals who might be tempted to take advantage of the 

system. 

Previously, shared employees who engaged in criminal activity 

used the currently largely unregulated, shared employee structure 

to their advantage. It is their actions that unfortunately make 

these reforms necessary. By implementing the financial disclosure 

statement filing requirement for those individuals who are concurrently employed by more than three offices, we will be increasing 

transparency into a key group of individuals that pose the greatest 

financial risk to the House. 

In addition, the shared employee reports that will be provided by 

the CAO, as well as the regulation which stipulates that existing 

House staff may not contract their services to other offices, will ensure that the House is safeguarded against those with criminal intent. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have had a problem with this 

issue in the past year. And, in fact, one individual is either soon 

going to jail or has already gone to jail as a result; and we want 

to make sure we lock the barn door even after the horse is gone 

to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. We have many more 

horses still in this barn. 

Any other debate? 

Any amendments? 

I would now call up Committee Resolution 110–7. Without objection, the first reading is dispensed with. And Committee Resolution 

110–7 is considered as read and open for amendment. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
128 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 189 here 48068.078
129 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 190 here 48068.079
130 

The CHAIRMAN. Any debate? 

If not, the question is on agreeing to Committee Resolution 110– 

7. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

The ayes have it. Committee Resolution 110–7 is agreed to. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. 

The last item of business is Committee Resolution 110–8 related 

to student loan repayment, and I would ask unanimous consent to 

put my remarks into the record and ask my ranking member for 

any statement he would like to make. 

[The statement of Mr. Brady follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROBERT A. BRADY 

Recently the Congress increased the cap on student loan repayment—a benefit the federal government offers to some employees. 

However, that increase in benefits can’t take effect in the House 

until this Committee changes the regulations. 

The resolution before us today would change the House regulations to increase the annual benefit cap to $10,000 and the lifetime 

cap to $60,000. It would also clean up some other technical errors 

in the regulation. These changes will place House staff on a level 

playing field with other federal workers and allow offices like the 

Legislative Counsel to recruit top employees. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member for his opening statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, this again is something that is very 

important to our employees. 

The price of most goods and services has risen over the years and 

so, too, has the price of education. More and more young people pay 

their own way through school, and also are faced with substantial 

student loans once they graduate. 

I am pleased that the student loan repayment program has proven to be successful and that we have been able to alleviate some 

of the financial burden associated with higher education. 

As a former educator myself, I know the value of education far 

outweighs the cost of attendance. It is in the public’s interest that 

we find creative ways to enable bright young people to embark 

upon careers in the legislative branch. With the House limited in 

what financial incentives we can offer those who are considering a 

career in public service, increasing the disbursement cap for the 

student loan reimbursement program is an excellent way to encourage recent graduates to choose public service while still being able 

to meet the financial obligations they entered into while achieving 

their educational goals. 

I thank you Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. And I call up Committee 

Resolution 110–8. Without objection the first reading is dispensed 

with and Committee Resolution 110–8 is considered as read and 

open for amendment. 

[The information follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
131 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 196/300 48068.080
132 

The CHAIRMAN. Any additional debate? Any additional amendments? 

If not, the question is agreeing to Committee Resolution 110-8. 

All those in favor, signify by saying aye. 

Those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and Committee Resolution 110-8 is agreed to. Without objection, a motion to reconsider 

is laid upon the table. 

Without objection, staff may make technical and conforming 

changes to the various matters considered by the Committee today. 

There being no further business, I thank our committee members, those that stayed. I thank the gentlelady for staying. I thank 

this lovely audience for participating with us and staying with us 

for all this time. And I thank our ranking member and recognize 

our ranking member. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We probably have to 

double the budget of the committee to pay for all the paper we generated today. I thank you for your work in the spirit in which this 

was done, and I hope we will be able to resolve our minor differences on some of the bills before they go to the Floor. 

The CHAIRMAN. We certainly will. 

I thank everyone. And have a good, healthy and safe break. 

Thank you all. 

If there is no further business, this committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:14 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING